The vilification of BP (by Obama) due to oil well leak

[Happy2]

I'm sure President Obama won't be too harsh on BP, despite his public rhetoric, after all a big chunk of the company is US owned. BP is less of a 'British' company these days. After mergers, takeovers and acquisitions less than half the company is British owned; probably more so now. I expect more canny Americans will be buying up bargain BP shares.

[davecryan]

Texpat

Get your facts right, before you throw ----.
39% of BRITISH Petroleum stock is held by AMERICAN investors...you are one sadly misinformed tnuc.

[Happy2]

To bring some lightheartedness to this discussion; I just received this 'phishing' email:

This is to inform the general public that our Company(British Petroleum Company)is currently conducting its annual recruitement package.
All interested person should send their CV/Resume to our Human Resources Department via email.
Email: andersondesk2010@live.com

Please note that all CV/Resume should only be sent to the above email
only(andersondesk2010@live.com) only,if not sent to the above email,it will not be screned by our Recruit team.So please take note

Screening and selection of qualified candidate for our interview will be done base on good qualification.

All positions are presently vacant,because we just opened a new head office at East London,so send a complete and Update CV.

Regards,
BP HR Officer

I don't think I'll be applying

[thewatchman]

Times Online
Today

"BP’s oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico may be up to four times the scale estimated by a government scientific panel, pumping out 100,000 barrels a day in what equates to the company’s “worst case scenario” and prompting new accusations that executives are stonewalling the truth."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 146713.ece

Not surprising in the least.

Texpat you really are just a Troll, now back under your rock i tell you [-o< [-o<

[Happy2]

...and a similar percentage of Americans are on the BP board.

[arjay]

It's probably all part of a conspiracy to drive the price of the company down, so that a US oil company can take it over at a knock down price, or maybe Obama plans to buy the company or the shares for his pension plan!!

The shares finished yesterday at 391, after dropping as low as 380p.

[silmaj]

This is certainly a subject that has raised the temperature on the issue of responsibility.
The truth of the matter probably lies in the simple fact that the risk and liability is shared. The Ameriacn Government decided to allow oil exploration and you have to assume that they researched the risks prior to that decision but I suspect that political expediancy was more important than prudent assessment of risk.
The pressure to give the homeland, security of oil supply is considerable and a quick hit for the President early in his term would be very attractive.
The exploration companies and the many sub- contractors have a duty to prove competency and the quality of the supply chain to address the very high risk of working at this depth one of the last frontiers of exploration still to be truly understood.
The confirmation of those levels of competence lies with the American Government and its agencies and by their own admission they lacked in this area.
The political grandstanding of the President has been anything but helpful and remarks at times by the BP C.E.O. have been less than well thought out and have indicated that the mouth is switched on but the brain has never been consulted.
The incident is serious and challenging and the fullest co-operation of ALL parties is and will be the only way to a resoulution.
The frustration of the American administration is evident for once they do not have the knowledgle and expertise to hand to deal with the problem and shock and awe are not the answer this time.
The fixation in the states with compensation even before investigation is the tripping wire that prevents any form of goodwill in addressing the matter.
The President should concentrate on resolution not conflict and his political integrity would be much enhanced if he acted like the Statesman he truly wants to be.
America is a country that demonstrated to the world that it could push the frontiers of exploration and science and this was not done by always looking for a scapegoat when things went wrong, stand up and be counted and put things right with all other parties.

[Texpat]

When the Exxon Valdez ran aground and discharged it's oil on the banks of Alaska's shores, the outrage was similarly real. This British Petroleum bungle is several times more disastrous than the Valdez accident.
The truth about how much oil is pouring into the Gulf of Mexico is immaterial to British Petroleum. They are concerned only about money.
The outrage is real. The tremendous environmental catastrophe and loss of a dozen lives is very real.
It's clear that British Petroleum was fighting well above its weight without fear or concern for the consequences. They've been rightfully battered and beaten and can't answer the bell.

Disgraceful.

[nkstan]

Silmaj,I think you summed it up brilliantly,very objective,not reactionary or showing obvious bias.The gov't ,BP and those that constructed the platform ,all have a responsibility in the liability.It is natural that each will try to limit their costs,but it doesn't change the facts and circumstances,as you pointed out! =D>

Arjay,a conspiratist????

