Any idea BP (NYSE:BP) would willingly leave the Gulf of Mexico as a key production asset has been rejected by CEO Bob Dudley, who has recently stated more than once they're in it for the long haul.
In London, Dudley said this about the commitment of the company to the Gulf: “We certainly have a great set of production assets and we have opened up the lower tertiary play in the Gulf of Mexico, which is a two-decade play. That’s an important piece of exploration for BP we’re very good at. You’ll see us continue to participate in that.”
Dudley has been leading the company out of their defensive posture since the Gulf oil spill, and now that they've ended the oil from leaking into the Gulf, and cleanup is well under way, Dudley has the company focused on resuming production and profit, while reiterating the need to keep safety as their number one priority while drilling in deep water areas of the world.
Contrary to the media reports and assumptions, deepwater drilling hasn't slowed down at all, and is considered the focus for the long term in the industry as it relates to oil.
BP will continue to play a big part in that, although they have to take their safety practices to another level if they want to thrive, or even survive, as one more accident, depending on where they are in the world, would probably end their existence as a company.
Showing posts with label Gulf of Mexico. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gulf of Mexico. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Oil Spill Small Compared to Possible Shetland Scenario
Drilling near Shetland Islands in British waters could result in a bigger catastrophe than the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill if an accident were to happen, according to Chevron (NYSE:CVX), who has a license to drill in the region.
According to a worst-case scenario, about 77,000 barrels a day could be released from the well if it ruptured. That's close to 25 percent more than that which escaped from the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico.
Originally Chevron stated the worst that would happen would 35,000 barrels a day escaping into the North Sea.
Managing director of Chevron UK, Richard Cohagan, said the reason for the increased estimate is the high-pressure connected with the area.
"Deepwater Horizon has given us a new perspective on how bad things could be. When we looked at the core pressures and what seismic has shown us might be the producing interval, we calculated what the largest spill rate could be, said Cohagan.
"We actually came up with a very large spill rate in that condition of 77,000 barrels - actually more than BP's Macondo."
Oil companies have all been going over their operations after the Gulf oil spill.
According to a worst-case scenario, about 77,000 barrels a day could be released from the well if it ruptured. That's close to 25 percent more than that which escaped from the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico.
Originally Chevron stated the worst that would happen would 35,000 barrels a day escaping into the North Sea.
Managing director of Chevron UK, Richard Cohagan, said the reason for the increased estimate is the high-pressure connected with the area.
"Deepwater Horizon has given us a new perspective on how bad things could be. When we looked at the core pressures and what seismic has shown us might be the producing interval, we calculated what the largest spill rate could be, said Cohagan.
"We actually came up with a very large spill rate in that condition of 77,000 barrels - actually more than BP's Macondo."
Oil companies have all been going over their operations after the Gulf oil spill.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Are BP (NYSE:BP) Oil Report Sightings Legitimate?
With obvious agendas, a number of "unnamed" boat captains are reporting huge stretches of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, which just happen to disappear every time authorities check them out.
This could happen if there were only a few isolated instances, but when you have reports come out that the oil is continuing to rapidly disappear from the Gulf, and just about every time a few days later unofficial reports of massive stretches of oil, it sounds too much like a Hollywood movie and alleged events that are probably orchestrated stories.
There have so many exhaustive tests taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that either you have to call them liars and deceivers, or somebody else is lying. You can't have it both ways.
Some attempt to justify the alleged oil sightings by saying they think certain weather changes are causing oil to be released from the bottom of the ocean and coming to the top.
But when you have these consistently checked out and nothing is there, the other excuse is the weather caused the oil to disappear; a convenient story to say the least.
That means every time an assertion of finding oil is made all that needs to be said when it's no longer there is the weather is the factor. Ridiculous to be sure.
Fisherman have partly behind the alleged sightings, and their agenda is to garner as much insurance money as they can, even though test after test of seafood has shown absolutely no tainted fish or seafood from oil or dispersants that could harm humans.
Environmentalists and universities are looking for grant money for their beleaguered departments which have been hammered by loss of funding during the recession.
So to allege an ongoing but unconfirmed huge amount of oil floating around the Gulf of Mexico is increasingly looking like an endless number of hoaxes.
