BP

General off-topic debates and discussions forum.
Post Reply
cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

BP

Post by cookie » April 22, 2011, 9:51 am

Bob, where did I say that? Please quote me?
here we go again trying to put words in my mouth?
I said that I seem to remember that BP said loud and clear in the past:
we will take " FULL RESPONSIBILITY" ....

and as we like to keep it balanced:
here you have the answer from the BOP manufacturer:
BOP manufacturer says device did not cause Deepwater Horizon disaster
http://www.louisianarecord.com/news/234 ... n-disaster
In March, the Joint Investigative Team (JIT) charged with forensic testing of the BOP issued a report stating that the BOP failed to cut off the flow of oil because a bent drill pipe prevented the sheers in the device to make a clean cut.

During the loss of well control, blind sheer rams (BSRs) designed to cut the drill pipe in the event of a blowout were unsuccessful because the "drill pipe elastically buckled within the wellbore," the report states.


In any case, this will balance the rhetoric.

PS Jack,
Given that there are limited companies in the world that provide the services and equipment that come from Transocean and Cameron, it is no surprise that BP is still dealing with them.
BP could easily order BOP´s from GE or NOV,
but they continue to work with Cameron ????
This is a surprise for me. (but on the other hand not ;) ;) such a big surprise...)



User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

BP

Post by BobHelm » April 22, 2011, 10:00 am

OK what ARE you saying about it then cookie ???

You are implying that BP are ducking their responsibility because you specifically mention it after I mentioned that BP were suing some of the other companies involved. In fact you wrote this...
cookie wrote:but, but,...
I thought BP took "full responsibi­lity.."
or was this only a publicity stunt ;) ;) ;)


Was that not as a result of my post, or did it just randomly pop into your head to post it??
If it does NOT mean that BP should NOT be suing anyone & take full responsibility itself then just what does it mean...Or did it not actually mean anything??

I talked about an INDEPENDENT commission's report findings. Not one of the guilty offering a line of defence in a paper!!
if you still cannot see the difference in that then no wonder you have problems following arguments.

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

BP

Post by cookie » April 22, 2011, 10:14 am

BobHelm wrote:
I talked about an INDEPENDENT commission's report findings. Not one of the guilty offering a line of defence in a paper!!
it seems that Bob needs some more help:
Who makes up the Joint Investigation Team?

Department of the Interior Secretary Mr. Ken Salazar and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Ms. Janet Napolitano formally directed the U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEM) to conduct a joint investigation in accordance with a pre-existing Memorandum of Agreement. The Joint Investigation Team is comprised of both BOEM and USCG personnel exercising both agencies’ authorities and is guided by the Joint Statement of Principles and Convening Order. Members on the Joint Investigation Team include:

1. Capt. Hung Nguyen, USCG - co-chair

2. Mr. David Dykes, BOEM - co-chair

3. Mr. Ross Wheatley, USCG

4. Mr. Jason Mathews, BOEM

5. Mr. John McCarroll, BOEM

6. Capt. Mark Higgins, USCG

7. Wayne Andersen - U.S. District Judge (Ret.)

8. Lt. Robert Butts, USCG - recorder
http://www.deepwaterinvestigation.com/g ... /1025771/#

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

BP

Post by BobHelm » April 22, 2011, 10:24 am

Can you answer my first question first cookie...

What WAS your original post on April 21, 2011, 4:08 pm about??

