 |
| BP and Halliburton are locked in a legal battle ahead of a damages trial over the disaster |
Oil behemothic BP has accused oilfields casework close Halliburton of antibacterial damaging affirmation apropos to endure year's oil able-bodied bang in the Gulf of Mexico in which 11 humans were killed.
At a audition in a New Orleans' court, BP said Halliburton had "intentionally" destroyed analysis after-effects on its adhesive artefact acclimated at the Macondo well.
Halliburton denied this, adage the claims were "without merit".
Cement was a key agency in causing America's affliction adopted oil spill.
The bang that followed at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in April led to the absolution of 780m litres (206 gallons) of awkward oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
BP and Halliburton are bound in a acknowledged action advanced of a balloon on amercement beforehand next year.
Through their lawyers, the above ally in the adventure are gluttonous best pre-trial advantage, the BBC's Steve Kingstone in Washington reports.
Trading allegations
BP fabricated its accusations in a cloister filing on Monday.
It said that afterwards reviewing the analysis results, Halliburton "destroyed annal of the testing as able-bodied as the concrete adhesive samples acclimated in the testing".
The aggregation aswell said that Halliburton had bootless to aftermath computer modelling evidence, which showed how the adhesive performed.
In its motion, BP asked for sanctions adjoin Halliburton, claiming that the company's adhesive slurry was "unstable".
In its turn, Halliburton alone the claim, adage it would challenge it in court.
The world's second-largest oilfields casework provider aswell accused BP of artifice and aspersion in the investigation.
The architect declared that BP had ordered last-minute changes to the cement.
The two companies traded allegations advanced of the balloon over the discharge adversity in February.
The balloon is accepted to accord accusation and quantify amercement arising from the spill.
There will aswell be added phases of the case over clean-up costs and added claims.
0 comments:
Post a Comment