[Texpat]

"BP is so concerned about Mr Obama's power to affect share value that it has urged David Cameron to appeal to the White House on its behalf. Downing Street, however, has refused to get involved."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... oners.html

Whaaaaaaaaa! Utterly disgraceful from Britain's largest company. If you want to dance, Tony Hayward, you have to pay the band.

[nkstan]

BP common stock has lost 50% of its value in less than 2 months!It is at the Aug 96 level which was in the middle of a continuos upward trend.Chartwise ,it resistance level will be around 20 USD,which would be a loss of 2/3's of it value.As long as there is uncertainy about the situation and the financial costs to the company,it will continue its downward trend,IMO!

[arjay]

A few observations and thoughts on the situation:

BP’s share price tumbled by 15.8 per cent to a 14-year low in New York trading last night, which is far more than is justified by this event.

BP are a financially sound company, whose assets far exceed it's share price value, and with leveraging well within their conservatively set limits.

I note 44 US Senators have signed a letter demanding that BP does not pay a dividend next month. That's wrong. That's none of their business. That should not be a political matter, it's a business decision.

Politicians lashing out is wrong, a comment from CNBC commentators.

Presidents lashing out is even more wrong in my book.

"And why is Obama so sure this is BP's fault anyway? Transocean were running the rig and Halliburton were doing the undersea work when the rupture occurred.

What happened to innocent until proved guilty?

This article from today's Times is very good. If you have time read some of the "Comments" at the end. They cover many conflicting perspectives.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 147145.ece

[arjay]

A quote from this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10281079.stm

In his latest comments, President Obama suggested that the oil company should pay unemployment benefits to thousands of oil workers laid off during a moratorium on deep-sea drilling triggered by the spill.

If the US President wishes to introduce a moratorium and review the rules on deepwater drilling, that is not an expense that BP shareholders should bear. If the rules have been set too loosely that is not BP's fault, it is that of the US administration. Another example of harrassment by Obama?!

No protests whilst Obama was getting cheap oil from his doorstep, eh.

[nkstan]

You and these articles make good arguments on behalf of BP especially,but never the less,the points should be addressed!

It seems to me that I read somewhere that BP was asked to insure the liability of construction,I'm not sure,but never the less,it seems reasonable that the owner of any establishment/business operation,bears some responsibility and liability!

Politicians ,everywhere,will try to use any negative event to side with the upset majority!It is the nature of the beast!Is it right,NO,but it is the way it is because their main concern is being elected and maintaining their positions!That is not an excuse for them on my part,just a statement of,IMO,fact!

[WBU ALUM]

A few observations and thoughts on the situation:

BP’s share price tumbled by 15.8 per cent to a 14-year low in New York trading last night, which is far more than is justified by this event.

BP are a financially sound company, whose assets far exceed it's share price value, and with leveraging well within their conservatively set limits.

I note 44 US Senators have signed a letter demanding that BP does not pay a dividend next month. That's wrong. That's none of their business. That should not be a political matter, it's a business decision.

Politicians lashing out is wrong, a comment from CNBC commentators.

Presidents lashing out is even more wrong in my book.

"And why is Obama so sure this is BP's fault anyway? Transocean were running the rig and Halliburton were doing the undersea work when the rupture occurred.

What happened to innocent until proved guilty?

This article from today's Times is very good. If you have time read some of the "Comments" at the end. They cover many conflicting perspectives.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 147145.ece

Sunlight.

[marshallb66]

There is so much misinformation and ill-informed statements by people who have no knowledge of the procedures, supervision and contracts rights that oil companies use to drill oil wells.
Also it is obvious from the many stupid statements that very few people other than experienced oil drilling personnel understand the pressures and hydraulics of a free flowing oil well and the way to control it.

Before an oil well is drilled, a comprehensive study using data from offset wells and seismic surveys are performed with a resulting document produced that is called the “Drilling Program”
This drilling program is issued to every service contractor such as the rig owner, Halliburton, Schlumberger (SLB), Geoservices, Directional drillers, Weatherford, who will perform their work expertise on the rig throughout the well.
Before any drilling is commenced, a meeting with every service company and the rig owner representative present is called both on shore in the oil company head office and then a repeat of the meeting is held on the rig just prior to the spudding of the well.
This meeting is called a pre spud meeting. Spud is oil field jargon describing the moment the drilling bit begins to make a hole on the seabed.