This could happen if there were only a few isolated instances, but when you have reports come out that the oil is continuing to rapidly disappear from the Gulf, and just about every time a few days later unofficial reports of massive stretches of oil, it sounds too much like a Hollywood movie and alleged events that are probably orchestrated stories.
There have so many exhaustive tests taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that either you have to call them liars and deceivers, or somebody else is lying. You can't have it both ways.
Some attempt to justify the alleged oil sightings by saying they think certain weather changes are causing oil to be released from the bottom of the ocean and coming to the top.
But when you have these consistently checked out and nothing is there, the other excuse is the weather caused the oil to disappear; a convenient story to say the least.
That means every time an assertion of finding oil is made all that needs to be said when it's no longer there is the weather is the factor. Ridiculous to be sure.
Fisherman have partly behind the alleged sightings, and their agenda is to garner as much insurance money as they can, even though test after test of seafood has shown absolutely no tainted fish or seafood from oil or dispersants that could harm humans.
Environmentalists and universities are looking for grant money for their beleaguered departments which have been hammered by loss of funding during the recession.
So to allege an ongoing but unconfirmed huge amount of oil floating around the Gulf of Mexico is increasingly looking like an endless number of hoaxes.
Friday, October 22, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Oil Spill Didn't Harm Coral Reefs
The more testing and research being done after the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill, the hyped reports from media outlets concerning the alleged damage are being found to be false.
Not only is wildlife from the area found to have had little effect from the oil spill, but the latest news is testing of the coral reefs has also been found to have little damage as well.
This affirms the early reports that the Gulf of Mexico is somewhat of a healing machine, and can take a lot of damage and still restore itself. This is probably from the thousands of years of oil naturally seeping into the Gulf from numerous areas, which releases as much annually as the entirety of the oil from the Gulf accident.
After investigating many coral reefs, so far little if any damage has been found to have occurred.
This flies in the face of alleged reports from over-stimulated scientists that assert there is oil all over the Gulf of Mexico and on the bottom.
There may be some on the bottom, but that can easily be from the millions of gallons released naturally into the Gulf, as mentioned above. No proof that the oil on the bottom is from the BP oil spill has been offered yet.
Why this is important is non-scientific scientists and radical environmentalist and their media allies created a narrative that isn't close to being true. And they're enraged that the opportunity to advance their agendas is being crushed from the evidence that the Gulf of Mexico is a great self healer.
Drill baby, drill!
Not only is wildlife from the area found to have had little effect from the oil spill, but the latest news is testing of the coral reefs has also been found to have little damage as well.
This affirms the early reports that the Gulf of Mexico is somewhat of a healing machine, and can take a lot of damage and still restore itself. This is probably from the thousands of years of oil naturally seeping into the Gulf from numerous areas, which releases as much annually as the entirety of the oil from the Gulf accident.
After investigating many coral reefs, so far little if any damage has been found to have occurred.
This flies in the face of alleged reports from over-stimulated scientists that assert there is oil all over the Gulf of Mexico and on the bottom.
There may be some on the bottom, but that can easily be from the millions of gallons released naturally into the Gulf, as mentioned above. No proof that the oil on the bottom is from the BP oil spill has been offered yet.
Why this is important is non-scientific scientists and radical environmentalist and their media allies created a narrative that isn't close to being true. And they're enraged that the opportunity to advance their agendas is being crushed from the evidence that the Gulf of Mexico is a great self healer.
Drill baby, drill!
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Is BP's (NYSE:BP) Tying Bonuses to Safety a Good Idea?
The announcement that bonuses for one quarter at BP (NYSE:BP) will be tied to safety by CEO Bob Dudley, was an obvious media event to tie the two together in the minds of people.
What's important is whether or not it will do anything to actually improve the safety at the company.
Safety bonuses will be applied for one quarter while the company goes over an overall review to see how it wants to proceed. It's doubtful they'll keep it in place after that.
Of course he was probably under pressure from politicians to make the decision and announcement, as it makes them look good in having supposedly pressured them to focus on safety after the Gulf oil spill fiasco.
Another obvious question is why Dudley kept some people in place who probably should have been let go. Will this change their habits at all? Only time will tell.
As far as the actual reward system, it seems what should be ingrained in the culture of a company which has many risks associated with their work, isn't going to be changed by altering bonus money to it.
