BP trashed unfairly by Yanks?

Those who advocate buying shares of BP due to the low price may want to wait until dividend time (if payable) at least.Those that want proof of anything will have to be patient also. BP will shortly be pressured to release various recorded documentation which were made by service companies working for BP. Open hole logs/ formation tests, cased hole logs if any, drill stem tests, mudlogs, cement data recording, drilling times, etc This info would have given a good potential profile of the expected potential production, pressures, etc, thus a influence on the temporary abandonment procedure prior to the final completion program. The proof for this blowout may never be documented as the well itself may never produce a drop of oil if/when it comes back under control of man. Those who have placed the responsibility for the government agencies to provide proof of flow rate/day pressure, etc are not very understanding of the oil sector and regulatory agencies. Drilling has been going on for decades along the La. cost and the inland water ways without major pollution such as this. It is too bad that some of the more prudent lessons, practices and procedures were apparently not followed.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/05/smoking-gun-bps-deep-horizon-mess
A Smoking Gun in BP's Deep Horizon Mess

Submitted by BassMan2 on 15. May 2010 - 11:31
Thom's nationally syndicated radio show

This hasn't seemed to have gotten much circulation yet, and I think it really needs to. Seems that a crew from Schlumberger, on contract to BP, hightailed it off the platform at their own expense 6 hours before the blowout becuase BP refused their recommendation to shut down the well. This lends more credence to Thom's suggestion that corners were cut because the bigwigs were coming for a vist.

"BP contracted Schlumberger (SLB) to run the Cement Bond Log (CBL) test that was the final test on the plug that was skipped. The people testifying have been very coy about mentioning this, and you’ll see why.

SLB is an extremely highly regarded (and incredibly expensive) service company. They place a high standard on safety and train their workers to shut down unsafe operations.

SLB gets out to the Deepwater Horizon to run the CBL, and they find the well still kicking heavily, which it should not be that late in the operation. SLB orders the “company man” (BP’s man on the scene that runs the operation) to dump kill fluid down the well and shut-in the well. The company man refuses. SLB in the very next sentence asks for a helo to take all SLB personel back to shore. The company man says there are no more helo’s scheduled for the rest of the week (translation: you’re here to do a job, now do it). SLB gets on the horn to shore, calls SLB’s corporate HQ, and gets a helo flown out there at SLB’s expense and takes all SLB personel to shore.

6 hours later, the platform explodes."

More at: http://adropofrain.net/2010/05/rumor-schlumberger-exits-deep-horizon-hou..

Looks like O Bollox wants wind farms.

^^ I had thought the same on buying shares of BP to catch the bounce... Not now as it's estimated that BP shares 'may' drop another 60% from current levels... If this happens, BP (America) anyway will become insolvent from a liquidity standpoint and will become a prime candidate for a LBO...

I've seen the damning evidence, although I cannot release any info as I am bound by a non-disclosure agreement... BP is fucked, pure & simple...

^

Its like licking the ice cream with the paper on it. Non disclosure I think you should be making some money out of CNN and the other media outlets.

There has been no admission of guilt from the client who is BP. Transocean, Haliburton, Cameron, Weatherford and the Rig designers Reading and Bates Corporation are all originally US Engineering design and Oilfield Support Companies.
Some have jumped ship because their operational costs in the USA are astronomical. They know who they are. And the tax dodge makes it beneficial for them to operate in the USA minus the problems from the MMA. The American governments offshore watch dog.

I cannot be bothered to list the number of oil spills in the USA over the last forty years, however this spill is only significant in the fact that the client is a foreign based company. How may tankers around the world belonging to US Oil companies have spilled oil and polluted the seas around the world?

I am waiting on an answer guys. Do you have the balls??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

this spill is only significant in the fact that the client is a foreign based company

---

Doesn't matter to me that it's foreign owned. I just want the mess cleaned up, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

I am waiting on an answer guys. Do you have the balls??

---

The balls to do what- check Wikipedia?:rolleyes:

No the balls to admit that you have been the worlds number one serial polluters. And its only important if it affects the USA.

I have lost count of tankers going aground, sinking, spilling in the USA, you should be used to it by now, Here is an example:-

1.AMOCO CADIZ 68.7 million gallons. (Where did AMOCO come from?)1978
2.Barge Bouchard 155 collision Tampa Bay 336.000 gallons No.6 Fuel Heavy Oil
1993.
3.Barge Cibro Savannah Linden New Jersey 1990. 127.000 gallons spilt.
4.Burmah Agate collision Galveston Texas 2.6 million gallons 1979.
5.Exxon Valdex Alaska Prince William Sound 10.8 million barrels spilt 1089.
6.Jupiter: Tank Vessel explosion Bay City Michigan. 1990.
7. Megaborg 5.1 million gallons released/spilt 60 miles from Galveston Texas.

Not exactly Snow White in the USA concerning oil spills are we??? And this is only in the USA I really dont want to go worldwide.

What has Roy Rogers. Gene Autry and Hopalong Cassidy got in common??

I know the answer do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

No the balls to admit that you have been the worlds number one serial polluters. And its only important if it affects the USA.

