BP is 1 of 3 Company's involved in Gulf disaster

Hello,

I've been trying to put something together about the three Company's involved, and I was just going to post each company's "safety-and mission" statements. Also, how it is that only one of the company's are getting all the attention...

Transocean; www.deepwater.com...

Our Company Mission, Safety Vision

Mission, Safety Vision

Our Mission

Our mission is to be the premier offshore drilling company providing worldwide rig-based, well-construction services to our customers through the integration of motivated people, quality equipment and innovative technology, with a particular focus on technically demanding environments.

Our Safety Vision

Our safety vision is: Our operations will be conducted in an incident-free workplace – all the time, everywhere.

Yes, and what about when operations fail? Oh, no comment?

Halliburton; Only a link because it's tons of bureaucratic garble;
theyesmen.org...

BP; same as Halliburton, only numerous links to each "area of safety."
www.bp.com...

I'm concerned why only 1/3 of this operation is being held accountable, while the other 2/3 are skating-on-by...Being held accountable? I mean, being scrutinized.

How very odd? Click "more" on this little tid-bit; theyesmen.org...

Am I off my rocker, or is BP the sole proprietor, as they "claim" to be?

Hmm.

www.bp.com...

Interesting.

Does anyone have any links that can help this endeavor?

Like which Co. was in charge of any particular task leading-up to this failed operation? Thanks.

hey, loveguy, the thread looks kind of bare right now and I know that's a pretty terrible pun, but I think you're approach is very worthwhile. I was just reading the Haliburton site and damn, right away this pops up:

"So. First of all, let's define our words: what do we mean when we say "safety"? Well, for us in the corporate world, the most essential form of safety is simply the safety to achieve what we need, as we need it, and how we need it.

Whether I'm in reconstruction, energy, manufacturing, or insurance, if I'm taking a risk, I want the government's hand to be pulling me safely over the obstacles, not laying obstacles in my way. I want to be safe to minimize the risk to my investments as I see fit, without being told what's right and what's wrong."

Now, I got an MA in history and am a yard short of my PhD, which is on the off-shoring of the semi-conductor industry in Silicon Valley. Part of my research involved going to numerous industry conferences and just listening to try and deconstruct industry jargon and intent, MO, etc. I went to college after 15 years as a carpenter and continued to work carpentry until my dissertation started and also MS set in, so even the summer jobs are a no go these days and my carpentry days are over. But I have not exchanged my blue collar (maybe a backward collar if anything) and I still come at issues intellectual or whatever with my working class sensibilities intact. So language like the above doesn't shock me but it does begin to backread a blueprint for the operational basis of Haliburton for me.

When companies think they're exclusively or even mostly talking to themselves they are ridiculously transparent and forthcoming. The guys talking surely all have college degrees, but they are the guys who were after econ or engineering degrees and think they have that whipped and that nobody else is really going to care, because, hell, they didn't listen in history classes did they? It wasn't relevant to them. They expect the same toward their knowledge field from other fields. That's a mistake and they don't expect that particularly educated former members of the working class even exist, much less care about what they're doing.

So safety for Haliburton is about the right or opportunity to achieve what they want:

"Whether I'm in reconstruction, energy, manufacturing, or insurance, if I'm taking a risk, I want the government's hand to be pulling me safely over the obstacles, not laying obstacles in my way. I want to be safe to minimize the risk to my investments as I see fit, without being told what's right and what's wrong."

One thing people don't realize about this operation - Deep Horizon - is that they are not really regulated by the US at all. They're licensed out of the Marshall Islands and operate under THEIR standards, their inspections. The MMIS is not going to f&%(k with them and if they come out to the rig, it's to snort some meth, cruise the internet for porn, maybe for a couple of girls brought out by BP or Haliburton to entertain them. This is not s)^%t, they just caught for that with the oil industry in Alaska and I happen to know that more than one regulatory agency in the Dept. of the Interior work in similar fashion from research on the Forest Industry in Alaska. I don't know the Marshall Islands, but multinationals do not register their operations offshore for stricter regulation.

So, I need to go back and read on these sites, but four paragraphs into the article its already clear that Haliburton does not want government in the way, but they do WANT their help over obstacles. Where do you get that. The aforementioned cozy relationship with MMIS is one, but we also know the bit H is an MIC operation, so other parts of the government can be helpful: the CIA, Naval Intelligence, Gov Contractors like Blackwater, of course.

