Thread: BP trashed unfairly by Yanks?

He he

!

Originally Posted by Clogiron

Who's Fuck Up?

BP all the way.

Evidence is coming out how they took shorcuts opposed by Transocean all the way to the day the Horizon blew.

It's all coming out...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

It's all coming out...

But you don't have a link to that . . . Bringing Issues style to the Lounge

He actually makes a good point, but it is easier just to read the headline and forget about the body of the text:

"In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come," he told the US political website Politico.

One of many...

Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Another:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...-happen/57775/

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

Boon Mee please give us a link where BP have admitted any liability.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

One of many... Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster - 60 Minutes - CBS News Another: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...-happen/57775/

Where ?

Lets just cut all the bullshit!!!

BP have never or will not admit liability for this oil spill. Similar circumstances in the North Sea a long time ago when Occidental Oil refused to admit to negligence and Unsafe Working Practices after the Piper Alpha disaster.

This is a monumental f*ck-up. BP are definitely holding the can at present, however lets wait and see when they manage to get Transocean, Haliburton, Cameron, Weatherford MMA(Minerals Mangement Agency) and anyone else who can be responsible on the stand, and see if they can prove negligence by the contractors?

^
Thats it cut your nose off to spite your face.. BP are a multi national organization, their management team in the USA is American.

They employ around 32,000 people in the USA and around 10,000 in the UK. Do you really want another 32,000 people unemployed in the O&G industry in America?
What happened to Sarah Palins "Drill Baby Drill"

Doesn't matter. Once the dust clears, BP & Transocean will no longer exist. It'll be Government Drilling Inc...

You mean No Drilling Inc.

If the head honcho gets his way.
That ok next move invade Iran plenty of oil there.

Client state of the Russians.

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

^
Thats it cut your nose off to spite your face.. BP are a multi national organization, their management team in the USA is American.

Got nothing to do with noses... If you had a business partner, vendor, associate, whatever, that was a wonderful guy and always delivered, up until you found out they they were breaking every reg in the book, and as a result created the worst ecological disaster in the history of mankind, what would you do??? Hell is supposedly full of people with the best intentions...

I know where BP GOM operations are located... I can see their complex from my office, know many of their team members and tip a few with them once or twice a week... I've had (off the record) discussions with many of their team since day 1 of the incident and they know what a mess they have created... All in the name of doing 'more with less' and maximizing profits, same as any company mandate...

I wouldn't care if they were an American company... BP, irregardless of where the company is based, have knowingly broken so many regs & industry standards that the US government are going come down on them hard and will be punitive in demanding recovery $$$...

Goldman Sachs released an cost estimate for total recovery of this mess... The numbers is $180 Billion USD... I have stated elsewhere that I would be surprised if BP, as a company, survives this debacle...

[quote=Muadib;1472382


Goldman Sachs released an cost estimate for total recovery of this mess... The numbers is $180 Billion USD... I have stated elsewhere that I would be surprised if BP, as a company, survives this debacle...[/quote]

Top company goldman, takes 12.9 billion in bail out money and pays it's staff bonuses of 14 billion in the same year.

If goldman say this then it must be true, top moral company, oh nearly forgot have they not got a fraud case to defend. The american banking system and the way it works, has hurt more people and their livlihoods than this oil spill ever will.

Fair play to bam bam, he sure kicked thier arse didl ee.

The other shoe is about to drop on BP... Rueters posted a story this afternoon stating that Bank of America / Merrill Lynch has instructed their traders to NOT enter into any oil / gas trades with BP beyond June 2011... Limiting their exposure to BP is significant as BP hedges their own business with partners like BofA / Merrill Lynch... Surely, now that BofA / ML have made this stand, they will not be the only financial institution to limit their exposure to BP... If BP has no financial trading partners, they cannot hedge their market position...

UPDATE1-BofA to limit duration of trades with BP-source | Reuters

UPDATE1-BofA to limit duration of trades with BP-source

BofA traders told to limit scope of oil trades

* Bank takes cautionary stance due credit concerns-source
* BP among top energy traders, BofA a smaller player
* BP has not been forced to reduce trading volumes-source
* BP traders not been informed of BofA directive-source

(Adds share price reaction in paragraph 7)

NEW YORK, June 15 (Reuters) - Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAC.N) has ordered its traders not to enter into oil trades with BP Plc (BP.L) that extend beyond June 2011, a market source familiar with the directive told Reuters.

