Halliburton used flawed cement on BP well
By Chris BaltimoreHOUSTON (Reuters) - Halliburton Co. used flawed cement in BP Plc's doomed Gulf of Mexico well, which could have contributed to the blowout that sparked the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, a White House panel said on Thursday.
Halliburton used flawed cement on BP well
Halliburton's shares tumbled as much as 16 percent after the National Oil Spill Commission released a letter detailing the panel's findings, before recovering to close down nearly 8 percent at $31.68 per share on the New York Stock Exchange.
BP's U.S.-listed shares closed up 1.3 percent at $40.60 per share.
While not absolving BP of responsibility, the report heaped criticism on Halliburton's cement job, raising investor concerns it could be forced to bear some of the clean-up costs.
BP has taken a $32.2 billion (20.1 billion pound) earnings charge to cover the cleanup. The cost to insure Halliburton's debt jumped on the news.
Halliburton had run a series of tests that showed the material was unstable in the weeks before the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig, which killed 11 workers and spurred a temporary ban on deepwater U.S. drilling.
"Halliburton believes that significant differences between its internal cement tests and the Commission's test results may be due to differences in the cement materials tested," the company said in a statement.
A BP spokesman declined to comment.
Both Halliburton and BP were aware of flaws in the cement slurry, similar to the one used to seal the mile-deep Macondo well, as early as March 8, over a month before the spill, "but neither acted upon that data," according to National Oil Spill Commission chief counsel Fred Bartlit.
However, in its statement, Halliburton said it did not believe that the foam cement design used on the Macondo well was the cause of the incident.
"Halliburton believes that had BP conducted a cement bond log test, or had BP and others properly interpreted a negative-pressure test, these tests would have revealed any problems with Halliburton's cement," Halliburton said.
"The fact that BP and Halliburton knew this cement job could fail only solidifies their liability and responsibility for this disaster," said Rep. Edward Markey, a Democratic lawmaker who has criticized BP and its well partners.
The industry has developed tests to identify faulty cement jobs in offshore wells, but "BP and/or Transocean personnel misinterpreted or chose not to conduct such tests at the Macondo well," Bartlit wrote.
Tests conducted by industry cement experts show "the foam cement used at Macondo was unstable," Bartlit wrote in a letter to co-chairs Bob Graham and Bill Reilly.
"Halliburton (and perhaps BP) should have considered redesigning the foam slurry before pumping it at the Macondo well."
The report supports claims by BP that it shares the responsibility for the disaster with its Macondo partners, including Swiss-based Transocean Ltd, which owned the Deepwater Horizon rig.
In an interim report BP issued in September, it said Halliburton used an "unstable" cement mixture that allowed hydrocarbons to flow up the drill pipe and onto the floor of the rig, where they ignited.
The resulting spill marred the coasts of four U.S. Gulf states, prompted a ban on new deepwater drilling and left BP's image in tatters in the United States, home to 40 percent of the London-based oil giant's business.
(Additional reporting by Anna Driver in Houston, Braden Reddall in San Francisco and Ayesha Rascoe in Washington, Anand Basu in Bangalore; Editing by Stacey Joyce and Jerry Norton)
Please note that articles on MSN Money do not constitute regulated financial advice, which recommends a course of action based upon the specifics of your personal circumstances. The articles are intended to provide general personal financial information. We urge you to consult an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA) before making any important decisions about your finances. You can search for an IFA in your local area. Any statement regarding financial services products and tax liability is based on legislation and tax practices as at 6 April 2011, which is, of course, subject to change. The value of any tax benefits or reliefs depends upon the individual circumstances of the investor. When investment performance is mentioned you should remember that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Where products have an underlying investment content, in many cases the value of the investment can fall as well as rise. For with-profit based investments, there is no guarantee as to the level of bonuses that will be declared, if any. Where mortgages or secured loans are explained do remember that your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other loan secured on it. All mortgages are subject to underwriting, status and are not available to people under the age of 18.
If you don’t own stocks and shares already, which of these factors would be most likely to make you invest in them?
Thanks for being one of the first people to vote. Results will be available soon. Check for results
- More money
- More time
- More knowledge about how they work