I'm out of room here, but more later after I read on.

As near as I can tell, these are the players so far...

BP. owner of the oil field rights and the leaking Macondo Prospect well. BP has one or more subsidiaries, one of which is American. I hear Kuwait is heavily invested in BP as well but am not sure of the connections yet. BP is a 65% co-owner of the well...the other two owners appear Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (25% and owned by Southern Union Company, CEO George L. Lindemann, ranked by Forbesin 2006 as one of the 400 wealthiest), and a unit of Mitsui (10%).

Transocean corporation, owner of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. This is the rig that last year drilled the world's deepest deepest oil/gas well in BP's Gulf of Mexico Tiber Oilfield...to a depth of 35 thousand feet. Transocean has merged with and acquired numerous companies over its history and is registered as a Swiss corporation. Its HQ is in Houston, Texas, I believe.

Haliburton Corporation, subcontractor that cemented the well head to the sea-floor. We all know them.

Hyundai Heavy Industries, Ulsan, South Korea. which built the Deepwater Horizon rig.

reply to post by loveguy


Reading on from Haliburton:

If we panic and try to stop climate change, 70% of carbon emissions will have to stop. That'll be a huge blow to our way of doing business: government intervention will become the rule, and we'll have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

To remain profitable in a macroscopic loss situation, we must integrate disaster into our global business vision, and not allow immediate dangers to interfere with our general, longer-term concept of safety.

TextThese arenas are synergistic: where there's conflict, there's reconstruction; where there are refugees, there's conflict; where there's conflict or reconstruction, there are bound to be refugees. . . .

Sometimes danger presents broad new opportunities. In New Orleans, for example, Katrina pruned the city, removing people from economic black holes and allowing a redevelopment process that's gratifying for all of us."

The last bit is almost too good. "removing people from economic black holes. . . . " Like the black community of New Orleans for instance? Hell, maybe this whole thing is about de-population, but of specific places and populations. I just read today on Huffington Post that Cuba and Haiti expect to get hit with oil soon and we know both have huge oil reserves, much of it from the same "vein" or field of oil that Deep Water Horizon hit. This could be classic Harliburton geopolitics like Iraq or Burma or now Afghanistan. Stay tuned.

reply to post by loveguy


BP is getting all the attention because BP was the operator of the well. As the operator, all decisions, major and minor, were made by BP. They are also getting the most attention because they have a horrible safety record and emails have been produced that indicate BP ignored standard industry safety regulations. The casing string was FUBAR from the beginning and should have NEVER been approved by MMS. BP wanted a special cement used in cementing the last string of casing. Halliburton told BP that it was not wise to use that cement mixture, but BP told them to use it anyway. Schlumberger was on site and ready to run a CBL (cement bond log), but BP didn't choose to do that. The Schlumberger engineers on site warned BP that they could lose the well. BP ignored them. Halliburton recommended at least 15.5 hrs. for the cement to cure, BP waited only 10.5 hrs. before displacing the 14.0#/psi drilling mud with 8.5#/psi sea water. Those are just the things I can remember right off the bat, there were more really, really bad decisions made by BP that lead up to the blowout.

I was assistant to the offshore exploration geologist at major oil company, then a drilling fluids engineer and there are certain things most companies don't do. One is ignore Halliburton when they tell you a particular cement mix won't work. The other is to ignore Schlumberger when they tell you you might lose the well. Halliburton and Schlumber have both been in the business a LONG time and they know what they are talking about.

Transocean will probably get some heat down the road. Although there is some evidence that the TO tool pusher and drillers warned BP about a couple of things in the hours before the blowout, BP also ignored them. They should have shut in the well anyway until they figured out what the problem was and corrected it.

Cameron, the manufacturer of the BOP, will probably also catch some heat, since it is alledged thee BOP didn't work.

But, right now, it's pretty much on BP because they were the operators and they made all the decisions on this well.



Those are just the things that come to mind right off the bat.

Great info Lucidity! God it's hard tracking all the connections in the MIC industries (I'm thinking electronics) and the oil industry sounds just as convoluted, but then again it's part MIC too. I'll do some digging on others and be back.