The order to the bank's traders came from a high-level executive and was made on Monday, according to a source familiar with it. It told traders not to engage in trade with BP for contracts beyond one year from this month.

The directive didn't state a reason for the limit on longer-duration trades with the oil company, which comes as the British oil giant scrambles to stop an oil spill in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico for which it could eventually face billions of dollars in economic liabilities.

Limiting the duration of trades with a counterparty is one way in which banks can seek to protect themselves against risk that a company will be unable to meet its long-term obligations.

A BofA spokesman declined comment.

BP spokesman Toby Odone said the company doesn't comment on market rumors or speculation.

The company's U.S.-traded shares (BP.N), which have plummeted around 47 percent since the disaster, rose 2.4 percent on Wall Street during Tuesday trading, then fell after the closing bell. At 5:45 p.m. EDT (2145 GMT), BP's shares traded at $30.66, after closing at $31.40.

Also after hours, a team of scientists appointed by the government to assess the flow-rate of the BP spill in the Gulf, boosted its estimate to as much as 60,000 barrels per day. [ID:nN15108837]

A source familiar with BP's trading operations said they have not been curtailed since the oil spill in April. BP wasn't informed of any new trading limits with BofA, which is a relatively small player in oil markets and not among BP's top trading counterparties, the source said.

The source familiar with the BofA directive said it reflects a cautionary stance toward trading with BP. However, the directive did not reference any reduction in overall credit volume the bank would extend to BP.

BP's credit rating was downgraded six notches on Tuesday by Fitch Ratings, which cited the high costs BP may face for compensating victims of the company's Gulf spill. Fitch downgraded BP to BBB from an AA rating.

A source familiar with the BofA directive said it could include any trades in physical commodities, derivatives and swaps for crude oil and products.

The British energy giant ranks among the world's top oil producers and traders in physical energy markets and derivatives.

BP's Macondo well in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico continues to spill oil into the Gulf after
deadly explosions sank the Transocean Horizon rig in late April.

The potential for soaring liabilities related to clean up costs, economic damages and legal penalties that BP could face after the Gulf spill has led some analysts and bankers to speculate that the oil giant may throttle back its trading operations.

Several fuel oil traders have recently resigned from BP, including four traders from its Singapore office last week, industry sources told Reuters. [ID:nSGE65908E]
Banks typically require companies like BP to put up collateral to back trades in the private derivatives market, though for highly rated firms such as BP, the collateral may be a small portion of the size of the exposure.

BP's credit default swap costs have surged in the past two months on increasing concerns over the company's credit worthiness, and traders and analysts have said some of the increase has come from banks hedging exposure to the oil company.
Credit default swaps are used to protect against the risks of a company or other borrower defaulting on its obligations, or to speculate on its credit quality.

BP's five-year CDS costs have jumped to 515 basis points, or $515,000 per year to insure $10 million for five years, from around 40 basis points in April, according to Markit Intraday.

BofA Merrill equities analysts maintained a "buy" rating on BP's London-traded shares on June 10, but cut their price target to 575 pence a share, down from a previous 700 pence. [ID:nWNAB7485]

The company reported around $10 billion in derivatives assets and over $9 billion in liabilities at the end of the first quarter. (Reporting by Joshua Schneyer; additional reporting by Karen Brettell; Editing by Alden Bentley and Marguerita Choy)

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

One of many...

Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Another:

'The Rig's on Fire! I Told You This Was Gonna Happen!' - National - The Atlantic

Neither of the links offers any proof, just innuendo and heresay. Why are you so keen on duplicating your Issues methodology here?