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

BP

Post by cookie » April 22, 2011, 10:34 am

my answer was:
but, but,...
I thought BP took "full responsibi­lity.."
or was this only a publicity stunt
please note: ;) ;) ;)
and now on to your next statement:
I talked about an INDEPENDENT commission's report findings. Not one of the guilty offering a line of defence in a paper!!
if you still cannot see the difference in that then no wonder you have problems following arguments
where did that come from?
finding again some wild arguments?
But I hope that the link I provided you with cleared this one ;)

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

BP

Post by cookie » April 22, 2011, 11:42 am

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/ ... alliburton
"These suits are intended to spread liability, but they're also part of a larger public relations effort for BP," he said. "BP wants to remind the world they weren't the only corporation that was a key player in this cascade of bad events that led to a remarkably bad outcome."
"I don't think these suits change the economy of who pays for the damages," he said. "BP, in our opinion, is the primary target defendant."
Service providers' contracts with operators usually provide indemnities against any environmental damage that may result from their work. This could limit BP's opportunities to recoup cash from Transocean or Halliburton.
Since the outset of the disaster, BP has sought to blame its contractors, namely Transocean. The presidential investigation into the report did criticize these companies, but directed most of its criticism at BP.
and the saga goes on .... :(

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

BP

Post by BobHelm » April 22, 2011, 12:34 pm

Cookie, I will go slowly as you obviously struggle on logical progression...
In answering anybody's posts one can only look at what is actually said & then draw logical assumptions from them.
I will fully explain my though processes in my reply to you. If I have made an assumption that was not true then maybe you can clearly explain what you actually meant...

On 21st. April I made a post concerning a story that BP was suing its' partners in the Deepwater Horizon affair.
No one had made a post prior to that for 5 days.
On the same day you made this post.
but, but,...
I thought BP took "full responsibi­lity.."
or was this only a publicity stunt ;) ;) ;)
I assumed this was in reply to my post.
Indeed I still think that is the case.

Your reference to 'full responsibility' in regard to suing the other companies to me suggests that you think that BP are abdicating that responsibility by that action.
I still cannot see any other meaning.
If you did not mean that then what did you actually mean??

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

BP

Post by cookie » April 22, 2011, 3:49 pm

I meant that I seemed to remember that BP said that they will take full resposibility

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

BP

Post by BobHelm » April 22, 2011, 4:11 pm

cookie wrote:I meant that I seemed to remember that BP said that they will take full resposibility
So that (them taking 'full responsibility') precludes them, in your eyes, of suing other companies??

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

BP

Post by cookie » April 22, 2011, 4:17 pm

and again,
bob put on your glasses and stop putting words in my mouth.
This is not the first time that you are trying to do this.
where did i say that they are precluded of suing other companies??????

I repeat now for the third time:
I said that I remembered them saying that they would take "full responsibility"
seems simple and clear to me: " full responsibility"
and I have nothing else to add to this; I hope this is now clear for you



and BP again showing its responsibility =D> =D> =D> =D> :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... 51842.html

BP Spent $2 Million Lobbying On Offshore Drilling, Spill Liability, Other Regulations In First Quarter Of 2011
In addition to the drilling moratorium and coastal restoration contributions, BP lobbied heavily regarding implementation of the presidential oil spill commission's recommendations, which included stricter oversight of offshore drilling
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

BP also lobbied Congress on the Put the Gulf Back to Work Act, the legislation passed last week by the House Natural Resources Committee under the leadership of chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) which speeds up the approval process for new drilling permits. That bill prompted Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to accuse House Republicans of having "amnesia" about the oil spill.
it was revealed that BP broke its self-imposed moratorium on political donations in the wake of the spill
back to the same good old business indeed =D> =D> =D>
showing how responsible they are =D> =D> =D>
no lessons to be learned indeed :roll: :roll:

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

BP

Post by BobHelm » April 22, 2011, 4:49 pm

No it is NOT enough cookie...
You have, again, accused me of putting words in your mouth. A charge I deny.
I asked you a question - to clarify what you wrote.
If you did not mean the interpretation that I put on it then what did you ACTUALLY mean??
BobHelm wrote:
cookie wrote:I meant that I seemed to remember that BP said that they will take full resposibility
So that (them taking 'full responsibility') precludes them, in your eyes, of suing other companies??
The above is a question (that is what the ? at the end means).
I am still struggling to see what interpretation other than the one I have suggested it could possibly be...

