It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Halliburton bought premiere oil-well firefighting co. for 240 mil on April 12th

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


I never said they weren't monopolising or cornering the market.

You're putting words into my mouth.

So let's see you prove the conspiracy?

Lawsuits aren't proof of a planned decision to sabotage the well, it's possible proof of negligence on Halliburton's part, that is all.

So tell me, since you think I'm so stupid, how does one sabotage an oil well 5000 feet below the sea?

Oh and where is this media blackout you speak of?



More than 36 lawsuits have been filed against BP, Transocean, Cameron International, and Halliburton, in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which is threatening to cause great environmental and economic harm in the Gulf of Mexico.

*




[edit on 3/5/10 by Chadwickus]




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


literally put no words in your mouth.

and i just learned about this 15 minutes ago or so, so i'm not going to be able to prove anything, but my logic is no different than an investigator who notices that some business owner cut a sweet fire insurance deal before his place goes up in flames. this reeks chad, and i think we should absolutely all watch how this unfolds.

to me this isn't a coincidence and i'm really happy i opened this thread.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Well, there needs to be some clarification here.

Boots and Coots does NOT provide oil spill clean up services or spill response services.

Follow the link above.

There is evidence that the operation taking place when the platform exploded is more dangerous than the industry has let on.

The cementing of the hole can cause heat build up which can cause the frozen methane on the sea bond to become gaseous.





[edit on 3-5-2010 by Oneolddude]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by Oneolddude]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


I agree.

This does reek.

But not of the same stuff that you can smell.

What reeks for me is how all the fail safe devises installed on the well failed...



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oneolddude
Boots and Coots does NOT provide oil spill clean up services or spill response services.

doesn't mean anything
a companies mission statement and objectives
and services can change after being bought or sold.
As of right now, we have no idea how Haliburton
plans to use Boots and Coots or in what capacity.
So your point is moot



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Boots & Coots Sued Over Restricted Stock Grants

It seems as though Haliburton's Purchase of
Boots & Coots was more of a hostile take-over.



Boots & Coots Inc., the oil well firefighter being bought by
Halliburton Co. for more than $240 million, was sued by an
investor who contends some company officials wrongly stand
to gain a windfall in the deal.

Boots & Coots on March 1 awarded some executives restricted
stock grants at $1.88 a share, and the stock may be sold at
the Halliburton offering price of $3 a share, stockholder Herbert
Silverberg said yesterday in a Delaware Chancery Court lawsuit in
Wilmington.

The suit was filed “for the benefit of the company,” “and seeks
to disgorge the restricted stock awarded by the board to
themselves,” as well as damages, according to the complaint.


www.businessweek.com...



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
How is it they can keep getting away with this raping of the world, it's people, its resources, it's very life?
How do they do it?
Why can't they be stopped?
I mean I know, I know, it's all about the power and the cash, but we're talking the only home we've got people!




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
What reeks for me is how all the fail safe devises installed on the well failed...

I'm investigating that right now.
However, it appears in my preliminary findings
that this is due to 4 reasons.


Deregulation of Oil Industry Safeguards (US Gov)

No use of acoustic switches (BP)

Improper use of cement (Haliburton)

Faulty Blowout Preventors BOP (Cameron International Corp.)

right now it appears to be a combination
of 4 things from preliminaries



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
I guess you reap what you sow


BP evidently did not consider it necessary to make any
special preparations for this unlikely event, saying, “Due to
the distance to the shore (48 miles) and the response
capabilities that would be implemented, no significant
adverse impacts are expected.”

Drilling companies have opposed mandates for so-called
“acoustic switches,” which cost about $500,000 and are an
added line of defense in the event of a blowout. Norway and
Brazil, two major oil drilling countries, require the devices,
but the United States does not.

BP has also opposed stricter safety regulations. In a letter
released by ABC News, Vice President of BP America,
Richard Morrison, told the MMS that the company opposed
“extensive, prescriptive regulations.”

“We believe industry’s current safety and environmental
statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs …
continue to be successful,” Morrison said.


www.wsws.org...



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Ok how about this then???

Drilling Process Attracts Scrutiny in Rig Explosion




The scrutiny on cementing will focus attention on Halliburton Co., the oilfield-services firm that was handling the cementing process on the rig, which burned and sank last week. The disaster, which killed 11, has left a gusher of oil streaming into the Gulf from a mile under the surface.

Federal officials declined to comment on their investigation, and Halliburton didn't respond to questions from The Wall Street Journal.

According to Transocean Ltd., the operator of the drilling rig, Halliburton had finished cementing the 18,000-foot well shortly before the explosion. Houston-based Halliburton is the largest company in the global cementing business, which accounted for $1.7 billion, or about 11%, of the company's revenue in 2009, according to consultant Spears & Associates.


Ok, NOW tell me Halliburton didn't do it?