Your first link proves zip and your second one quotes a litigation lawyer:

Tony Buzbee, a lawyer representing 15 rig workers and dozens of shrimpers, seafood restaurants, and dock workers, says he has obtained a three-page signed statement from a crew member on the boat that rescued the burning rig's workers. The sailor, who Buzbee refuses to name for fear of costing him his job, was on the ship's bridge when Deepwater Horizon installation manager Jimmy Harrell, a top employee of rig owner Transocean, was speaking with someone in Houston via satellite phone. Buzbee told Mother Jones that, according to this witness account, Harrell was screaming, "Are you fucking happy? Are you fucking happy? The rig's on fire! I told you this was gonna happen."

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Evidence is coming out how they took shorcuts opposed by Transocean all the way to the day the Horizon blew.

It's all coming out...

Still waiting for this evidence you speak of

A lot of groups will distance themselves from those involved in the GOM well. (fair weather friends) and those companies involved or potentially involved will be scurrying to cover and protect their assets/position in any way possible. As noted, the scope of this will result in more stringent regulations, enforcement, penalties, performance/pollution guarantees, etc, etc. There will be companies who will drop out of offshore participation due to potential monetary liability. More government intervention (not just the US either) in a field that most of the politicians lack any real knowledge in will result in higher costs and the normal government contribution, decreased efficiency

Again, we will see a series of seemly insignificant mistakes add up and produce a result of catastrophic proportions. Which will result in sanctions/ramification of the entire oil sector for decades to come. The action/inaction of a few, so often, diversely affect so many. Murphy's law in all its glory.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

It's all coming out...

Still waiting for this evidence you speak of

How about hearing it from the heads of 4 major oil companies, who testified before Congress today that BP screwed the pooch...

Oil Companies Criticized for Disaster Plans Similar to BP (NYSE: BP) : American Consumer News

CEO of Exxon Rex Tillerson stated investigators need to determine whether BP took risks outside of the normal protocol which ultimately led to the oil spill crisis. The CEOs of Exxon, CononcoPhillips, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell Plc testified after the committee released internal documents from BP which is said to show the company put cost ahead of safety in the days before the incident.

In a letter written to Tony Hayward, CEO of BP by Stupak and Democratic Representative Henry Waxman of California, it was stated that BP made five questionable decisions to cut costs and speed up the project completion before the disaster occurred. Hayward is set to appear June 17 before a subcommittee which will be his first testimony since the oil well explosion.

Congressmen Criticize BP and other Oil Execs

The CEOs of ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell — as well as BPAmerica — sat shoulder to shoulder at the witness table in front of the committee. The first four executives sought to distance themselves from BP, telling lawmakers they would have drilled the Deepwater Horizon well differently. They implied that some of BP's design decisions and cost-cutting may have jeopardized well integrity.

Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, testified that accidents like the one BP experienced "should not happen" if companies follow proper well design, drilling, maintenance and training procedures.

Poten & Partners

Some executives sought to distance themselves from BP.
ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson told the committee that the Gulf spill would not have occurred if BP had properly designed its deepwater well.
"We do not proceed with operations if we cannot do so safely," said Tillerson.

Originally Posted by Muadib

Originally Posted by panama hat

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

It's all coming out...

Still waiting for this evidence you speak of

How about hearing it from the heads of 4 major oil companies, who testified before Congress today that BP screwed the pooch...

Oil Companies Criticized for Disaster Plans Similar to BP (NYSE: BP) : American Consumer News

CEO of Exxon Rex Tillerson stated investigators need to determine whether BP took risks outside of the normal protocol which ultimately led to the oil spill crisis. The CEOs of Exxon, CononcoPhillips, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell Plc testified after the committee released internal documents from BP which is said to show the company put cost ahead of safety in the days before the incident.

In a letter written to Tony Hayward, CEO of BP by Stupak and Democratic Representative Henry Waxman of California, it was stated that BP made five questionable decisions to cut costs and speed up the project completion before the disaster occurred. Hayward is set to appear June 17 before a subcommittee which will be his first testimony since the oil well explosion.

Congressmen Criticize BP and other Oil Execs

The CEOs of ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell — as well as BPAmerica — sat shoulder to shoulder at the witness table in front of the committee. The first four executives sought to distance themselves from BP, telling lawmakers they would have drilled the Deepwater Horizon well differently. They implied that some of BP's design decisions and cost-cutting may have jeopardized well integrity.

Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, testified that accidents like the one BP experienced "should not happen" if companies follow proper well design, drilling, maintenance and training procedures.

Poten & Partners

Some executives sought to distance themselves from BP.
ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson told the committee that the Gulf spill would not have occurred if BP had properly designed its deepwater well.
"We do not proceed with operations if we cannot do so safely," said Tillerson.

No but we let drunk Captains onboard tankers command vessels that go aground and pollute the environment...

Originally Posted by Muadib

How about hearing it from the heads of 4 major oil companies, who testified before Congress today that BP screwed the pooch...

Ok, let's see the proof . . .

Originally Posted by Muadib

CEO of Exxon Rex Tillerson stated investigators need to determine whether BP took risks outside of the normal protocol

Ah,not here . . .

Originally Posted by Muadib

The first four executives sought to distance themselves from BP, telling lawmakers they would have drilled the Deepwater Horizon well differently. They implied that some of BP's design decisions and cost-cutting may have jeopardized well integrity.

So, some decisions 'may have' jeopardised well integrity

Originally Posted by Muadib

ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson told the committee that the Gulf spill would not have occurred if BP had properly designed its deepwater well.
"We do not proceed with operations if we cannot do so safely," said Tillerson.

Nope, nothing there either . . .


So, you have the competition coming out and using innuendo to blast BP.

I have no dog in this fight, but no fault has been determined yet, no conclusive proof has been tabled . . . merely 'someone said', 'someone overheard', 'may have done something wrong' . . . Trial lawyers against BP making statements that are inflammatory but contain no proof.

Don't you think it may be prudent to wait for the evidence to come to light before making claims that BP is guilty of negligence or worse?

^ Ok PH, here is the most definitive "evidence" you are likely to read until the findings of the Congressional Committee are released... You'll have to wait a few years until verdicts from criminal & civil lawsuits are decided...

I will not post the WSJ article in it's entirety as it's too long... Here is a key snippet where attention is being focused...

While these 5 issues may be up for debate, the bottom line is that BP felt the risk vs reward ratio was in their favor....

BP Crew Focused on Costs: Congress - WSJ.com

The lawmakers' letter cited "five crucial decisions" BP made in designing and completing the well, which may have led to vulnerabilities in the well's design.

"The common feature of these five decisions is that they posed a trade-off between cost and well safety," the letter says.

Congressional investigators zeroed in on decisions by BP taken when drilling had ended, but work on temporarily shutting the well was still under way.

The most critical decision involved choosing the final piece of pipe for the well.
BP opted for a "long string"—a pipe that runs all the way from the floor of the sea to the bottom of the well.

In an internal BP email from March 30, a BP drilling engineer in Houston told colleagues that this option "saves a good deal of time/money."

But it also created a direct pathway for gas and oil to rise up the backside of the well, a point recognized by a BP internal review from a few days before the well blowout released by the congressional panel.

The other option—a so-called liner tieback—would have taken several days longer and cost more, but would have made the well more secure by adding new barriers to prevent gas from flowing unchecked toward the surface, according to the BP review. The fact that BP chose the cheaper option was first reported by the Journal.

Using a liner would have cost an additional $7 million to $10 million, according to a BP estimate.

While the liner option was costlier, internal BP documents suggest it was the safer choice. "Primary cement job has slightly higher chance" of setting correctly with a liner, notes a BP document from mid-April.

After BP chose the long string, it made other time-saving choices that made the well more dangerous, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Stupak claim in their letter.

Mr. Waxman also highlighted BP's decision not to take 12 hours to completely circulate the heavy drilling fluid in the well, a step that would have allowed them to check if gas was leaking into the well and clean it out.

BP also skipped a test to determine if the cement had properly bonded to the well and rock formations, according to documents from oilfield service firm Schlumberger Ltd., whose crew was sent back to shore hours before the explosion.

While the test would have allowed BP to check if the cement job was adequate and allowed for repairs, it would have taken nine to 12 hours just for the test.

A petroleum engineer advising the congressional committee called the decision not to run a cement bond test "horribly negligent."

BP Crew Focused on Costs: Congress - WSJ.com

Regardless of who's at fault, take a look at this projection- Louisiana just can't get a break (not to mention her neighbors):