Any part of bonuses offered is going to be attempted to be gamed by some to reveal progress in order to obtain the bonus. So there's always that as a factor in the mix.
But safety is, or should be, a core value of BP, and as revealed in the Gulf oil spill, has more potential to destroy the company than any other factor.
Focusing on safety is a no-brainer, but using bonuses as a means to a safer company is more of a stunt that something that will change the culture of the safety-challenged company.
Because of the impact accidents like that in the Gulf had, using a stick is probably better than the carrot being offered.
What's important is whether or not it will do anything to actually improve the safety at the company.
Safety bonuses will be applied for one quarter while the company goes over an overall review to see how it wants to proceed. It's doubtful they'll keep it in place after that.
Of course he was probably under pressure from politicians to make the decision and announcement, as it makes them look good in having supposedly pressured them to focus on safety after the Gulf oil spill fiasco.
Another obvious question is why Dudley kept some people in place who probably should have been let go. Will this change their habits at all? Only time will tell.
As far as the actual reward system, it seems what should be ingrained in the culture of a company which has many risks associated with their work, isn't going to be changed by altering bonus money to it.
Any part of bonuses offered is going to be attempted to be gamed by some to reveal progress in order to obtain the bonus. So there's always that as a factor in the mix.
But safety is, or should be, a core value of BP, and as revealed in the Gulf oil spill, has more potential to destroy the company than any other factor.
Focusing on safety is a no-brainer, but using bonuses as a means to a safer company is more of a stunt that something that will change the culture of the safety-challenged company.
Because of the impact accidents like that in the Gulf had, using a stick is probably better than the carrot being offered.
Monday, October 18, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Retains Head of Gulf Unit
In an interesting decision, BP (NYSE:BP) decided to keep its head of their Gulf of Mexico unit, James Dupree, in place, after more changes in its management team since the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
An internal company email revealed that the same wasn't true of the head of BP's North American natural gas business, Kent Wells, who was one of their key people in capping the oil well.
According to the email, Wells "led the strategic move into shale and the step change in personal safety performance."
Concerning Dupree, the company said in the email that "James Dupree is confirmed regional president, Gulf of Mexico." Although it's a different title than in the past, it's essentially the same position.
An internal company email revealed that the same wasn't true of the head of BP's North American natural gas business, Kent Wells, who was one of their key people in capping the oil well.
According to the email, Wells "led the strategic move into shale and the step change in personal safety performance."
Concerning Dupree, the company said in the email that "James Dupree is confirmed regional president, Gulf of Mexico." Although it's a different title than in the past, it's essentially the same position.
Friday, October 15, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Oil Spill Didn't Hurt Birds Much Says Audubon
Experts from the National Audubon Society said after investigating marshes of Louisiana during September, they found the bird populations were doing very well after the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill.
After walking the area, only 3 birds among an approximate 10,000 counted had any oil on them. Brown pelicans were also found in abundance, with over half being born this year.
Unsurprisingly the Audubon report said it was too early to say the bird populations are safe in the area, but that's being too cautious, as from the beginning reports were the damage to birds was far less than it was thought it would be.
The usual fears about the food chain were reiterated again, even though every test so far for seafood has come back with no taint at all. Either someone is lying or the truth that the spill wasn't anywhere near as catastrophic as the media hype portrayed is what really happened.
One dirty little secret in the so-called green energy sector is windmills in just one ugly forest of them will kill more bats and birds in a year than the entirety of the BP oil spill. When will the outcry against those hideous monstrosities emerge?
As far dead birds, while over 6,100 dead ones have been collected, only 2,263 have had oil on them. That means the rest, for the most part, died of usual natural causes.
The narrative from the spill has always outraged those opponents of oil drilling, as the consequences are far less than thought, and the evidence continues to mount that the Gulf of Mexico is able to clean itself of oil better than expected.
Even the assertions by scientists with agendas that oil is still all over the Gulf and its shores is highly exaggerated and unproven. Certain parts have some of course, but many have little if any. Again, the Gulf is a far better healer of itself than many want to admit.
After walking the area, only 3 birds among an approximate 10,000 counted had any oil on them. Brown pelicans were also found in abundance, with over half being born this year.