Since I do best when I stay down on one company at a time, I'm still on Haliburton and was tracing some of there activities when Dick Cheney was at the top. This not irrelevant, as Cheney has been prime suspect in the White House for people who claimed 9/11 was an inside job. I don't want to throw this thread off track, so no more on that here. However, this is a quote from David Pilger of the Guardian writing on Burma (31 May 2008):

Dismissing the idiocy of a military intervention in her [Aung San Suu Kyi - my notation here] country, she asked: "What about all those who trade with the generals, who give them many millions of dollars that keep them going?" She was referring to the huge oil and gas companies, Total and Chevron, which effectively hand the regime $2.7bn a year, and the Halliburton company (former chief executive Vice-President Dick Cheney) that backed the construction of the Yadana pipeline, and the British travel companies that send tourists across bridges and roads built with forced labour. Audley Travel promotes its Burma holidays in the Guardian. The BBC, in contravention of its charter, has just bought 75% of Lonely Planet travel guides, a truculent defender of "our" right to be tourists in Burma regardless of slave labour, or cyclones, or the woman beyond the trip-wire. Shame".

Corporate cultures are dictated from the top and Dick Cheney's Haliburton was willing to employ slaves to build their pipeline and cut costs. Loveguy's follow-up post indicated that Haliburton was played by BP and not listened too, but I think we have to hold that in suspension at this point. I"m not sure. Can't quite remember the article, but recently read Haliburton showed up a half hour or so before the explosion with a number of "blackwater types" in tow and that they rigged the rig for demolition. Can't say much more about that and it sounds a bit too James Bond for the amount of time needed to blow a vessel as immense as Deep Water Horizon. However, they're lack of regard for human life and dignity, I don't believe would excuse them from that possibility if you go on their record.

I'm remembering now that this was a youtube I saw and of course we know you have to suspect a lot of those when it comes to sources. I don't automatically discount anything though and the logic behind it was that Haliburton wants to muscle BP out of the gulf, so they or their subsidiaries can move in and tap that field. My impression is they don't run direct oil drilling operations or they are smaller operations if they do.

Does Haliburton run any companies that are in a position to take advantage of this? The quotes I posted before indicate they have an "ethic" that would encourage them to take advantage of this "disaster". I shouldn't have that in quotes, I guess because it truly is one.

I believe there is a vast network of players, each having a part and probably unaware of the details of the other players roles.

You might want to broaden the picture to include Scorpion Offshore, Ltd. and Seadrill Ltd. There is more information here:

Deep Drilling: Have They Opened the Bottomless Pit?
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread568225/pg1

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Alethea]

Ok folks, I almost never go to Wikipedia for info, but I made and exception here. A cursory browse of Haliburton connects to some pretty odd places. KBR (Kellogg, Brown and Root) was owned by Haliburton up to at least 1998 and does own offshore construction divisions for oil drilling. Haliburton bought Dresser Industries in the 1970s, formerly directed by Prescott Bush and employer of GHW Bush from 1948-51 who bought Zapata Oil just before the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Cheney, during his tenure at Haliburton Energy Services, technically a foreign corporations investigate twice under the "Trading With the Enemy Act" for sales to Iran and to Libya during economic blockades under Reagan (escaping charges because of its incorporation in the Cayman Islands, not on US soil, also a charge leveled at Prescott for his banking activities with the Nazi's up to and through 1942 when working at Union Bank until it was seized by the US Government in October 42). Prescott worked for the Harriman brothers financial corporation which also included the Brown Brothers from which the B in KBR is descended from.

GHW, of course, worked for the CIA from the early 1950s (see Russ Baker, Family of Secrets for evidence on this; it's compelling) and slit to form Zapata with a partner also connected to the CIA. The Bay of Pigs invasion ships were Barbara and Houston, BTW and GHW named alll three of the planes he flew during WWII Barbara.

KBR is technically not Haliburton anymore, but does still do offshore rig construction. Cheney was a CEO of HES from 1989 to 1995 and contracted a lot of work to put out Kuwaiti oil fires after the Gulf War and probably the "Boots and Coots" purchase by Haliburton right before Deep Horizon blew came from a previous association in the Kuwaiti contracts.

So you have a web of generational connections here, a operating ethic that is defines "safety" as being "safe" from government interference in their operations. Indirect, but generational connections to former "trading with enemy" violations which puts allegiance to company above allegiance to country and a convoluted interconnection of all these companies throughout the World War II or postwar/cold war era to set bequeath Haliburton with its ethics and with close links to the CIA covert ops division and it doesn't say a lot for Haliburton being an innocent victim in the BP blowout. More later.

