Halliburton And Gulf Of Mexico (GOM)

The catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico (Deepwater Horizon) involves the Halliburton oil company. US President Obama is pushing for a law that could force oil company BP to pay the full cost of the clean-up operation and Halliburton doesn't feature at all. It seems to be absolved of all responsibility, but this company is at the centre of a very lucrative business. The Halliburton company claims to be not responsible for placing the failed-cement plug over the well to cap the bore as "operations had not reached a stage where a final plug was needed" though has confirmed that it cemented the Macondo well. Halliburton said that it had finished cementing 20 hours before the fire and according to Transocean executive Adrian Rose, "undoubtedly abnormal pressure" had accumulated inside the marine riser. As it came up it "expanded rapidly and ignited", an event known as a blowout.

This unfinished work in progress cannot be properly examined for some considerable time and at the moment claims are not verifiable.

Deepwater oil exploration and Halliburton
Pointing A Finger of Blame
Dick Cheney And The Halliburton Connection

BP claims that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has cost it $450m (£308m). So far, an increase of $100m (£68m) on the figure reported earlier this week. The grotesque profit that BP makes can easily fund this in just 4 days of operations. The concept of Winners And Losers demands that this profit is 'financed' by the undefined Losers: the users of BP's efforts.

At least four million gallons have leaked from the well that was damaged in an explosion more than three weeks ago.

President Obama is electioneering in America (mid-term elections) and is seemingly tailoring his approach to receive the best return for the Democrats and he is exploiting the BP issue accordingly. BP is NOT British Petroleum as is being publicised. It has only 40% British shareholders and 39% American and in recent years became BP Amoco plc (December 1998) and acquired Arco (Atlantic Richfield Co.) and Burmah-Castrol. This has once again become known as BP, but is clearly NOT British Petroleum.The exploitation of the entire scenario could be viewed as a 'hostile takeover' bid to acquire substantial control of BP. Wrench it out of the hands of the 'British'. Obama claims to be not attacking the 'Brits', but the case appears to be somewhat different. The continued implication that the British are responsible when BP has a more complex ownership. The British press is completing the job by failing to qualify ownership and maintaining the implied total ownership of BP by the British. It is NOT British Petroleum.

BP - History

The 'recent' history of the Halliburton company suggests a much more sinister scenario.

The entire issue looks more like an engineered takeover
scenario with every new day. Rather than risking
an all out war with an oil producing country
to satisfy its thirst for oil,

the USA could theoretically mount a

bloodless war. Stock market depression

makes for a very cheap business acquisition.

This would explain Obama's misdirection by challenging America's thirst for oil. This doesn't sound like an electioneering ploy, but to acquire BP 'on the cheap' would make his administration very popular.

Hypocritical?
Cynical?

Politics: wonderful stuff