Sep 03, 2014
Halliburton's $1.1 billion settlement, announced Tuesday, for its role in the 2010 Deepwater
by BP to cement the Macondo oil well, stands accused of doing defective work and thus paving the way for the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, which killed 11 workers, spilled millions of gallons of oil into Gulf waters, and continues to pollute beaches and harm public health in affected areas.
Both Halliburton and BP have exchanged accusations and lawsuits charging that the other company is responsible for the faulty well. While a White House Panel report, released in 2011, assigned responsibility to BP, Transocean, and Halliburton for the spill, a federal judge in 2012 ruled that BP bears the bulk of the liability for damages.
In October 2013, Halliburton pleaded guilty to criminal charges of destroying evidence related to the oil spill.
Experts say the agreement, which settles most of Halliburton's cases with people, small businesses, and government entities, will likely help the company avoid billions of dollars in payouts. "It's actually a pretty decent settlement for [Halliburton]," Rob Desai, an analyst at Edward Jones in St. Louis, told Bloomberg. "This eliminates an overhang." The settlement still must be approved by the federal court in Louisiana.
The New York Timesadds:
Legal scholars following the case said that Halliburton was making a calculated judgment that it was preferable to agree to pay the relatively modest $1.1 billion than face larger liabilities in the future. They said the settlement should resolve most of its remaining liability for the spill, even if the company is found to have been grossly negligent by Judge Carl J. Barbier of Federal District Court in New Orleans.
While the company insists that the agreement includes no admission of liability for the disaster, David Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former chief of the Justice Department's environmental crimes section, told the New York Times that "the company would never have agreed to pay more than a billion dollars unless there was substantial evidence that it was negligent."
Bloomberg reports, "With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
Halliburton's $1.1 billion settlement, announced Tuesday, for its role in the 2010 Deepwater
by BP to cement the Macondo oil well, stands accused of doing defective work and thus paving the way for the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, which killed 11 workers, spilled millions of gallons of oil into Gulf waters, and continues to pollute beaches and harm public health in affected areas.
Both Halliburton and BP have exchanged accusations and lawsuits charging that the other company is responsible for the faulty well. While a White House Panel report, released in 2011, assigned responsibility to BP, Transocean, and Halliburton for the spill, a federal judge in 2012 ruled that BP bears the bulk of the liability for damages.
In October 2013, Halliburton pleaded guilty to criminal charges of destroying evidence related to the oil spill.
Experts say the agreement, which settles most of Halliburton's cases with people, small businesses, and government entities, will likely help the company avoid billions of dollars in payouts. "It's actually a pretty decent settlement for [Halliburton]," Rob Desai, an analyst at Edward Jones in St. Louis, told Bloomberg. "This eliminates an overhang." The settlement still must be approved by the federal court in Louisiana.
The New York Timesadds:
Legal scholars following the case said that Halliburton was making a calculated judgment that it was preferable to agree to pay the relatively modest $1.1 billion than face larger liabilities in the future. They said the settlement should resolve most of its remaining liability for the spill, even if the company is found to have been grossly negligent by Judge Carl J. Barbier of Federal District Court in New Orleans.
While the company insists that the agreement includes no admission of liability for the disaster, David Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former chief of the Justice Department's environmental crimes section, told the New York Times that "the company would never have agreed to pay more than a billion dollars unless there was substantial evidence that it was negligent."
Bloomberg reports, "With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide."
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
Halliburton's $1.1 billion settlement, announced Tuesday, for its role in the 2010 Deepwater
by BP to cement the Macondo oil well, stands accused of doing defective work and thus paving the way for the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, which killed 11 workers, spilled millions of gallons of oil into Gulf waters, and continues to pollute beaches and harm public health in affected areas.
Both Halliburton and BP have exchanged accusations and lawsuits charging that the other company is responsible for the faulty well. While a White House Panel report, released in 2011, assigned responsibility to BP, Transocean, and Halliburton for the spill, a federal judge in 2012 ruled that BP bears the bulk of the liability for damages.
In October 2013, Halliburton pleaded guilty to criminal charges of destroying evidence related to the oil spill.
Experts say the agreement, which settles most of Halliburton's cases with people, small businesses, and government entities, will likely help the company avoid billions of dollars in payouts. "It's actually a pretty decent settlement for [Halliburton]," Rob Desai, an analyst at Edward Jones in St. Louis, told Bloomberg. "This eliminates an overhang." The settlement still must be approved by the federal court in Louisiana.
The New York Timesadds:
Legal scholars following the case said that Halliburton was making a calculated judgment that it was preferable to agree to pay the relatively modest $1.1 billion than face larger liabilities in the future. They said the settlement should resolve most of its remaining liability for the spill, even if the company is found to have been grossly negligent by Judge Carl J. Barbier of Federal District Court in New Orleans.
While the company insists that the agreement includes no admission of liability for the disaster, David Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former chief of the Justice Department's environmental crimes section, told the New York Times that "the company would never have agreed to pay more than a billion dollars unless there was substantial evidence that it was negligent."
Bloomberg reports, "With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.