BTW, I checked out Russ Baker's sources in Family of Secrets because I was anti-conspiracy theory when I read it and tracked down the Justice Department memos to Prescott Bush and GHW's denials of working for the CIA before he was director under Ford in the 1970s and, damn, Russ Baker did his business thoroughly. It's all based on either government docs or the docs checked with follow-ups to the CIA and FBI official records or phone calls to the agencies themselves. I can provide the Justice Dept. stuff because I retrieved copies of the documents and I suggest you check out Russ Baker's website or book for the rest.

So direct evidence that Haliburton has lineage back through Cheney, GW and GHW Bush, to Prescott Bush and substantial circumstantial evidence on GHW's connection to the Bay of Pigs and direct evidence o HES's trading with enemy activities, direct connections of Haliburton's buying a company that puts out oil fires right before Deepwater Horizon blows, a company ethic that descends from people who have little if any evidence of loyalty or care about the American people and former ownership of a company that is involved in offshore drilling construction. Will these things coalesce around a subsidiary owned by Haliburton now establishing rigs in the gulf or do they already own is main piece of evidence that would point to Haliburton as behind the disaster and not BP, so much, except for their inexhaustible greed and tendency to cut corners. Dunno, but it doesn't smell right to me.

reply to post by Alethea


Alethea, am checking out scorpion and subsea and the first thing I came across was the industry website with a link to an article on the moratorium in the Gulf:

" * Adam Sieminski of Deutsche Bank predicted that U.S. oil production could fall by 160,000 barrels of oil per day by next year. (Financial Times)

* Bernstein Research said delays from the moratorium and rising costs stemming from new safety regulations are likely to raise the marginal cost of deepwater production by about 10 percent. (Financial Times)

* Paul Cheng of Barclays Capital warned that the higher costs could eliminate small independent companies who compete for drilling projects against the majors. (Financial Times) He also predicted an 11 percent drop in deepwater oil production. (Houston Chronicle)

* The Houston Chronicle reports that two large oil-services companies are relocating workers from the Gulf of Mexico to onshore North America drill sites and Brazil.

* The National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) predicts that relocation is just part of the pain to be suffered by energy workers. Burt Adams, NOIA's chairman, said in a statement, "the [president's] order will be felt by the families of tens of thousands of offshore workers who will be unemployed."

The second bullet from the bottom is interesting. What's happening in Brazil? Whose operating there?

sorry folks, kind of in warp drive here, but here's the link to that article mentioned in the last post:

blog.energytomorrow.org...

and here's the site where I found the link to send me there, The Subsea Oil and Gas Directory website with a listing for Scorpion on the first page.

www.subsea.org...

Ah'll be back.

reply to post by loveguy


It's key to remember that both haliburton and transocean expressed their concern and dismay to bp while bp pressed on... A guy who had no deep water experience made repeated calls for BP against the wishes of both transocean and haliburton...


The transocean man was heard yelling at the bp man "are you happy now? Are you happy now? I told you this would happen,,. The rigs on fire!"

The only company which holds blame in this situation is BP... So far.... Theres a long way to go before we can get out of this man made disaster...

If we ever can...

Here's some new from:

www.youroilandgasnews.com...

Scorpion announces Offshore Defender contract extension
Monday, Sep 28, 2009

Petrobras has awarded a subsidiary of Scorpion Offshore Ltd. a TextThe extension period will commence in direct continuation of the rig's current program and will keep the Offshore Defender employed until February of 2012. The extension period has a contract value of $94.3 million.

Jon Cole, President and CEO, stated, "Scorpion is proud to receive this contract extension from Petrobras which allows the Company to continue to provide safe and reliable operations to our valued customer. We look forward to continuing our relationship with Petrobras and are pleased to maintain an active role in the exploration and production activities offshore Brazil".

...

Scorpion Offshore Ltd is a Bermuda based corporation founded in 2005, which owns and operates six state-of-the-art offshore jackup drilling rigs built between 2007 and 2009 and has one comparable rig under construction."

So who is John Cole, another site:

www.scorpionoffshore.com...

