Halliburton Company Asbestos Exposure
Halliburton Company appears in asbestos claims through several historical operations and affiliated businesses. The official DII Industries, LLC Asbestos PI Trust says it assumed specified asbestos liabilities of Halliburton and related entities involving Dresser Industries, Harbison-Walker Refractories, Kellogg Brown & Root and other businesses. A worker’s exposure must be connected to a responsible entity, product or operation; employment by Halliburton alone does not identify an asbestos-containing material.
The DII trust currently posts a 60% payment percentage and separates Halliburton or other non-Harbison-Walker claims from Harbison-Walker claims. Those categories have different scheduled values. This page uses the trust’s records to explain products, work settings and claim evidence without treating every item connected to Halliburton as one interchangeable exposure source.
On This Page
- History and affiliated entities
- Products and materials
- Workers and jobsites
- Exposure pathways
- Trust claims and compensation
- Official records and limits
- Evidence checklist
- Frequently asked questions
- Submit your case
Halliburton History and DII Trust Connection
Halliburton traces its oil-well cementing business to Erle P. Halliburton’s work in Oklahoma in 1919. That general history explains the company’s energy-services role; it does not prove that its original well cement contained asbestos. The asbestos claims addressed here are tied to identified historical entities and operations under the DII trust’s governing documents.
| Entity or record | Role in official trust materials |
|---|---|
| Halliburton Company | Specified liabilities assumed by the DII trust |
| DII Industries, formerly Dresser | Reorganization debtor connected to the trust |
| Harbison-Walker | Separate refractory-related claim category |
| Kellogg Brown & Root | Operation named in trust’s liability history |
| DII asbestos trust | Claims review and payment mechanism |
The trust says it was created January 20, 2005, after a Chapter 11 plan for DII Industries, formerly Dresser Industries, and affiliated debtors. Its About page states that confirmed asbestos claims were channeled to the trust through a permanent injunction protecting Halliburton and affiliates covered by the plan. The scope of that protection depends on the court orders and definitions, rather than an assumption about every possible later claim.
The trust calls its two exposure groups Halliburton or non-Harbison-Walker entities and Harbison-Walker entities. These labels are operational claim categories, not a statement that Halliburton itself manufactured every product on the trust’s list. A product label, job record and relevant trust entity code help show which group belongs to a worker’s account.
| Historical date | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| 1919 | Halliburton’s stated oilfield-service origin |
| July 21, 2004 | Bankruptcy court confirmed reorganization plan |
| January 20, 2005 | DII trust created, per official history |
| August 29, 2023 | Date on Ninth Amended TDP |
Halliburton-Related Products and Asbestos Materials
The trust publishes a Product and Operations List. Its Halliburton grouping includes named compressors, pumps, turbines, Galion equipment and Alco locomotives. A separate Mid-Valley grouping names particular Baroid, IMCO and Magcobar drilling-mud products. The Harbison-Walker grouping includes identified refractory products. Keep the groupings intact when reviewing a claimed exposure.
| Official list grouping | Examples named by trust |
|---|---|
| Halliburton | Dresser Pump; Clark and Roots compressors |
| Halliburton | Worthington pumps and turbines; Galion equipment |
| Mid-Valley | Baroid Diaseal M and Visbestos drilling mud |
| Mid-Valley | Listed IMCO and Magcobar drilling muds |
| Harbison-Walker | Listed coatings, millboard and fire brick |
A list entry identifies a product or operation that the trust has made relevant to its review; it does not show the exact asbestos component or the worker’s contact with it. For rotating equipment, an investigation may focus on historical sealing or insulation materials associated with a particular unit. For drilling mud, it focuses on the precise named formulation and handling period. Avoid inferring that all drilling fluids or all pumps contained asbestos.
The trust warns that its Product and Operations List can change without notice and that revisions may affect claims without an outstanding offer. Preserve a copy of the list and verify the current version when filing. A brand shared by several generations of equipment cannot substitute for a dated model and service record.
For example, a Dresser pump service file might describe a replaced packing set, while a neighboring insulated pipe could have been supplied by someone else. Record the maker of each material separately. This also helps identify whether a claim belongs in the Halliburton category or concerns a different defendant.
| Item to identify | Needed detail |
|---|---|
| Pump or compressor | Manufacturer, model and material disturbed |
| Drilling mud | Brand and exact named product |
| Refractory material | Harbison-Walker designation and task |
| Site insulation | Independent manufacturer and installation history |
Workers and Jobsites in Halliburton-Related Claims
Possible histories include oilfield crews who mixed identified drilling products, mechanics who repaired listed machinery, industrial workers who serviced equipment and trades who handled identified refractory materials. These describe questions to investigate, not automatic claims. The trust requires credible evidence of a relevant entity’s asbestos-containing product or operation and an appropriate worksite connection.
| Work role | Exposure detail to document |
|---|---|
| Drilling-fluid handler | Named mud, mixing method and dates |
| Pump or compressor mechanic | Equipment model and material replaced |
| Plant maintenance worker | Proximity to repair or dusty removal |
| Furnace or refractory worker | Exact Harbison-Walker product and site |
| Locomotive mechanic | Named Alco unit and task-specific materials |
The trust’s exposure-criteria page says that an expedited-review claimant must supply credible evidence of DII company exposure and significant occupational exposure. It describes pre-December 31, 1982 exposure, along with site evidence. A site on its documented list is one route; for an unlisted site, it calls for a verified document showing name, location, dates worked and product information.
