NBC News
Halliburton admits destroying evidence in Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Handout / Reuters
Fire boat response crews battled the blazing remnants of the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon, off Louisiana, in April 2010.
Halliburton Energy Services has agreed to plead guilty and pay the maximum fine for destroying evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the company and the Justice Department said Thursday.
Besides agreeing to pay a $200,000 fine, Halliburton accepted three years’ probation for its guilty plea to one misdemeanor count related to deletion of records. In return, the Justice Department stipulated that it won’t pursue further charges in the April 2010 explosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, which killed 11 rig workers and caused the largest oil spill in U.S. history.
Halliburton continues to carve a place in the annuls of US History. Small fines and “gifts” should not exonerate the conglomerate from punitive remedies. Remedies which should trickle down to Halliburton employees and executives. Destroying documents to avoid full investigation and possible prosecution should receive legal actions similar withholding evidence from congressional investigations or lying to federal agents. A fine of $200,000 is nothing shy of an insult and a miscarriage of justice.
Halliburton: a path littered with privilege, catastrophe, pandering and cronyism
Wiki Halliburton Deep Horizon oil drilling platform (Design)
Advanced systems played a key role in the rig’s operation, from pressure and drill monitoring technology, to automated shutoff systems[16] and modelling systems for cementing. The OptiCem cement modelling system, used by Halliburton in April 2010 for BP’s Gulf of Mexico drill, played a crucial part in cement slurry mix and support decisions. These decisions have become a focus for investigations into the explosion on the rig that month.[17]
Halliburton has become a scar on US History comparable to inevitable legacy of its CEO from 1995 – 2000: Dick Cheney. It is virtually impossible to think of Halliburton without conjuring up the ugly memories of political cronyism and insider (no bid) contracts.
Do you recall which US corporation received innumerable no bid contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Dick Cheney always speaks as if protection of the homeland and combating terror were his motivation for pursuing wars in foreign lands. The cynical could make a case that he may have held such fervor, along with the real prospect of “return investments in perpetrating war” to the greedy revenue streams of Halliburton. All Halliburton revenue steams lead to money in the bank for Dick Cheney. As Cheney agreed to the Vice Presidency reports indicated his Halliburton holdings would be placed in trust. Of course, the type of this went undefined.
Halliburton and Cheney benefited from war!
|
FactCheck: Yes, Cheney has received $2M from Halliburton
|
KERRY-EDWARDS CLAIM:“ As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton.”
CNN FACT CHECK:The vice president received about $2 million in various benefits resulting from his former position as CEO of Halliburton Co., but he received the bulk of the compensation before he became vice president. Of the $2 million, $1.6 million came in January 200, after Cheney was elected but before he was sworn into office. The rest comes from a multiyear deferred salary package.
Source: CNN FactCheck on 2004 statements by Bush and Kerry , Oct 29, 2004
FactCheck: Yes, Halliburton got $7B in no-bid Iraq contracts
KERRY-EDWARDS CLAIM: “Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq.”
CNN FACT CHECK:The Pentagon did award a no-bid, or sole-source, contract to a Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg Brown &Root in March 2003. However, a Congressional report aid the contract was “properly” awarded and that KBR was the “only contractor that was determined to be in a position to provide the services within the required time frame.” The Kerry campaign estimates that the KBR oil reconstruction contract was worth proximately $7 billion, and the Defense Department estimates $8.2 billion. KBR also provides various logistical support in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries under a competitively awarded contract granted in late 2001. In September 2004, the Pentagon announced it was considering breaking up part of the KBR logistical contract and accepting new bids in an effort to save money. Halliburton would be allowed to re-bid on the contract, but a company official said that it might not do so.
Source: CNN FactCheck on 2004 statements by Bush and Kerry , Oct 29, 2004
FactCheck: Cheney profited from Halliburton’s past actions
CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they’re trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false. They know that if you go, for example, to FactCheck.com (sic), an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.
FACT CHECK: Cheney got the FactCheck.org domain name wrong-calling us “FactCheck.com”-and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton. In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn’t profited personally while in office from Halliburton’s Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney’s responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right.
Source: Edwards-Cheney debate analysis by FactCheck 2004 , Oct 6, 2004
How do you feel about Hydraulic Fracking? Independent Water Testing offers yet another example of ‘insider privilege” and Executive Branch cronyism. Could Dick Cheney’s service in the White House have led to additional corporate privilege for Halliburton? I believe we have established that revenue for Halliburton means increased assets for Cheney. It only takes a bit of deductive reasoning or a simply syllogism to answer the question.
If >Dick Cheney earns as Halliburton earns.
>Revenue for Halliburton directly increases Dick Cheney’s assets.
>Dick Cheney’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and potential influence on the Halliburton Loophole increased his net worth.
Independent Water Testign Dot Com
Under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, fracking was exempted from significant EPA regulation
Hydraulic fracturing, an increasingly common aspect of the oil and gas production process, is not subject to the same standards as other industries when it comes to protecting underground sources of drinking water
Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of fluids including toxic chemicals into oil or gas wells at very high pressure
Other forms of underground injection are regulated to protect drinking water, but in 2005 Congress created exemptions for hydraulic fracturing to benefit Halliburton and other oil and gas companies The Safe Drinking Water Act excludes Fracking
See it in the ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005. Go to Page 102, Section 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground injection’—‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and‘‘(B) EXCLUDES—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
‘‘ (ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’ The Clean Water Act changes the definition of pollutant
The word “Pollutant.” What it means. And what it does NOT mean.
(6) The term “pollutant” means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. This TERM DOES NOT MEAN
(A) “sewage from vessels” within the meaning of section 312 of this Act; or
(B) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which the well is located, and if such State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources.See it in the Clean Water Act. SEC. 502 [33 U.S.C. 1362] General Definitions P.S. Halliburton did not live up to its voluntary commitment to frack without diesel fuel anyhow
Despite agreeing to stop using diesel fuel when fracking in this agreement with the EPA, between 2005 and 2007, Halliburton used 807,000 gallons of diesel fuel as a fracturing fluid.