The statement makes a detailed case for why Halliburton should not be considered the responsible party for the oil spill. As it stands now, that title — and the billions of dollars in damages that go along with it — goes to BP. Halliburton is trying desperately to avoid being saddled with the damages from the spill.

Of the four tests discussed in an Oct. 28 letter from oil spill commission staff to the commissioners, three suggested that the nitrogen foam cement mixture used in the well could be “unstable.” But Halliburton, in the statement, said the first two tests referenced in the letter focused on mixtures that were in fact not similar to the one used in the Macondo well, as commission staff suggested. The third test indicating that the mixture was unstable was not conducted properly and should be disregarded, Halliburton said.

Contrary to the letter, however, the slurry tested in February was not “a very similar foam slurry design to the one actually pumped at the Macondo well.” … Additionally, there are a number of significant differences in testing parameters, including depth, pressure, temperature and additive changes, between Halliburton’s February tests and two subsequent tests Halliburton conducted in April.  Halliburton believes the first test conducted in April is irrelevant because the laboratory did not use the correct amount of cement blend.

Halliburton also said it shared with BP the results of the tests, and as a result, BP instructed the company to make technical changes to the cement mixture.

Halliburton attempted to shift blame for the spill to BP, arguing that the oil company did not take adequate precautions to protect the integrity of the well.

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.  A cement bond log test is the only means available to evaluate the integrity of the cement bond.  BP, as the well owner and operator, decided not to run a cement bond log test even though the appropriate personnel and equipment were on the rig and available to run that test. BP personnel have publicly testified they intended to conduct the cement bond log test at a later date and to perform any necessary remedial work at that time.

Kenneth Feinberg, administrator of the BP Oil Spill Victim Compensation Fund, testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

George Barisich — a third-generation shrimper in Saint Bernard Parish, La., whose livelihood has come to a screeching halt as a result of the Gulf oil spill — hasn’t got the slightest idea when he’ll be able to get back to work.

“God hasn’t shared that with me yet,” he said.

[Environment1] For Barisich and thousands of other victims of the spill, the inability to work has brought about substantial financial hardship. Now, with BP nearing the final stages of its three-month effort to stop thousands of gallons of oil from leaking into the Gulf of Mexico, the big question they’re all asking is how they’ll be compensated by BP for the economic damage they’ve suffered.

But as officials unveil details of the claims process, spill victims face a conundrum: Many of them will be required to predict the long-term damages they will face as a result of the oil spill years before the true damages are known.

Kenneth Feinberg is the man in charge of what is likely to be one of the largest claims processes in U.S. history. Feinberg was appointed by the White House last month to oversee a $20 billion escrow account being put aside by BP to pay claims from the spill.

He has been trekking across the Gulf Coast region over the last several weeks in an attempt to gain the trust of oil spill victims. For the most part, people seem to like him. They appreciate his candor. “This program I am running is absolutely voluntary — nobody has to do it,” Feinberg told Louisiana residents last week, according to The New York Times. “It’s my opinion you are crazy if you don’t participate.”

But first impressions don’t mean much in the Gulf, which has faced more than its share of tragedies and government recovery efforts. Observers say they are waiting to see just how Feinberg restructures the claims process.

While Feinberg has not outlined his plan in great detail, a major battle over the claims process is looming. BP has been offering interim payments to oil spill victims to hold them over until the leak can be capped. While there have been complaints about this process (including frustration over the disbursement of second payments), the White House says BP has not denied any claims. As of Tuesday, “119,012 claims have been opened, from which more than $220 million have been disbursed,” the White House says.

But these are just interim payments. Feinberg has outlined a process whereby, beginning three months after the well has been permanently capped, victims will need to file claims for the total damages they expect from the oil spill. They will then be offered a single payment. If they accept the payment, they must sign a waiver saying they cannot sue BP for more money. If they aren’t happy with the payment, they can sue BP, entering a legal process that could take years to resolve.