It is no good saying that 'Full Responsibility' means 'Full Responsibility' that is not an answer at all...

User avatar
arjay
udonmap.com
Posts: 8349
Joined: October 2, 2005, 12:19 pm
Location: Gone to get a life, "troll free"

BP

Post by arjay » April 22, 2011, 9:00 pm

Bob, I think you will find that Cookie has a pre-occupation with trying to cloud issues, usually aided by multiple quotes often irrelevant to the point under discussion.

I've just read the article from the Huffington Post, which he posted a link to. It has nothing whatsoever to the current point under discussion.

For the record I interpreted things as you had:

1. You posted that BP is suing its partners involved in the rig explosion.

2. Cookie made a post saying that he thought they had taken FULL responsibility, which to me inferred that by suing their partners they were not taking full responsibility.

3. You and I have both subsequently pointed out that taking full responsibility did not preclude them from suing those who they felt had contributed towards causing the incident.

4. Cookie then proceeded to accuse me of spin and you of misquoting him, and proceeded to cloud the issue with multiple irrelevant quotes. So that's about par for the course really then. ;)

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

BP

Post by BobHelm » April 23, 2011, 9:13 am

Thanks RJ, good summary of how I saw it go as well.

Now back to the adult discussion about the events...

The US Coastguard have now released a report on the disaster. (More still to come).
No prizes for Transocean from this dossier.
In a report on the incident, which killed 11 and caused a massive spill, the agency criticised the practices and training of rig owner Transocean.
It said equipment was poorly maintained and alarms and automatic shutdown systems did not work properly.
"Deepwater Horizon and its owner, Transocean, had serious safety management system failures and a poor safety culture," the report said.
"Collectively, this record raises serious questions whether Transocean's safety culture was a factor that contributed to the disaster."
The Coast Guard also cited lax oversight by the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the nation in the Pacific where Transocean had registered the rig.
This is only part of their investigation though & more reports are still to be issued.
The report -- released on the one-year anniversary of the rig's sinking -- is just the first volume in the Coast Guard's investigation and does not touch upon the failures that led to the blowout or the effectiveness of the spill response.

User avatar
arjay
udonmap.com
Posts: 8349
Joined: October 2, 2005, 12:19 pm
Location: Gone to get a life, "troll free"

BP

Post by arjay » April 24, 2011, 2:52 pm

Bob, this article appears to cover the US Coastguard Report you referred to in your above post:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... aster.html
US Coast Guard report supports BP legal action on Gulf of Mexico disaster
BP's $40bn (£24bn) legal battle with Deepwater Horizon contractor Transocean has received a significant boost after the US Coast Guard found the rig owner "contributed" to last year's fatal explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.

By James Quinn 7:46PM BST 23 Apr 2011

In a long-awaited report into the accident – which took place on April 20 last year – the US Coast Guard blamed Transocean for its "serious safety management system failures" and its "poor safety culture".

The report, following a major investigation, said: "Collectively, this record raises serious questions whether Transocean's safety culture was a factor that contributed to the disaster."

The 288-page report will aid BP which last week issued legal proceedings against Transocean claiming it caused the drilling rig to be "unseaworthy".


On the first anniversary of the explosion, BP said safety systems on the rig had failed. It also launched legal proceedings against Halliburton, which cemented the blown-out well, and Cameron International, which made the blow-out preventer. All three companies are expected to strongly defend the claims.

BP's move is an attempt to offset the damages it has incurred as a result of the disaster, in which 11 men died. BP set up a $20bn (£12.1bn) compensation fund following pressure from the US government. Around 4.9m barrels of oil flowed out of the sub-surface well into the Gulf of Mexico, damaging the area's coastline and curbing its fishing and tourism industry last summer.

The Coast Guard report, the result of a series of hearings in the past 12 months, found that the actions of Transocean and the crew on the rig effectively hindered the chances of preventing the disaster in the first place.