An oilfield service assignment and a power-plant overhaul involve different materials, even if a related corporate name appears on both records. Build a separate timeline for each employer and site. A purchase order showing a Dresser pump in one plant is not proof that an unrelated crew at another plant handled its asbestos-containing component.
| Site question | Supporting evidence |
|---|---|
| Where did the worker serve? | Payroll, dispatch and facility record |
| Which listed item was there? | Inventory, drawing or invoice |
| What occurred during work? | Job ticket and coworker account |
| Did dates match trust rules? | Contemporaneous employment history |
Need help now? Call 800.291.0963
Live chat is available 24/7, 365 days a year.
Submit Your Case
How Asbestos Fibers Could Become Airborne
EPA explains that disturbing asbestos-containing material can release fibers. In the work settings addressed by the trust, potential tasks include opening and mixing an identified historical drilling mud, removing worn equipment seals or disturbing old refractory lining. The relevant material must be confirmed rather than inferred from the job title or the presence of a large industrial machine.
| Possible pathway | What to verify |
|---|---|
| Mixing dry drilling product | Exact formula and dust controls |
| Replacing packing or gaskets | Asbestos content and equipment identity |
| Chipping refractory lining | Product source and worker distance |
| Cleaning the work area | Residue source and cleanup method |
| Nearby work | Frequency, timing and shared airspace |
The trust’s published list includes the name Visbestos under certain drilling-mud lines, but a product’s name alone does not establish the amount of airborne fiber a worker inhaled. Conversely, a machine’s presence does not show that its consumable seals were asbestos-containing. Look for original specifications, supplier records and descriptions of the actual maintenance procedure.
Asbestos exposure is associated with mesothelioma, lung cancer and other diseases, according to the National Cancer Institute. Disease may be diagnosed many years after work ended. Medical proof and product identification answer different questions: a diagnosis establishes the condition, while employment and product records connect it to an alleged exposure source.
| Evidence layer | Example |
|---|---|
| Product identity | Original package or equipment plate |
| Asbestos-bearing material | Period specification or tested sample |
| Disturbance | Maintenance steps and dust account |
| Personal contact | Schedule, distance and duration |
DII Trust Claims and Compensation
The DII trust’s live claim-value pages state a 60% payment percentage. They publish different expedited-review scheduled values for Halliburton or other non-Harbison-Walker entities and for Harbison-Walker entities. As checked September 21, 2026, the listed mesothelioma scheduled values were $60,718.95 and $144,897.50 respectively. These are values before the percentage is applied, conditional on claim approval and applicable rules.
| Expedited-review group | Mesothelioma scheduled value |
|---|---|
| Halliburton / non-Harbison-Walker | $60,718.95 |
| Harbison-Walker | $144,897.50 |
| Current payment percentage | 60% on official claim-value page |
| Individual review | Separate liquidated-value process |
Illustrative arithmetic at that posted percentage gives about $36,431.37 for $60,718.95 × 0.60, or $86,938.50 for $144,897.50 × 0.60. These calculations show how the percentage works, not an estimate of an individual’s award. The trust determines entity category, exposure, disease and liquidated value; any applicable deductions and payment rules still matter.
Individual Review can produce a liquidated value above or below a Scheduled Value. The trust’s separate IR page displays current average and maximum values by entity group. A maximum is a cap in the specified process, not a typical or promised payment. When comparing trust figures, do not apply Halliburton values to a Harbison-Walker claim or vice versa.
| Illustration only | Arithmetic at 60% |
|---|---|
| Non-Harbison-Walker mesothelioma | $60,718.95 × 0.60 = $36,431.37 |
| Harbison-Walker mesothelioma | $144,897.50 × 0.60 = $86,938.50 |
| Actual allowed claim | Trust review controls amount and payment |
What the Official DII Records Establish
The trust’s About page describes the liabilities it assumed and the channeling injunction. Its Product and Operations List names equipment, drilling products and refractory materials under separate headings. Its Ninth Amended Trust Distribution Procedures, dated August 29, 2023, govern disease and exposure review. Together these records substantiate a trust pathway, but they do not prove a specific worker’s contact with a listed item.
| Primary source | Supported fact |
|---|---|
| Trust About page | Creation and specified covered liabilities |
| Product and Operations List | Named items under separate entity headings |
| Ninth Amended TDP | Claim processes and evidentiary rules |
| ER and IR value pages | Current listed values and 60% rate |
| Exposure Criteria page | Documented-site and pre-1982 requirements |
For expedited review, the trust describes significant occupational exposure as at least five cumulative years with at least two years before December 31, 1982, in qualifying asbestos work or close proximity. An applicant who cannot meet the presumptive exposure criteria may seek Individual Review, according to its site. This is a procedural route, not a waiver of the need to prove a legally relevant exposure.