Unsurprisingly the Audubon report said it was too early to say the bird populations are safe in the area, but that's being too cautious, as from the beginning reports were the damage to birds was far less than it was thought it would be.
The usual fears about the food chain were reiterated again, even though every test so far for seafood has come back with no taint at all. Either someone is lying or the truth that the spill wasn't anywhere near as catastrophic as the media hype portrayed is what really happened.
One dirty little secret in the so-called green energy sector is windmills in just one ugly forest of them will kill more bats and birds in a year than the entirety of the BP oil spill. When will the outcry against those hideous monstrosities emerge?
As far dead birds, while over 6,100 dead ones have been collected, only 2,263 have had oil on them. That means the rest, for the most part, died of usual natural causes.
The narrative from the spill has always outraged those opponents of oil drilling, as the consequences are far less than thought, and the evidence continues to mount that the Gulf of Mexico is able to clean itself of oil better than expected.
Even the assertions by scientists with agendas that oil is still all over the Gulf and its shores is highly exaggerated and unproven. Certain parts have some of course, but many have little if any. Again, the Gulf is a far better healer of itself than many want to admit.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP): Salazar's Lawyers Want Moratorium Lawsuit Thrown Out
After the devastating damage caused by the imposition of the oil drilling moratorium in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico after the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill, U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar has asked via his lawyers that U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman throw out the suit because it's irrelevant now that the Obama administration has lifted it.
In a court filing, Ignacia Moreno, an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s environmental division, said this: "The secretary’s termination of the suspensions under the July directive has eradicated the effects of the alleged violations by providing plaintiff with the relief it was seeking. The termination directive has mooted plaintiff’s claims."
I wonder how it has eradicated the effects of the devastation while the moratorium was in effect? It's about as ignorant a statement I've ever heard from a lawyer in my life.
That's like saying I've torn up your property over the last three months, but since I'm no longer doing it, the lawsuit your filed against me should be thrown out because it is no longer doing you any harm. Guess what? The victim still has to pay to get the property restored, and that's why the lawsuit against the administration needs to be allowed to continue by the judge.
It's arguable as to whether or not the moratorium has been lifted besides in word, as new regulations basically keep it in place, and companies probably won't start drilling again for at least a month, and probably much longer.
That's why Salazar lifted the moratorium, in an attempt to secure a little political capital going into the election season, as it would have been able to be used by several people running for office in the Gulf states against their Democrat opponents; although I'm sure they'll bring it up anyway, although some Democrats from the Gulf states did oppose the oil moratorium as well.
So we have the moratorium lifted but no drilling allowed to be performed in the Gulf at this time. That means the moratorium never had any relevancy, and the arrogance of Salazar and the Obama administration in imposing the moratorium after it was rejected by the judge, shows the bizarre length they'll go to force their will on the American people.
Hopefully the judge will allow the lawsuit to go forward so we can be reminded of what the Obama administration did, and maybe end up having to pay for their deeds.
In a court filing, Ignacia Moreno, an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s environmental division, said this: "The secretary’s termination of the suspensions under the July directive has eradicated the effects of the alleged violations by providing plaintiff with the relief it was seeking. The termination directive has mooted plaintiff’s claims."
I wonder how it has eradicated the effects of the devastation while the moratorium was in effect? It's about as ignorant a statement I've ever heard from a lawyer in my life.
That's like saying I've torn up your property over the last three months, but since I'm no longer doing it, the lawsuit your filed against me should be thrown out because it is no longer doing you any harm. Guess what? The victim still has to pay to get the property restored, and that's why the lawsuit against the administration needs to be allowed to continue by the judge.
It's arguable as to whether or not the moratorium has been lifted besides in word, as new regulations basically keep it in place, and companies probably won't start drilling again for at least a month, and probably much longer.
That's why Salazar lifted the moratorium, in an attempt to secure a little political capital going into the election season, as it would have been able to be used by several people running for office in the Gulf states against their Democrat opponents; although I'm sure they'll bring it up anyway, although some Democrats from the Gulf states did oppose the oil moratorium as well.
So we have the moratorium lifted but no drilling allowed to be performed in the Gulf at this time. That means the moratorium never had any relevancy, and the arrogance of Salazar and the Obama administration in imposing the moratorium after it was rejected by the judge, shows the bizarre length they'll go to force their will on the American people.