*fuming*



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I wouldn't put it past Halli to pull some crap like this. Either way, they're going to benefit in one form or another.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
cool, atleast one halliburton thread is getting some replies! To me, it appears that halliburton was the cause of the accident and BP did not have the proper means to stop the spill, something like an acoustic switch.

Is this a brand new rig or is it old?



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Um, because the masses are stupid?


It's the only home for us. But probably not for them. Maybe they have spare planets on the Pleaides star system.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
reply to post by ararisq
 


I believe there is more than enough evidence
to consider this a terrorist act.

Halliburton has ties they cannot dispute this time.

MOTIVE:

If Obama gets oil from Gulf and takes troops
out of Iraq and Afgh, then Halliburton stands
to lose Billions in oil profits in that region. The
only way to keep us in the Middle East is to
destroy our own resources of oil. Thats motive !!!

You have Motive and Opportunity all based around
Haliburton!!!

And remember, 9/11 was the reason why we
invaded Iraq and Afgh to begin with.
See how it all ties together???



What exactly are you calling a terrorist act? do you have any proof that Halliburton was directly involved in the BOP failure of the deepwater Horizon?
Is that what you are suggesting? if so can you give any proof apart from this flimsy circumstantial evidence? Are you saying Halliburton sabotaged the BOP in some way?

I suggest that you go search the web, collate and digest the time-line of events during the 36 hours from first gas kick in the riser until sinking of the unit. There is a lot of information now circulating between industry insiders on e-mails and on radio talk-shows.

You quite clearly know very little about this industry let alone the technology involved, yet because Halliburton acquire a well control company a couple of weeks before a rig disaster, they are to blame for the disaster?

2 + 2 = 5 yeah right.

and by the way, 9-11 was not the reason that Iraq was invaded.

PEACE,
RK



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
Ok how about this then???

Drilling Process Attracts Scrutiny in Rig Explosion




The scrutiny on cementing will focus attention on Halliburton Co., the oilfield-services firm that was handling the cementing process on the rig, which burned and sank last week. The disaster, which killed 11, has left a gusher of oil streaming into the Gulf from a mile under the surface.

Federal officials declined to comment on their investigation, and Halliburton didn't respond to questions from The Wall Street Journal.

According to Transocean Ltd., the operator of the drilling rig, Halliburton had finished cementing the 18,000-foot well shortly before the explosion. Houston-based Halliburton is the largest company in the global cementing business, which accounted for $1.7 billion, or about 11%, of the company's revenue in 2009, according to consultant Spears & Associates.


Ok, NOW tell me Halliburton didn't do it?

*fuming*



No.... You tell us how you think Halliburton DID do it.

They carried out the cementing on the casing completion...that much we know.
Do you have a clue what I am talking about? Do you know what this task involves? Are you saying that they did not perform this task properly? Perhaps you can explain your hypothesis using standard industry terms.

Where is your proof?

Back on topic,
Bootes & Coots is a well control company NOT a clean up company,
They specialize in pressure control, capping and killing wells.

www.bootsandcoots.com...

This thread is nothing more than ill-informed sensationalism.

PEACE,
RK



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
Where is your proof?


They have done it before off the coast of Australia
in 2009 and again in the gulf in 2010.
Coincidence? Don't think so.


Halliburton may also be implicated[49] in the oil spills in the Timor
Sea off Australia in August of 2009 and in the gulf of Mexico in April of
2010 for improper cementing. An investigation is underway as to the
cause of the Australia spill.


en.wikipedia.org...


The Times article reported that Halliburton employees had
been performing “concrete operations” just before the accident
occurred, and the company had been involved with that activity
before the Australian incident, too.

A Halliburton employee, David A. Doeg, testified to the Australian
commission that he made the problem worse at the Montara
well by repumping concrete during an incorrectly handled procedure
before the blowout.


Such an operation may have been intended to temporarily seal the
well, perhaps prior to installing permanent pipe or moving the drill to
another location,


www.md-writer.com...

And more instances of leaks and spills, 2002 and 2006


In 2002 a Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reports were done
to see if chemicals being emitted were harmful to people from
Halliburton's Harris County, Texas facility. The facility had 230
TRI air releases in 2001 and 245 in 2002.[47]

On June 7, 2006 Halliburton's Farmington, New Mexico facility
created a toxic cloud that forced people to evacuate from their
homes.[48]


en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe they need to change their name to
the Leaky Halliburton.

Major accidents in 2002, 2006, 2009 and 2010.

However, the oil disaster in Australia. The oil company
owning the oil rig was PTT Exploration out of Thailand.
The accident happened in August 2009.



2 months after this spill supposedly caused by Haliburton's
cement procedures, the Thailand's stock market
went into a selling frenzy. Some PTTEP stocks were sold
at bottom prices to Oman Oil which caused their stock
prices to actually rise (make a profit) less than 2 months
after an oil spill.

www.reuters.com...


Oman Oil Company, OOC (www.oman-oil.com) is fully owned
by the Government of the Sultanate of Oman. The company was
created in 1992 to give the Government a vehicle for pursuing
investment opportunities in the energy sector both inside and
outside Oman. The company is currently involved in a number
of projects in countries such as UAE, Korea, Thailand, Kazakhstan
and Spain.


www.ameinfo.com...

