SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Halliburton Gulf Oil Spill Settlement Will Shield Company from Billions in Liability
Legal victory behind it, Halliburton expected to pursue new oil profits
Sep 03, 2014
Halliburton's $1.1 billion settlement, announced Tuesday, for its role in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill will likely shield the company from being held liable for billions of dollars in damages in the future.
The company, which was contracted 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 Times adds:
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."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Halliburton's $1.1 billion settlement, announced Tuesday, for its role in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill will likely shield the company from being held liable for billions of dollars in damages in the future.
The company, which was contracted 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 Times adds:
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 is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Halliburton's $1.1 billion settlement, announced Tuesday, for its role in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill will likely shield the company from being held liable for billions of dollars in damages in the future.
The company, which was contracted 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 Times adds:
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.