This well that BP has lost control of is the subject so I will refer to BP for the remainder of this post. Other companies do exactly the same drilling program system. I am working for Gazflot in Russia on an identical drilling project as I write this post and we use the same drilling program system. I have worked for more than 45 years on rigs and as shore base manager.
The BP drilling program is very, very comprehensive and each contractor is asked to attend the pre spud meeting where each phase of the well is discussed and each contractor has an opportunity to comment and make suggestions to BP if they suspect that any part of the drilling program is not satisfactory to them. In addition to the pre spud meeting, an on going requirement is that all contractors are required to actively read and comment to BP relative to their expertise from the moment the well is spudded until the well is completed.

BP has a senior drilling super visor (DS) or known years ago as a “Company Man” who is the most senior man on the rig. However, even this DS or CM cannot deviate from the drilling program without BP shore base management permission in writing.
Only the shore-based managers can overrule any procedure to be performed on the rig

Every single one of the contractors does not have the authority to deviate from the drilling program in their particular section without written permission from BP. Any procedure that the service company contractor feels is not correct, they have one option if they are confident the BP procedure is a safety risk. That is they can stop the work they are performing. This is a non-debatable rule all throughout the western world oil-drilling contractors.
However, that is all they can do. BP can continue drilling the well and perform procedures by using other contractors.
Not every contractor is permanently on the rig. They are called to the rig to do their section of work and are then flown back to shore base until they are required again.

Every contractor’s equipment and personnel must be certified and BP should require ever person’s certification to be confirmed. Again only BP is responsible for this.

The rig owner is required to certify, function test and pressure test equipment to BP requirements and with the DS present to witness the test. The blow out preventer (BOP) which should have prevented this blow out did not function correctly even though it was tested just days before the blow out.
All these tests are normally required to be performed every 14 days.
Because I am in the oil drilling business, I have many contacts and the internet sends information on emergencies very quickly between people who have worked together all over the world. Some of the information is questionable but most is absolutely correct.

Halliburton are not a major player on an oil rig. They perform cementing and mud control for drilling. This is very important work but it is carried out as supervisors reporting to the BP DS on the rig. The BP DS ultimately give directives if any procedures or equipment is changed.

The service companies may employ personnel from third world countries to save salaries so those people may have lower standards but they would not ultimately be responsible. Everything they do BP must approve and sign a document to say so every 24 hours.
So all this mudslinging at them is not warranted

Schlumberger are a world-renowned company who do very technical work by electronic tools that are lowered into the well on wire line. This procedure is called logging and can only be done once a well reached stages of the drilled depth. The information they obtain is owned by BP and BP make decisions on any revisions to the drilling program based on these logs.

At the end of the investigation,some of these service company contractors will be found to have contributed in some minor way but in the end BP will be the responsible company.

I have copied an email that was sent by some Schlumberger contractors once they got back to shore base.
There is a section that is states “SLB ordered the BP DS or company man” this is not correct. It should read, “SLB suggested to the BP DS, company man” This is because no contractor can order the oil company to do work that is not in the drilling program.
Kicking is a term used to describe the reaction at the rig surface drilling floor to mud that is filled from the surface to the bottom of the well when gas bubbles enter the well bore and begin to rise and expand. While expanding and rising up the well bore the gas pushes out more amore mud and only gas is present. The only way to stop the gas is to place heavier mud, called “Kill fluid” in the well.
Shut in the well is to operate the Blowout preventers. BOP. This equipment is essentially a series of valves that close hydraulically and can hold up to 20,000 psi pressure. In this incident the BOP failed.

Read this and understand that this will be exposed in US courts sooner or later by SLB


“This hasn't seemed to get much circulation yet, and I think it really needs to. It seems that a crew from Schlumberger, on contract to BP, high tailed it off the platform at their own expense 6 hours before the blowout because 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 visit.

"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 helicopter to take all SLB personnel back to shore. The company man says there are no more helicopters 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 helicopter flown out there at SLB’s expense and takes all SLB personnel to shore.”
6 hours later, the platform explodes."

[arjay]

A very relevant article which echoes my thoughts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10281079.stm

An extract:

Oil spill: BP shares plummet on US penalty fears.

BP shares plunged 12% at the start of London trading before recovering, on fears that President Obama will impose huge penalties on the company.

The oil company has come under increasingly sharp attack by US politicians, as congressional mid-term elections loom in November.
Dividend fears

US interior secretary Ken Salazar said that BP should compensate other oil companies that have had to lay off workers because of a moratorium on deep sea drilling announced by President Obama in response to the Gulf of Mexico spill.