The trust’s product list expressly warns that it may change without notice for claims lacking an outstanding offer. Current claim values may also change. Date any copied rate or list when using it to prepare a case. The trust website should be checked again at submission, especially for a product or site not clearly named in a saved document.
| Unsupported shortcut | Needed follow-up |
|---|---|
| Halliburton name equals asbestos exposure | Find exact entity, product and task |
| Listed site proves a product | Connect product to actual work |
| Equipment model proves asbestos seals | Identify period component and service |
| Published maximum is expected payout | Obtain individual trust determination |
Evidence Checklist for Workers and Families
First establish the worker’s employers, dates, worksites and tasks. Next identify the listed item and entity group. For an unlisted jobsite, the trust asks for verified site name, location, work dates and product information. Affidavits, invoices, deposition testimony and similar records can support the account, subject to the trust’s current evidence rules.
| Record to collect | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Pathology and treatment records | Establish disease and diagnosis date |
| Employment and union files | Place worker in qualifying trade and years |
| Site and equipment records | Identify the entity and named product |
| Maintenance or mixing logs | Describe material disturbance |
| Coworker contacts | Corroborate product and proximity |
If the worker has died, the trust describes separate standards for who can verify a site and who has personal knowledge of a product there. Families should preserve original documents and the identities of coworkers who saw the relevant material, rather than relying on a general statement that the plant contained asbestos.
Keep other exposure sources in the history. A worker may have encountered pipe insulation, gaskets, refractory products and drilling materials from different responsible companies. A clear timeline avoids assigning all exposure to the DII trust because it is familiar or because Halliburton later had a corporate connection. Consult the trust’s current instructions for claim options, time limits and releases.
| Before filing | Confirm |
|---|---|
| Entity category | Halliburton or Harbison-Walker grouping |
| Named item | Product or operation on current records |
| Dates and site | Current exposure criteria |
| Review route | Expedited or Individual Review |
| Other claims | Separate sources and disclosures |
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Halliburton have a separate asbestos trust?
Specified Halliburton-related liabilities are handled by the DII Industries, LLC Asbestos PI Trust, according to the trust’s official About page.
What is the DII trust’s posted payment percentage?
Its current claim-value and payment pages display 60%, as checked September 21, 2026.
Are Halliburton and Harbison-Walker scheduled values identical?
No. The trust publishes separate schedules for Halliburton or non-Harbison-Walker claims and Harbison-Walker claims.
Does every Halliburton oilfield product contain asbestos?
No such conclusion follows from the trust. Identify the actual historical product, composition, worksite and handling.
Which drilling-mud products appear on the trust list?
The Mid-Valley group includes specific Baroid, IMCO and Magcobar names. The exact product and dates still need proof.
Can an unlisted worksite support a claim?
The trust asks for a verified site name, location, dates and product information when the site is outside its documented list.
What if presumptive exposure rules are not met?
The trust says an applicant may seek Individual Review; eligibility still requires case-specific evidence under its rules.
Does the posted 60% rate guarantee a payout?
No. Approval, disease level, entity group, liquidated value and current trust rules determine any payment.
Summary
Halliburton’s asbestos claims history is documented through the DII trust, which distinguishes Halliburton or non-Harbison-Walker claims from Harbison-Walker claims. Its current posted payment percentage is 60%. A claimant must connect a responsible historical entity, a relevant item or operation, a worksite and a qualifying diagnosis with credible records.
| Key point | Verified position |
|---|---|
| Trust identity | DII Industries, LLC Asbestos PI Trust |
| Trust creation | January 20, 2005 |
| Payment percentage | 60% on current official pages |
| Claim grouping | Non-Harbison-Walker versus Harbison-Walker |
| Central evidence | Entity, product or operation, site, task and diagnosis |
General information, not medical or legal advice. Eligibility, values, deadlines and payment depend on individual facts and current trust rules.
Confirmed Sources
- DII Industries Asbestos PI Trust: About the Trust
- DII Trust: Product and Operations List
- DII Trust: Ninth Amended Trust Distribution Procedures
- DII Trust: Exposure Criteria
- DII Trust: Expedited Review Claim Values
- DII Trust: Individual Review Claim Values
- Halliburton: Company History
- U.S. EPA: Learn About Asbestos
- National Cancer Institute: Asbestos
Submit Your Case
If a historical Halliburton-related product or operation may be part of your asbestos history, gather its exact identity, worksite dates, task and medical records for review. Check the current DII trust category and claim instructions before using published values.
Need help now? Call 800.291.0963
Live chat is available 24/7, 365 days a year.
Submit Your Case