Hopefully the judge will allow the lawsuit to go forward so we can be reminded of what the Obama administration did, and maybe end up having to pay for their deeds.
Monday, October 11, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Spill to Look at Future Of Offshore Drilling in U.S.
On Wednesday the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill commission will meet to take a look at what the future of offshore drilling is for America.
At this time the commission in investigating various aspects of the accident leading to and the consequences of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Being a public discussion, sparks are sure to fly as the highly controversial and disastrous oil moratorium of the Obama administration has affected thousands of jobs in the Gulf region, and more through permitting standards in shallow water drilling that are increasingly costing the loss of more jobs.
The National Commission on the BP PLC Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling say they'll also talk about the rules that decide the parameters of offshore drilling in the U.S.
At this time the commission in investigating various aspects of the accident leading to and the consequences of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Being a public discussion, sparks are sure to fly as the highly controversial and disastrous oil moratorium of the Obama administration has affected thousands of jobs in the Gulf region, and more through permitting standards in shallow water drilling that are increasingly costing the loss of more jobs.
The National Commission on the BP PLC Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling say they'll also talk about the rules that decide the parameters of offshore drilling in the U.S.
Friday, October 8, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Image Improving Says Survey
A survey conducted in September found BP's (NYSE:BP) image is starting to become more positive as time goes on following the stopping of the oil well from leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.
Those participating in the survey were asked to state what their feelings were about the company.
The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 12 percent of respondents felt either "very positive" (3 percent) or "somewhat positive" (9 percent) about the company.
A large percentage (24 percent) were "neutral" toward BP when asked. That's not that bad when added together. Not that many people would think 36 percent of those on a survey aren't feeling bad toward the oil giant.
On the negative side, 20 percent said they were feeling "somewhat negative" toward the company, and 30 percent were still feeling "very negative" toward them. The other 14 percent decided not to make a choice one way or the other.
In contrast to a prior survey in June when TV and Internet viewers were able to watch the undersea cameras recording the oil spewing into the ocean, a much larger 44 percent were "very negative," and 23 percent were "somewhat negative."
So on the negative side, it has dropped from 67 percent to 50 percent for BP. Definitely good news for them and an improvement.
Those participating in the survey were asked to state what their feelings were about the company.
The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 12 percent of respondents felt either "very positive" (3 percent) or "somewhat positive" (9 percent) about the company.
A large percentage (24 percent) were "neutral" toward BP when asked. That's not that bad when added together. Not that many people would think 36 percent of those on a survey aren't feeling bad toward the oil giant.
On the negative side, 20 percent said they were feeling "somewhat negative" toward the company, and 30 percent were still feeling "very negative" toward them. The other 14 percent decided not to make a choice one way or the other.
In contrast to a prior survey in June when TV and Internet viewers were able to watch the undersea cameras recording the oil spewing into the ocean, a much larger 44 percent were "very negative," and 23 percent were "somewhat negative."
So on the negative side, it has dropped from 67 percent to 50 percent for BP. Definitely good news for them and an improvement.
BP (NYSE:BP) E-mails with Anadarko (NYSE:APC), MOEX, Could Determine Liability in Oil Spill
BP (NYSE:BP) said via offshore land negotiator Michael Beirne that e-mails between them and Macondo oil well partners Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (NYSE:APC) and MOEX 2007 LLC reveal they were receiving real-time data from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the days before the explosion which led to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
As proceedings go forward, that could be a significant part of determining financial liability for the companies.
So even while BP's costs continue to mount, eventually they could get some relief from their partners, who may have to reimburse them for billions.
The other scenario that could play out is if BP is determined to be grossly negligent in connection to the incident. In that case, their partners via the contract wouldn't be responsible for paying damages, and it could lead to many more billions in fines from the violation of the Clean Water Act.
If that isn't the case, then Anadarko and MOEX, through their majority owned Mitsui & Co (Nasdaq:MITSY), would have to pay their portion of the damages.
Mitsui and Anadarko carry almost the same market cap, so both could be hit hard from it, although Anadarko would be hit the hardest because of their 25 percent stake, as Mitsui only has a 10 percent stake in the well.
As proceedings go forward, that could be a significant part of determining financial liability for the companies.