I have lost count of tankers going aground, sinking, spilling in the USA, you should be used to it by now, Here is an example:-

1.AMOCO CADIZ 68.7 million gallons. (Where did AMOCO come from?)1978
2.Barge Bouchard 155 collision Tampa Bay 336.000 gallons No.6 Fuel Heavy Oil
1993.
3.Barge Cibro Savannah Linden New Jersey 1990. 127.000 gallons spilt.
4.Burmah Agate collision Galveston Texas 2.6 million gallons 1979.
5.Exxon Valdex Alaska Prince William Sound 10.8 million barrels spilt 1089.
6.Jupiter: Tank Vessel explosion Bay City Michigan. 1990.
7. Megaborg 5.1 million gallons released/spilt 60 miles from Galveston Texas.


Not exactly Snow White in the USA concerning oil spills are we??? And this is only in the USA I really dont want to go worldwide.

What has Roy Rogers. Gene Autry and Hopalong Cassidy got in common??

I know the answer do you?

---

If you want to use barrels as a measurement(standard oil field) then use it consistently not gallons. Since you like comparative examples compare the latest figures on flow from the BP well for the entire time frame and see how it compares to the combination of you examples. Your the one who quotes a conversation and then says you lost count of tankers running aground, etc. I think you lost the plot.

OK

Here is a question tell me me how may barrels/gallons have leaked into the Gulf of Mexico. Since this spill started.

BP only started to accurately measure the flow from the well head last week.
So anything spilt before that is heresay and conjecture. You know what they say about heresay and conjecture will it stand up in a court of law?

I don,t think so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

Not exactly Snow White in the USA concerning oil spills are we??? And this is only in the USA I really dont want to go worldwide.

---

Few major industrialized countries or oil producing nations are:

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

What percentage of the world's oil do US companies handle at some point? Do you think that might have some determining factor in the number of spills associated with them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

this spill is only significant in the fact that the client is a foreign based compan

---

Don't ridicule it like that. Its bad and not a spill. Its pumping out downthere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

How may tankers around the world belonging to US Oil companies have spilled oil and polluted the seas around the world?

---

Many

And Highlander. Why are you so defensive ?. You obviously know alot about this, so spill the beans, man

^ Because he works for BP...

Ah, :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muadib

he works for BP...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by helge

so spill the beans, man

---

But not them oily ones, you hear :)

Bottom line, BP screwed up and the evidence is clear. Just refer to their well program to see all the short-cuts taken. No matter how much they try to spin, the blame lies squarly with BP.

^ Sounds right.
Are they going to pay the bill then ?

(Lets talk in 10 years time)

^^

More conjecture!!

I would wait and see what happens when this subject gets to court. I will repeat this again "none of the companies involved in this Oil Spill have admitted any liability or negligence whatsoever"

Lawyers are queuing up to get in on the action. And as far as I am aware they must prove beyond reasonable doubt that BP were negligent, if they can prove this the full weight of US Law will come down on BP. If this is the case and is proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is not a lot BP can do about it.

Just remember Transocean, Haliburton, Cameron etc. are all in the mix, and you can be rest assured as the client BP will have some plan for litigation of their own concerning poor rig management and their negligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

If this is the case and is proved beyond reasonable doubt

---

You watch too much television. In a civil litigation 'the reasonable doubt standard' is not applied. The balance of probabilities standard applies.
Gee, that was a mighty big apology delivered by BP's CEO yesterday. I doubt they will wriggle out of their responsiblility to clean up the mess and compensate victims.

^
Damage limitation by the Chairman.
Tell the public what they want to hear and the President for that matter.

Did we not get a similar type of apology from Freddy Mac an Fanny Mae....

The US Government is powned by multi-national corporations.
I need to have a look and see how much BP, Transocean, Haliburton and Cameron for that matter have paid the Republicans and Democrats over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

^^

as far as I am aware they must prove beyond reasonable doubt that BP were negligent, if they can prove this the full weight of US Law will come down on BP. If this is the case and is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

---

It depends if it's a criminal case or a civil case- civil cases are decided against a defendant by a preponderance of evidence, not 'reasonable doubt'- this is probably going to be a civil case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FailSafe

It depends if it's a criminal case or a civil case- civil cases are decided against a defendant by a preponderance of evidence, not 'reasonable doubt'- this is probably going to be a civil case.

---

The lawyers are not going for a criminal case . . . not enough dough in it. Civil for sure from them.

I am not a lawyer, and bow to your superior knowledge concerning legal matters. So no one is going to jail!!

However the Burden of Proof in civIL cases needs to show see below:-

In layman’s terms, this burden of proof requires that the defendant BP prove that their argument is more likely to be true than false. This is also called the balance of probabilities. When a plaintiff wins a civil case, the courts will typically order the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for their damages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

OK

Here is a question tell me me how may barrels/gallons have leaked into the Gulf of Mexico. Since this spill started.

BP only started to accurately measure the flow from the well head last week.
So anything spilt before that is heresay and conjecture. You know what they say about heresay and conjecture will it stand up in a court of law?

I don,t think so

---

Hearsay and conjecture will not be used by knowledgeable people, so to ask the question could bring less than a polite answer. They will use what is referred to as a initial production/decline curve, based on measured production. The longer time frame involved and more frequent, the initial measurements are, the more accurate your proposed production/decline curve. This method is accepted by oil companies around the world as well as governments when assessing tax, production sharing etc. of individual wells and subsequently oil reservoir and/or fields. This method will stand up in court. Prior to you asking for a link, do a little research yourself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/18/tony-hayward-removed-from_n_617543.html

Well it's official. Hayward has been removed from day-to-day responsibilites for the massive clean up. He was in over his head from day one. Maybe the new guy will have some executive abilities.

isn't america the biggest polluter ever known to mankind.
so it's just a bit more of the same.
wtf.
blame game is a kiddies game.