The report details the findings of an inspection audit from last year which found that some of the equipment on the rig was "seriously corroded".

It also found that audible alarms on some of the gas detectors on the rig had been altered to avoid disturbing crew's sleep with false alarms and that the crew had become complacent over routine fire drills. The damning document also contains findings which show that gas detectors on the oil rig were not set up to shut down the flow from the well in an emergency. The Coast Guard found evidence that suggested the explosion happened when electrical equipment on the rig ignited a cloud of flammable gas that rose from the Macondo well.


Transocean dismissed the report's conclusions, saying: "We strongly disagree with, and documentary evidence in the Coast Guard's possession refutes, key findings in this report."

It said that a Coast Guard inspection on the Deepwater Horizon rig seven months before the explosion found it to be compliant with safety

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

BP

Post by cookie » April 24, 2011, 5:31 pm

BobHelm wrote:No it is NOT enough cookie...
You have, again, accused me of putting words in your mouth. A charge I deny.
I asked you a question - to clarify what you wrote.
If you did not mean the interpretation that I put on it then what did you ACTUALLY mean??
BobHelm wrote:
cookie wrote:I meant that I seemed to remember that BP said that they will take full resposibility
So that (them taking 'full responsibility') precludes them, in your eyes, of suing other companies??
The above is a question (that is what the ? at the end means).
I am still struggling to see what interpretation other than the one I have suggested it could possibly be...

It is no good saying that 'Full Responsibility' means 'Full Responsibility' that is not an answer at all...
repeat:
did I wrote something more than:
"BP said they would take full responsibility" ???????
two possible answers;: yes or no.....
you again ( and as a moderator you should know better) assume:......
did I somehow exclude any companies trying to avoid their liabilities? NO, of course not.
I repeat again as I also said in the past several times that there are several companies responsible for this incredible disaster.
I just said what I wrote: BP said they would take full responsibility,
and that is it, nothing to assume, nothing to presume, nothing to change,...
BP said they would take full responsibility, nothing more to add.


now back to BP and it´s PR games:


Deepwater Horizon and the Gulf oil spill - the key questions answered
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... s-answered
"The BP report is a self-serving attempt to conceal the critical factor that set the stage for the Macondo incident: BP's fatally flawed well design."
the independent Deepwater Horizon study group final report, published in March this year, suggests that the real root of the problem was BP's own laissez-faire approach to safety.
According to the Deepwater Horizon final report: "This disaster was preventable if existing progressive guidelines and practices been followed", but BP "did not possess a functional safety culture."

The report, which was independently compiled by an international group of 64 experienced professionals, experts and scholars, gave a damning analysis of BP's failings. It said that "as a result of a cascade of deeply flawed failure and signal analysis, decision-making, communication, and organisational - managerial processes, safety was compromised to the point that the blowout occurred with catastrophic effects."

There were also reports that BP knew about a fault in the blowout preventer – the piece of equipment that ultimately failed, triggering an explosion – but did nothing to fix it. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
( if this is true, then I hope that this sounds criminal to me :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: )

In addition, BP's contingency plan for dealing with a catastrophic oil spill contained many errors and miscalculations, according to an analysis by the Associated Press. The mistakes included listing animals not found in the Gulf region (including seals and walruses) as potential victims of an oil spill, and the recommendation of a long-deceased scientist as an expert on wildlife contamination.
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
who would have thought that??????

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

BP

Post by BobHelm » April 24, 2011, 5:47 pm

Then what was the point of you writing
but, but,...
I thought BP took "full responsibi­lity.."
or was this only a publicity stunt ;) ;) ;)
After I wrote about BP suing other companies??

Or are you now saying that it didn't actually have a point at all???