Had this accident by Haliburton NOT occurred, the stock prices
would not have tanked allowing the purchase of PTTEP Stock.

Conflict of interest here, Haliburton worked on the PTTEP rig
that had the spill in Australia and at the exact same time
won an oil contract from Oman Oil, the same company who
purchased the down stock of PTTEP when it tanked.

www.arabianoilandgas.com...

Now fast forward to 2010.
the same exact accident with an oil spill in gulf
happened once again with BP's stock blowing
out the bottom on Wall Street. See who buys up
BP Stock in the near future and you will find out
who paid Haliburton to cause this accident.

And I bet it leads you to Saudi Oil
or one of it's subsidiaries !!!

This was an intentional act, not an accident.


[edit on 4-5-2010 by boondock-saint]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


OK Since you brought the "Montara" blow out into this thread and tried to implicate Halliburton into that aswell here is a little history of the drilling program.

The operations performed in respect of the H1 Well by the MODU facility prior to its departure from the WHP facility in April 2009 were the drilling of the 12-1/4” section into the top of the reservoir, running and cementing the 9-5/8” casing and the suspension of the well (so casing was cemented in march/april).

Montara H1 was spudded on the 18th January 2009 as a horizontal production well from the WHP facility jacket.

* A 508mm (20”) conductor was set at 150.5m, and the 445mm (17-1/2”)
hole section was drilled to TD.

* The 340mm (13-3/8”) casing was run, with tight spots encountered at
1089m, 1094m, 1148, 1170m, 1263m, 1320m which required washing
and reaming with 1.89m3/min and 5rpm to pass.

* Casing was set with the shoe at 1637mMD and plugs bumped. After
tripping in with a 311mm (12 ¼”) drilling assembly a FIT was performed
to 1.25sg EMW.

* Drilling continued and major losses were encountered through the lower
Johnson and upper Puffin (from 1706.5m) and the well was re-displaced
to seawater.

* A trip was made for a cement stinger and cement plug #1 was set. A
re-run 311mm (121/ 4”) bit was drilled to 2118mMD, where it was pulled
out of hole for poor ROP.

* A replacement bit was then run to section TD, encountering the Montara
Cycle-IV reservoir sand at 2935mMD. The well was landed as proposed,
but did not intersect clean reservoir. It was decided to drill ahead,
identify the good oil-bearing sand and use this opportunity to clearly
define the gas-oil contact (“GOC”). Both were achieved with good
reservoir identified from 3676mMD and the GOC contact confirmed to be
at 2609mTVD.

* Two cement plugs were then set off bottom (Plugs #2 and #3), where
plug #3 was tagged at 3130mMD.

* The well was sidetracked at 3234mMD (and its name changed to Montara
H1-ST1), where the rotary steerable tool failed, requiring a trip. Once
back on bottom, the hole was drilled to the new section TD, landing the
well at 90.3° within the oil-bearing sand.

* The 244mm (9-5/8”) casing was subsequently run, with tight spots
encountered from 2620, 3208m and again at 3529m and 3587m; the
shoe was set at 3796mMDand plugs bumped however the floats failed.
Pressure was held on the casing until the cement had set.

* The 244mm (9-5/8”) casing was backed out at the MLS and a pressure
containing corrosion cap was installed. Offline the 340mm (13-3/8”)
casing was backed out at the MLS and a pressure containing corrosion
cap was installed. The 508mm (20”) conductor was backed out at the
MLS and a trash cap was installed.


Now the blow out occured during horizontal drilling operations on 21 August 2009, there was no well head or BOP installed on the well. The leak was considered to be internal up the 9 5/8ths casing as opposed to external (ie up a cement channel) so I dont see how Halliburton can be blamed for that one.

PEACE,
RK



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint



en.wikipedia.org...


The Times article reported that Halliburton employees had
been performing “concrete operations” just before the accident
occurred, and the company had been involved with that activity
before the Australian incident, too.



Nope,
lets try to deny ignorance here, The Times is wrong.
the rig crew were drilling the second phaze (horizontal) in the Australian (Montara) incident at the time of the blowout, the casing cementing below MSL had been completed by halliburton 5 months earlier,

PEACE,
RK



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I think this video sums up how Haliburton would like to handle this:




posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BeastMaster2012
 

exactly !!!!!
nothing to see here folks

NY Times wrong???
They have not printed a retraction
of the article to date and Haliburton
is still under investigation.

And I believe that is why Obama
sent in the SWAT team to the oil rigs
to watch Haliburton employees.

But you can't deny Haliburton was involved
in both accidents and oil companies got rich
off tanked stocks and Haliburton got more
contracts with the oil companies who made
the money. That's the real story.

Corporate espionage and sabotage, insider
trading and cornering the oil market.

Welcome to Haliburton !!!



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join