So even while BP's costs continue to mount, eventually they could get some relief from their partners, who may have to reimburse them for billions.
The other scenario that could play out is if BP is determined to be grossly negligent in connection to the incident. In that case, their partners via the contract wouldn't be responsible for paying damages, and it could lead to many more billions in fines from the violation of the Clean Water Act.
If that isn't the case, then Anadarko and MOEX, through their majority owned Mitsui & Co (Nasdaq:MITSY), would have to pay their portion of the damages.
Mitsui and Anadarko carry almost the same market cap, so both could be hit hard from it, although Anadarko would be hit the hardest because of their 25 percent stake, as Mitsui only has a 10 percent stake in the well.
Monday, October 4, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Sells Hess (NYSE:HES) More of Tubular Bells
In an effort to cut back on capital expenditures, BP (NYSE:BP) is looking at reducing how many operatorships it holds in the Gulf of Mexico.
Although BP refused to comment on this strategy, they did confirm they sold a part of their stake in deepwater oil field Tubular Bells to existing partner Hess Corporation (NYSE:HES).
That will double the stake Hess holds in the oil field to 40 percent, with BP's stake dropping to 30 percent.
BP at this time has oil production going at over 20 deepwater offshore wells in the Gulf, the largest operator in the area, and the largest license holder.
The goal concerning capital spending for the year is to cut it by somewhere around 10 percent, as they push toward raising more capital to pay for liabilities connected to the oil spill.
So we should see BP selling more of their operatorships in the Gulf until they reach the desired levels they're comfortable with.
Concerning other assets, those held in Vietnam and Venezuela are reportedly close to receiving a formal offer from TNK-BP this week, which is a joint venture between between and a group of Russian billionaires.
Although BP refused to comment on this strategy, they did confirm they sold a part of their stake in deepwater oil field Tubular Bells to existing partner Hess Corporation (NYSE:HES).
That will double the stake Hess holds in the oil field to 40 percent, with BP's stake dropping to 30 percent.
BP at this time has oil production going at over 20 deepwater offshore wells in the Gulf, the largest operator in the area, and the largest license holder.
The goal concerning capital spending for the year is to cut it by somewhere around 10 percent, as they push toward raising more capital to pay for liabilities connected to the oil spill.
So we should see BP selling more of their operatorships in the Gulf until they reach the desired levels they're comfortable with.
Concerning other assets, those held in Vietnam and Venezuela are reportedly close to receiving a formal offer from TNK-BP this week, which is a joint venture between between and a group of Russian billionaires.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP), Transocean (NYSE:RIG), Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) Sued by Three Mexican States
Lawsuits have been filed by three Mexican states against BP (NYSE:BP), Transocean (NYSE:RIG) and Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), asserting the alleged oil plume has reached their shores.
The lawsuits were filed by Tamaulipas, Veracruz and Quintana Roo in a San Antonio court. The beaches of the three Mexican states are popular with tourists and locals.
Damages sought from the Mexican states weren't specified.
There was no comment from BP on the lawsuits. Halliburton said through spokeswoman Teresa Wong that the allegations were without merit, and Transocean said they'll let their position be known during the legal process.
The lawsuits were filed by Tamaulipas, Veracruz and Quintana Roo in a San Antonio court. The beaches of the three Mexican states are popular with tourists and locals.
Damages sought from the Mexican states weren't specified.
There was no comment from BP on the lawsuits. Halliburton said through spokeswoman Teresa Wong that the allegations were without merit, and Transocean said they'll let their position be known during the legal process.
Monday, September 27, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Approved by Venezuela to Sell Oil Assets
In an attempt to raise up to $30 billion to pay for liabilities related to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, BP (NYSE:BP) is trying to sell assets in Venezuela, and they've been given approval by the government to go ahead with the process.
The assets held in Venezuela include an interest in heavy oil and minority stakes in two exploration and production ventures with state-owned oil company PDVSA.
Combined it is estimated BP should be able to raise up to $1 billion from the assets. Although a relatively minor deal in comparison with others, it is one of the bigger challenges for the company to divest of.
The only two companies considered a buyers for the stakes are PDVSA itself, and possibly the joint venture of BP with Russia called TNK-BP. The Russian connection would make it more palatable to Venezuela.