"Jon C. Cole – President & Chief Executive Officer, Director

Jon Cole has spent his entire career, spanning nearly three decades, in the contract drilling industry. Jon worked for Transocean Inc. and its predecessors for 25 years. He was a regional manager in the Middle East and North Sea before returning to Houston as a Senior VP of Marketing and Operations. Before leaving Transocean, he served as Executive Vice President of Marketing and Executive Vice President of Inland and Shallow Water (U.S. Gulf of Mexico). Mr. Cole also served as a Sr. Vice President at ENSCO before joining Scorpion."

ENSCO, (offshore drilling) show up in a number of board members resumes. It's interesting that the ENSCO has four deep water Jackup rigs under construction sine May 10, 2010 and Scorpion provides equipment to them. Haven't traced ENSCO back to Haliburton, nor found direct relationship between Scorpion an Haliburton yet, but the idea that four rigs are started off singapore in early May is surely serendipitous timing to say the last. I'll stay on that track, but need more time to go into deep research on it.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Hunkahunka, you'll find an unrelated post to your post above this, but it's not unrelated to the subject. If Haliburton did have a role in this, what better cover than to show up shortly before the blowout and warn BP? I find it completely distasteful to sound like I'm defending BP; I think they're corporate greed does supply powerful motivation to make them the prime suspect on the basis of irresponsible behavior. They have however,m accused Haliburton of doing a shoddy job on the cementing work and claim they didn't drill too soon. That evidence should be examined too. The question is what, if any, motivation for Haliburton have to do a purposely shoddy job. I can't say yet, but the connections of Scorpion Board members previously having worked for Transocean and then signing contracts for rigs that started sometime before the spill is odd. Do they have a connection to Haliburton. Still looking, so no accusation to level there yet. Still working on it, so it may come to light. One other interesting coincidence is that all these guys have large corporate offices in Houston, which in terms has deep connections for the Texas oil industry. BP is an interloper there and doesn't show anything but rivalry with Houston companies until the BP-Haliburton connection at Deep Water Horizon. There are other companies that do that deep water well work: Scorpion, ENSCO, etc. ENSCO is based in the UK, so why not use them? Of course, Houston is in the Gulf neighborhood so that makes some sense on that basis. More work to be done here.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


This is from an article by McClatchy Newspapers that spreads possible blame all around. None of the operators involved in this had good safety records. All have been involved with blowouts before, but what's interesting here is Haliburton's initial public statement of timing and as you may recall later saying they warned them the cementing would take 15 hours to set before they should start drilling:

"In a statement Friday, Halliburton confirmed that it was the "cementer" hired for the job and said it had completed its job about 20 hours prior to the explosion.
"The cement slurry design was consistent with that utilized in other similar applications," the company said. It said all procedures had been "in accordance with accepted industry practice approved by our customers."

"It is premature and irresponsible to speculate on any specific causal issues," the statement said.

"We cannot get ahead of ourselves with respect to the facts of this incident," Guy Cantwell, a spokesman for Transocean in Houston, told McClatchy.

Before conducting a complex ultra deepwater drilling operation like the one that Transocean was undertaking for BP, all the contractors meet weeks in advance to plan the smallest details. What isn't known yet is why a fairly routine operation turned deadly, with 11 rig workers killed in the initial blast that eventually sunk the Deepwater Horizon."

Read more: www.mcclatchydc.com...

Haliburton now says it was five hours that the cement had been setting. Well, what was it 20 or 5? The difference is crucial for Haliburton's later claims they warned BP not to start drilling yet. If the initial warning came earlier and was 20 hours, then BP has some claim to having operated within what they had been told. If it was five hours, then BP ignored what they were told. Late, leaked emails will point to multiple warnings (at least two) from folks on board that BP was rushing it. Who leaked the emails? Did Haliburton see that they were leaked to back their claims?

The article also states that BP and Haliburton had not worked together before. Why not if Haliburton had the pros that did this safely consistently. They didn't, also according to the article and had been involved in a blowout off of East Timor. Once again, more questions than answers. I'll press on.

I need to put this to bed for the night, but I think this thread is much more important than the initial blowoff people gave to it by not responding. Hopefully it will either result in a new thread or get some attention finally from people who passed it by.

Thanks to Loveguy and Alethea for getting me started down the path I took tonight.

I take my research cues from C. Wright Mills research into power elites in America and operate, still, under the idea that there probably isn't one overarching group controlling wealth and power in the world, although lately I've begun to wonder if there isn't more to those types of claims than I've given credence to before. One thing I do know, whether or not there is and Illuminati or Bilderburg group that is pulling strings around the world, there are power elite groups and factions that are trying to.