Observers and lawyers in the region say this scenario raises several questions, the main one being: How can you calculate the economic damages you’ll suffer before you know what the true consequences of the oil spill will be years and even decades down the road?

Barisich, who is the president of the United Commercial Fisherman’s Association, put it this way: “It’s a crap shoot. It really is. … Fishing may come back within two years and then you win. But if it doesn’t come back, if it takes four, five, six, or 20 years, then you lose.”

Barisich said there are no accurate estimates for when the fishing industry will fully recover. “Nobody can give you that answer,” he said. “If somebody tells you, it would be a best guess. [The spill is] so vast, it’s so huge, it’s so spread out. They tell you it’s going to come back in two years. Would you put your salary up on that estimate? Because you’re sure as hell putting my salary up on it.”

Richard Shore, a partner at the law firm Gilbert LLP, which has worked on litigation resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, echoed Barisich’s concerns. During the next six months to a year, as Gulf Coast residents become more desperate for a settlement, they are more likely to accept what BP has to offer, even before the full consequences of the spill are adequately understood, Shore said.

“People with claims against BP will need income, but they won’t know the full extent of their damages,” Shore said. “People shouldn’t be forced to choose between going for long periods without compensation and guessing prematurely what their full damages might be. In the longer term, what Mr. Feinberg is saying is that people will have to make an educated guess about what their full damage is.”

While any victim can choose to sue BP for more money, Shore warns that this process can be expensive and time consuming. “The litigation route has its downsides and may create pressure on people to accept an offer of compensation from BP,” he said. “That will result in a lot of scrutiny on the Feinberg process.”

Ed Sherman, a law professor at Tulane University, said the process Feinberg is implementing is very similar to the one he employed as the head of the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. But Sherman noted that the wide-ranging nature of the spill makes it different from the 9/11 attacks. The spill is “unlike 9/11, where a loved one was killed or there were injuries and you have a fixed condition on which to base a claim,” he said.

Still, Sherman said that outside of the BP claims process, courts are tasked with making these kinds of determinations all the time — for example, when determining compensation for long-term disability. Sherman said Feinberg will likely review the data in detail to form as accurate an estimate for long-term damages as possible to use as a basis for assessing the claims.

Feinberg did not respond to requests for comment, but a source in his law office confirmed his plan for long-term compensation for spill victims.

Regardless of the outcome of the claims process, it could be some time until Barisich and others are able to get back to work.

“We don’t know if the Gulf is going to be screwed up for years,” Barisich said. “It’s our mother basically. It gives us our product.”

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the ten other senior military officials named in the lawsuit have immunity, the court ruled, because “[n]o reasonable government official would have been on notice that plaintiffs had any Fifth Amendment or Eighth Amendment rights.” Although the  Supreme Court ruled last June in Boumediene v. Bush that detainees at Guantanamo have the right to habeas corpus, the court today ruled that “At the time of their detention, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had ever held that aliens captured on foreign soil and detained beyond sovereign U.S. territory had any constitutional rights…”

The case, Rasul v. Myers, which I’ve written about here and here, was on remand from the Supreme Court, which had instructed the D.C. Circuit to reconsider its previous ruling dismissing the case in light of the high court’s decision in Boumediene. To the dismay of many civil rights advocates, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, insisted that even if the men were tortured, the case should be dismissed because U.S. government officials could not have known at the time that they were violating established rights, so they’re entitled to immunity.

The D.C. district court that initially heard this case had similarly dismissed the constitutional claims, but ruled that the four former prisoners had rights to sue under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because they hadn’t been allowed to practice their religion and their Korans had been desecrated. The appellate court today reaffirmed its earlier decision that because the men are “aliens” and not residents of the United States, they are not “persons” entitled to protection under the statute.

Reached this afternoon, Katherine Toomey, a lawyer at the firm Baach Robinson & Lewis, which is representing the four British men along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that the lawyers are now considering whether to ask for a re-hearing by the full court of appeals, or to seek review again in the Supreme Court.