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

BP

Post by cookie » April 25, 2011, 10:39 am

BobHelm wrote:Then what was the point of you writing
but, but,...
I thought BP took "full responsibi­lity.."
or was this only a publicity stunt ;) ;) ;)
After I wrote about BP suing other companies??

Or are you now saying that it didn't actually have a point at all???
again,
this really starts boring:
I just stated what BP said in the past,
but you are assuming, ....putting words in my mouth. (not the first time by the way!!!!)

Secondly,
why do you make these remarks???
Now back to the adult discussion about the events...
are you trolling here?
fishing for some reactions
rather childish isn´t it
especially for a moderator...... :roll: :roll:
These remarks have nothing to do with the discussion and are purely meant to fish for a reaction or insult.

of course I could react to this with equal remarks like:
you have to be a naive child to applaud a company that tries to stop an oil spill by pumping GOLF BALLS in the well.

But of course we will stay adult and we won´t try to follow these childish games.

In any case I hope again that this is the end of it and that we finally can STAY ON TOPIC. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

BP

Post by BobHelm » April 25, 2011, 12:02 pm

I agree it is getting childish cookie..but not from me...
You seem incapable of seeing the difference between people putting words in your mouth & drawing conclusions.

You still have not answered my question as to what you meant by your
cookie wrote:I meant that I seemed to remember that BP said that they will take full resposibility
remark.
You say it is not the only conclusion that I can draw from it - but refuse to explain what it is.
If I ask you a question quoted EXACTLY what you have written then you accuse me of 'putting words in your mouth'.
Just answer the question cookie & then maybe we can all move on....

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

BP

Post by cookie » April 27, 2011, 3:54 pm

BP profit growth seen weak after disposals
Reuters

By Tom Bergin – Tue Apr 26, 7:09 pm ET

LONDON (Reuters) – BP Plc (BP.L) is expected to post the weakest rise in first-quarter profits among big oil companies on Wednesday, after it was forced to sell assets to pay for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

A Reuters poll of nine analysts gave an average forecast of $5.70 billion for the company's replacement cost (RC) net income, excluding one-off items, a 1 percent rise on the same period last year.

This compares with a predicted 22 percent rise in profits calculated on the same basis at Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSa.L) and a 59 percent rise in net income Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N)

RC net income excludes unrealized gains or losses related to changes in the value of oil inventories and so is comparable to net income under U.S. accounting rules.

The meager rise in profits comes despite a 38 percent rise in Brent crude in the quarter compared with the same period last year, due to strong global demand and political upheaval in the Middle East, and a tripling in global refining margins.

BP's production is predicted to have fallen around 12 percent after it sold oil fields to raise money to pay for the spill, which it said in February was likely to cost $40.9 billion to clean up and meet compensation payments and fines.

Investors are hoping the quarter will mark the end of a constant ratcheting up in the estimated cost of the spill.

They will also be watching out for any updates in BP's spat with its Russian partners in TNK-BP (TNBP.MM), which was sparked by a planned share swap and Arctic exploration deal with Russia's Rosneft (ROSN.MM).

BP may also give updates on the planned sales of assets including the Texas City and Carson refineries in the United States.

As the first big oil company to report, BP will also be watched closely as an indicator of performance across the sector. ConocoPhillips (COP.N) reports first-quarter earnings later on Wednesday, followed by Shell and Exxon a day after.

BP last week filed lawsuits against the contractors it employed to help it drill the doomed Macondo well and managers may face questions about this on an analyst call.

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

BP

Post by cookie » May 5, 2011, 11:04 am

BP agrees to $25M penalty for 2006 Alaska spills
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wire ... aska-fine/
BP Alaska deal seen pointing to big Gulf fine
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/ ... 6X20110504
BP's subsidiary in Alaska will pay a $25 million civil penalty under a settlement announced Tuesday that comes five years after more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from company pipelines on the North Slope.
25 million,
Isn´t that about a day and a half's worth of profit?
what a joke???? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Post Reply

Return to “General Debates & Discussions”