Halliburton Admits It Destroyed BP Spill Evidence

Your News Companion by Ben Mathis-Lilley
July 26 2013 11:07 AM

Halliburton Admits It Destroyed Evidence to Make Itself Look Better During the BP Spill

Fire boats battle a fire at the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon April 21, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana

Photo by U.S. Coast Guard via Getty Images

Halliburton has admitted that it destroyed evidence during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster, a criminal act designed to keep the blame—and the government's anger—squarely focused on BP and Transocean as an estimated 5 million barrels of crude oil leaked into the Gulf of Mexico. The surprising admission will bring with it a guilty plea to one count of criminal conduct, a $200,000 statutory fine, and three years probation for the oil services giant, the Justice Department announced Thursday evening.

Josh Voorhees Josh Voorhees

Josh Voorhees is a Slate senior writer. He lives in Iowa City. 

A quick refresher on Halliburton's role on what turned out to be the infamous oil rig: The Houston-based company provided the cement that was supposed to seal the spaces on the outside of the well's steel drilling pipe. The quality of that concrete, and the process in which it was installed, received a decent amount of scrutiny from lawmakers and independent investigators at the time—but likely would have gotten a whole lot more if it weren't for the attention paid to the metal collars that were used to help stabilize the drill pipe in the center of the hole.


In short, BP opted to use only six of those so-called centralizers instead of the 21 that had been recommended by Halliburton, a time-saving decision by BP that gave Halliburton a noteworthy amount of cover on Capitol Hill as lawmakers blasted the decision-making that proceeded the blowout. But it turns out that Halliburton execs, while hiding behind the 6-vs-21 decision, had already figured out that the missing spacers likely didn't make any difference. The reason no one else knew that was simply because the company quickly got rid of the evidence making it clear. Here's the Washington Post with the wonky details:

On or about May 3, 2010, Halliburton established an internal working group to examine the Macondo disaster, including whether the number of centralizers used could have contributed to the blowout. According to the plea agreement, Halliburton’s cementing technology director instructed a senior program manager to run two computer simulations of the Macondo well’s final cementing job. When the simulations “indicated that there was little difference between using six and 21 centralizers,” the program manager “was directed to, and did, destroy these results,” the plea agreement said.
“In or about June 2010, similar evidence was also destroyed in a later incident,” the Justice Department said. Halliburton’s cementing technology director “asked another, more experienced, employee” to run simulations again comparing six vs. 21 centralizers, the department added; that employee “reached the same conclusion and, like the Program Manager before him, was then directed to ‘get rid of’ the simulations.”

The $200,000 fine is, obviously, unlikely to make a noticeable mark on Halliburton's balance sheet. But the admission of wrongdoing—along with the confirmation that BP's centralizer decision likely played a smaller role than once thought—will make it that much more difficult for Halliburton to avoid paying out large sums to settle civil suits.

***Follow @JoshVoorhees and the rest of the @slatest team on Twitter.***


Frame Game

Hard Knocks

I was hit by a teacher in an East Texas public school. It taught me nothing.

Republicans Like Scott Walker Are Building Campaigns Around Problems That Don’t Exist

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

If You’re Outraged by the NFL, Follow This Satirical Blowhard on Twitter

The Best Way to Organize Your Fridge

The World

Iran and the U.S. Are Allies

They’re just not ready to admit it yet.

Sports Nut

Giving Up on Goodell

How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.

Chief Justice John Roberts Says $1,000 Can’t Buy Influence in Congress. Looks Like He’s Wrong.

Farewell! Emily Bazelon on What She Will Miss About Slate.

  News & Politics
Sept. 16 2014 2:11 PM Spare the Rod What Charles Barkley gets wrong about corporal punishment and black culture.
Sept. 16 2014 2:35 PM Germany’s Nationwide Ban on Uber Lasted All of Two Weeks
The Eye
Sept. 16 2014 12:20 PM These Outdoor Cat Shelters Have More Style Than the Average Home
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 15 2014 3:31 PM My Year As an Abortion Doula
  Slate Plus
Slate Plus Video
Sept. 16 2014 2:06 PM A Farewell From Emily Bazelon The former senior editor talks about her very first Slate pitch and says goodbye to the magazine.
Brow Beat
Sept. 16 2014 1:27 PM The Veronica Mars Spinoff Is Just Amusing Enough to Keep Me Watching
Future Tense
Sept. 16 2014 1:48 PM Why We Need a Federal Robotics Commission
  Health & Science
Sept. 16 2014 1:39 PM The Case of the Missing Cerebellum How did a Chinese woman live 24 years missing part of her brain?
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 9:05 PM Giving Up on Goodell How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.