BP, Halliburton and Transocean ALL to blame

Well suprise suprise, and as I predicted earlier, the full report to be released next week, also blames the Rig owner and the cementing contractor NOT just BP. Lets see what the US media do to their own now eh ???

Chaneys dicky ticker, will be in atrial flutter over this news, as this basically will allow BP to recover a bucket load of money , once their lawyers have had their cut.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/us ... 5983029562

All three can share the cost of the clean up and compensation to those affected and some new rules put in place to prevent this ever happening again

It's really nice to see some people holding their judgement until the facts are properly researched and known, as opposed to going off "half cock" before the facts are known.

I think this was a key extract from Wazza's quote above:

It said Halliburton and Transocean were also very much at fault in ignoring key warnings and failing to take the necessary precautions to avert the massive spill.

The blowout "was the product of several individual missteps and oversights by BP, Halliburton and Transocean, which government regulators lacked the authority, the necessary resources and the technical expertise to prevent," read the advance chapter.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/us ... z1AES0E1kL

BP always knew this was going to happen, but as the lead company on the joint venture they are the actioning party etc.

BP could not place blame to the 3rd parties now identified and blamed in the report until the report came out. To do so before, would have prejudiced their claims to recover costs associated with the incident.

Now that its been identified and confirmed by the government report, the lawyers will now be lining up to sue Halliburton and Transocean as well, BP will be now abole to recover costs against these 2 companies.

Well who will benefit - Watch the shares of Schlumberger, as they are the No 1 well services provider and they will jump a bit , and have a better name within the industry than the cowboys in Halliburton.

You can never prevent a blow out from happening again no matter how many rules you put in place.
It like saying you can make rules so there is no more plane crashes, just because you have rules.

Blow outs are very common in the oil industry. On average there is one occurring every week somewhere on the planet. You just don’t hear about them as the media is gagged in most countries where there is oil. Only a few western countries have media who love to sensationalize incidents because they make money out of it.

Land rigs are the worst offenders but don’t get a mention because the oil doesn’t kill a few fish and make beaches a tiny bit dirty for a relatively short period. The people who run businesses and had to shut down, need the oil to keep operating. So they can't stop it.
Just one month after the Deep water Horizon sinking, a blow out and sinking of a similar rig occurred in Venezuela. That didn’t make the news at all as CNN and other were so focussed on making money out of an incident close to their base they didn’t have space on their program to fit it in IF they even knew about it.
Chavez would not let them in any way.

A blow out just happened last week where I am in western Malaysia. I bet no one heard of that. A few guys badly burned.

The bow outs I have been involved in have always been caused by incompetent low level workers who do not follow standard well control procedures and not the company management.

That is why oil companies have performance clauses and liability and indemnity clauses in their contract. Because they know drilling contractors mostly employ un educated workers with a sprinkling of skilled supervisors.
These clauses that BP would have had are there because they know that incidents are common so they direct the liability and costs to the company who created the problem.

I have been involved with BP contracts and I can tell you that they will be nicely covered

And since the accident BP have earnt more money that they had to pay on the whole incident to date.

The oil business is a great industry and I am proud to have been in it all my working life.

a few fish and beaches a little bit dirty i think you forgot about the 11 men that died just doing there job and the family's that lost loved one's it's is just more than a few fish and dirty beaches marshallb66

The Official Report has now been released & can be downloaded on line just about anywhere.
It is a pdf file; so you need a pdf reader. There are a great many free ones available to download - Only suggest is that you don't use the Industry Standard 'Adobe' reader as it is a very large piece of software.
It is a large report (380 odd pages) but I found it surprisingly 'light' to read it, much of it being in a rather more literary style than other more formal reports I have read. That is certainly not a criticism of it as for someone like me who has zero knowledge of offshore oil exploration I found it easy to understand. Maybe those with a detailed knowledge might find it a bit lightweight & condescending but it worked for me.
For anyone who has neither the time nor interest to read the full thing most of the papers are giving their summaries.
Here is the BBC one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12163104

The report is quite critical of all the companies involved in the rig & the subsequent disaster. I think there is certainly little doubt that with a bit of effort they all could have done a great deal better & with a lot more effort the disaster possibly could have been avoided. However the report could not pin the actual disaster down to either 1 particular company or 1 particular event.
As someone who has been involved in analysing minor company disasters in the past I can say that it is always the easiest thing in the world to criticise with the benefit of hindsight. The way to see how justified those criticisms are as genuine failures, rather than the benefit of them being finished & history, is to closely examine the process & system changes that the report writers are suggesting to stop the problem reoccurring.
I understand that the committee are writing to the President & so suggestions are likely to be directed towards Government Departments rather than private companies, but, after the extent of the disaster on the citizens of part of the USA, I would have thought that any obvious changes needed would have been addressed.
Here are the BBCs' list of the reports' recommendations:

* increasing budgets and training for the federal agency that regulates offshore drilling
* increasing the liability cap for damages when companies drill offshore
* dedicating 80% of fines and penalties from the BP spill to restoration of the Gulf
* lending more weight to scientific opinions in decisions about drilling

It just seems a little 'light weight' to me.
I would have expected something that placed far more emphasis on the private companies involved in the operation needing to convince an independent body of experts that they knew what they were doing & had all the potentials for disaster well & truly covered.
According to the BBC BP said

it supported the commission's efforts to boost industry-wide safety measures.

"We are committed to working with government officials and other operators and contractors to identify and implement changes that will enhance safety practices throughout the oil and gas industry,"

All that seems rather 'business as usual' to me...

Gulf of Mexico oil spill: BP loses bid to make others pay compensation

Judge rules contractors Transocean and Halliburton are not liable for compensation but they still face fines and lawsuits

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... mpensation

Interesting report Galee.
I'm not sure what the end result will be as it still looks like all 3 parties will end up paying plenty (as they should do).

Be very careful what contracts you sign is the real warning I suppose.
I imagine that BP have a rather large 'in house' legal department who have probably failed their masters rather significantly, probably with a 'standard' contract between the parties that never considered that an accident like this could happen & who would do what if it did.
I suspect that BP would want future partners to sign rather a different agreement.
Also that future partners will be going over what they sign with a very fine tooth comb.
More money for the well deserving legal system I fear!!!

Guess who BP WON"T be using as Contractors for Future Multi Billion Dollar Projects

Schlumberger ? Mr Vark