Halliburton Houdini?

I see that Halliburton reported back to the market yesterday with a trading statement for the fourth quarter which highlighted a doubling in revenues as client oil companies increased their spending against the backdrop of higher oil prices (basically as the price of oil increases some of the more costly and difficult to extract projects become more cost effective).

Picking the bones from the Guardian article (Halliburton doubles profits) it was interesting to note that "Sales in North America were the largest source of revenue, rising 83% to $2.63bn even as its Gulf of Mexico operations reported a loss. Halliburton said a recovery in the number of rigs operating in the Gulf remains "uncertain" this year."

Hmmm, the chorus of criticism seems ominously quiet. This is one of the 3 main companies (along with BP and Transocean) involved with the Gulf of Mexico disaster (Halliburton being responsible for supplying, testing, and pouring the "unstable" cement slurry mix into the Macondo well).

In the recently published report by the presidential commission investigating the disaster, Halliburton received criticism as to its involvement in the disaster (particularly 1 of the major decisions), as well as being named again with Transocean, as part of the offshore industry's "system-wide" problem due to the two companies operations spanning virtually every ocean.

However, the company is notable by its absence from the list of defendents in the recently lodged lawsuit by the US Government. Still not clear why it hasn't been included but that is not to say that the company can't be added should circumstances require it.

The company, formerly run by Dick Cheney (the former Vice President to George Bush), employs approx 100,000 people around the globe, and was a beneficiary of many major "no-bid" oil contracts in Iraq post the war.

That aside, and coming back to the company's increasing revenues and 1 year share price performance. I still have some difficulty understanding how Halliburton appears to be recovering faster than BP or Transocean. Maybe not so much due to the trading performance but more due to the emotional baggage and perception attached to the disaster (and anyone involved).
But, looking at the respective charts (see below) it has managed to do just that, detaching itself from what had seemed to be a destiny linked with BP and Transocean (both before and immediately after).

On the plus side, it still looks like all 3 companies are recovering, it just seems strange to me that Halliburton is the only one of the 3 who's share price has fully recovered and then some?