Meanwhile, associate attorney general Thomas Perelli told a congressional hearing that the Justice Department was planning to take action to force BP to withhold its next dividend payment.

The drop in BP's share price is already bad news for UK pension funds, which invest heavily in the firm.

The oil company has said that it pays £1 in every £7 of dividends that pension funds receive from FTSE 100 companies.

London mayor Boris Johnson told the BBC that BP had paid a "very, very heavy price", and expressed concern that the oil spill was beginning to damage the entire image of the UK in the US.

"I do think there's something slightly worrying about the anti-British rhetoric that seems to be permeating from America," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"I do think that it starts to become a matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on the international airwaves," he added.

"I would like to see a bit of cool heads and a bit of calm reflection about how to deal with this problem rather than endlessly buck passing and name calling."

The former British ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer told the BBC that the BP issue had become "a bit of a crisis, politically".

David Cameron will have a telephone conversation with President Obama at the weekend. Sir Christopher said the BP question should be discussed.

"The government must put down a marker with the US administration that the survival and long term prosperity of BP is a vital British interest," he said.

He added that with nearly 40% of BP shares held in the US the company was "a pretty vital American interest too, fully integrated into US energy infrastructure".

[arjay]

And some broader implications highlighted in Robert Peston's blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... ricas.html

Extract:

BP's financial pain is America's pain

...... By the way, if you're a Brit saving for a pension, you're probably, indirectly, a BP owner. So as Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, implied this morning on the Today programme, you should probably be alarmed that President Obama has been knocking your company about the head.

And although there has already been considerable damage to the wealth of current and future British pensioners, the harm to the US economy may also be considerable.

Some 39% of its shares are held in the US, with some 14% by US individuals.

I'm not sure how happy they'll be that every time the US president lays into BP, they find themselves a bit poorer.

And then there's the issue of the changed perceptions of the costs of drilling in the US basin. With the financial damage from the Deepwater Horizon debacle looking so vast and uncontainable, will investors in Exxon or Chevron or Shell be happy if they develop new deep-water wells, even if the moratorium on such drilling is lifted?

Arguably the ferocious attack by the US administration on BP shows that the risks aren't worth the rewards. Which could have serious and damaging ramifications for America's indigenous energy reserves.

To put it another way, these problems at BP aren't a little local difficulty for a sizeable company. They could have macro-economic consequences.

That said, as BP itself said in an emergency statement this morning, with the oil price at $74 or so per barrel, it is generating colossal amounts of cash over and above what it needs to cover overheads and invest.

So BP has the money to deal with the financial consequences of the leak, even the White House's latest bill - which is that BP should pay the wages of oil workers thrown out of work by other companies as a result of the suspension of deep-water drilling.

Also, Moody's Investors Services, Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings downgraded their BP credit ratings last week and said they may cut the ratings again depending on the containment, litigation and clean-up costs related to the oil spill. BP is rated Aa2, AA- and AA, respectively, by the three agencies, but the market is implying a BB "junk" credit rating, which is quite ridiculous.

When is this man going to learn that he holds a position of great power & influence, and that when opening his mouth and ranting, particularly when much of it is probably for political purposes/domestic consumption, he and indeed his political colleagues can cause great damage, with very far ranging implications.

A little prudence and statesmanship would go a long way here.

[hangsaboot]

I think Texpat has an identity crisis.

and the bad news is .
BP , is one of the bigest tax payers in the UK.
and contribute , vast amounts of money into the country,s economy .

david cameron , is to contact KickArse obama , this weekend .
hope the PM , has a good prayer matt .

IMHO , this incident could have happened to any of the oil rigs ,
regardless , of the company . shell . texaco , gulf , etc .
lessons need to be learned , and a uni-lateral plan of action , set up .

p.s .. when this oil spill is finally stopped , only then will the BP ,CEO
be given the golden handshake .. and he can carry the can .

[barryp]

Greedy, glutenous, irresponsible pigs *******. They don't give a damn about any *******, any ***** jobs lost, any environmental degradation due to their irresponsible, callous, reprehensible behavior.

Shocking and disgraceful.

Fill the gaps with virtually any country and there you have it, a perfect definition of US foreign policy.

Suck on it Texpat, you pathetic, gutless, faceless keyboard warrior