The possibility that BP and Halliburton are involved in an internal power struggle over oil production and sales in throughout the world is a real possibility and bears investigation.

Halliburton has evolved since its founding by Erle Halliburton in 1919 as a new world oil well cementing corporation powerhouse deeply involved in the international politics of oil. They branched out to take on much more than that in many aspects of the oil industry. In the 1930s they got involved in Burmese operations and in World War II with Aramco, the first US Middle East oil venture. These two connected with the OSS during the war and in the Cold War era, Halliburton would establish close links to the Defense Department and the CIA, so covert ops are not foreign to them and relations with Prescott Bush and his son, GHW Bush were established through the Harriman Brothrs, Dressler Industries and Kellogg, Brown and Root and to dick Cheney through the Gulf War four presidential administrations and down today through a full circle back to oil and the war on terror. There are plenty of contacts there for them to have the (shady ethics, the expertise, and the political connections) for them to have taken on and pulled off a sabotage of the oil rig and destruction of a rival oil power, namely BP.

That's circumstantial evidence and not conclusive proof, but circumstantial evidence is enough to launch investigations, though it should never be used alone to gain a conviction.

BP is a product of old world power elites and started as Dutch Royal Shell, under control of the Netherlands and eventually coming under majority control of British elites, also during the early cold war era and was the motivating corporate power in the overthrow of Mossdegh in Iran in 1954. That was actually accomplished as a joint covert op by MI-6 and the CIA. They too know how to mobilize their contacts in the world of shadow governments and covert operations.

Tramsocean has at least some of these lineages involved as well, and with partial ownership by Mitsui and Kuwait, links to both East Asian power elites and Middle East power brokers and, thus, to Halliburton who was contracted to put out the oil fires after the first Gulf War.

The rivalries, shifting alliances, company name changes, etc., in all of this is mind-boggling. but Franklin D. Roosevelt, who knew the world of power gamers well, once said, "IF something happens in Washington, you can bet its not by accident." The same is true in the oil world, though with caveat that accidents do happen there, and quite often. They also aren't by accident sometime, as our involvement in the second Gulf War illustrates quite clearly.

It is always worth trying to sort out comes by accident and what is planned, however poorly it is executed and sometimes these guys do plan and do execute sloppily. Our democracy, or remaining shadow thereof, demands we at least try. I'll check back tomorrow. Until then sleep well and rest up for another day's fight to keep body and soul together. This is going to be a long fight. Peace, GP. And thanks for patience with any of my missteps in protocol.

Originally posted by ghostpigeon
hey, loveguy, the thread looks kind of bare right now and I know that's a pretty terrible pun, but I think you're approach is very worthwhile. I was just reading the Haliburton site and damn, right away this pops up:
_______________________________________________________________

Now, I got an MA in history and am a yard short of my PhD, which is on the off-shoring of the semi-conductor industry in Silicon Valley. Part of my research involved going to numerous industry conferences and just listening to try and deconstruct industry jargon and intent, MO, etc. I went to college after 15 years as a carpenter and continued to work carpentry until my dissertation started and also MS set in, so even the summer jobs are a no go these days and my carpentry days are over. But I have not exchanged my blue collar (maybe a backward collar if anything) and I still come at issues intellectual or whatever with my working class sensibilities intact. So language like the above doesn't shock me but it does begin to backread a blueprint for the operational basis of Haliburton for me.


So, I need to go back and read on these sites, but four paragraphs into the article its already clear that Haliburton does not want government in the way, but they do WANT their help over obstacles. Where do you get that. The aforementioned cozy relationship with MMIS is one, but we also know the bit H is an MIC operation, so other parts of the government can be helpful: the CIA, Naval Intelligence, Gov Contractors like Blackwater, of course.

I'm out of room here, but more later after I read on.

Hello,
Yup. The thing I found the most BS with their (Halliburton) view on safety was this big lecture that doesn't even address "safety."
Thanks for your post BTW.

reply to post by inthesticks
Hello,

There were some threads that caught my attention and I forgot I even started this thread!

I do hope that all corporations working together get held accountable. It should be industry standard IMO. There has to be competence. BP lacks simple common sense, to ask them to show competence is like nothing I can describe, and make any sense doing so.

Thanks for your post.