BP holds a 50 percent stake in TNK-BP, which also has interests in Vietnam and Algerian assets held by BP.
The assets held in Venezuela include an interest in heavy oil and minority stakes in two exploration and production ventures with state-owned oil company PDVSA.
Combined it is estimated BP should be able to raise up to $1 billion from the assets. Although a relatively minor deal in comparison with others, it is one of the bigger challenges for the company to divest of.
The only two companies considered a buyers for the stakes are PDVSA itself, and possibly the joint venture of BP with Russia called TNK-BP. The Russian connection would make it more palatable to Venezuela.
BP holds a 50 percent stake in TNK-BP, which also has interests in Vietnam and Algerian assets held by BP.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Noble (NYSE:NE) CEO Says Taking Some Deepwater Rigs Out of Gulf
Citing the highly controversial decision by the Obama administration to impose a deepwater oil moratorium on the Gulf of Mexico, Noble (NYSE:NE) CEO David Williams said at Barclays Capital (NYSE:BCS) CEO Energy-Power Conference that if things don't change soon, the company will have to remove some of the seven deepwater oil rigs in the region to other areas.
With the unpredictability and volatility of the Obama administration, Williams sees moving the rigs to Nigeria or Venezuela. He said, "Right now it looks a lot like Venezuela and Nigeria to me. So we will continue to accelerate our strategy of moving rigs out. The longer this goes, the more rigs we'll get out."
Four rigs are already out of the Gulf or committed to leaving the Gulf, all of them either from Transocean (NYSE:RIG) or Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc (NYSE:DO).
The Democrats behind this will be losing a lot of seats in the House and Senate next month, and hopefully will be replaced by those more friendly to business and the American people.
With the unpredictability and volatility of the Obama administration, Williams sees moving the rigs to Nigeria or Venezuela. He said, "Right now it looks a lot like Venezuela and Nigeria to me. So we will continue to accelerate our strategy of moving rigs out. The longer this goes, the more rigs we'll get out."
Four rigs are already out of the Gulf or committed to leaving the Gulf, all of them either from Transocean (NYSE:RIG) or Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc (NYSE:DO).
The Democrats behind this will be losing a lot of seats in the House and Senate next month, and hopefully will be replaced by those more friendly to business and the American people.
ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM), Chevron (NYSE:CVX), ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP) and Shell Oil (NYSE:RDS-A) Ads Point to BP's (NYSE:BP) Failure
Although the name of BP (NYSE:BP) hasn't specifically been mentioned, competitors ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM), Chevron (NYSE:CVX), ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP) and Shell Oil (NYSE:RDS-A) have been putting ads in major newspapers, saying if wells were built and operated correctly in the first place, they wouldn't fail.
The headline of one of the ads say, “Engineer it. Build it. And make sure it is never needed.”
But in the fine print is where they make their key attack. It says, “While we don’t yet have all the facts regarding the incident in the Gulf of Mexico, we do know that such tragedies are avoidable. By starting with properly designed wells, by following established procedures and best practices, by conducting relentless inspections, tests and drills, and with frequent, thorough training of personnel, accidents like this should never happen.”
The four majors mentioned above are part of a partnership to build a rapid response system to limit the damage of an oil spill if it ever does happen again. They are together spending about $1 billion to develop it.
Other than those who had a direct stake or contractual connection to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig or Macondo oil well, this may be the first time others with no direct connection have entered into the public relations fray.
The headline of one of the ads say, “Engineer it. Build it. And make sure it is never needed.”
But in the fine print is where they make their key attack. It says, “While we don’t yet have all the facts regarding the incident in the Gulf of Mexico, we do know that such tragedies are avoidable. By starting with properly designed wells, by following established procedures and best practices, by conducting relentless inspections, tests and drills, and with frequent, thorough training of personnel, accidents like this should never happen.”
The four majors mentioned above are part of a partnership to build a rapid response system to limit the damage of an oil spill if it ever does happen again. They are together spending about $1 billion to develop it.
Other than those who had a direct stake or contractual connection to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig or Macondo oil well, this may be the first time others with no direct connection have entered into the public relations fray.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Citigroup (NYSE:C) Says Cnooc Could Pay BP (NYSE:BP) $10.2 Billion for Asset in Argentina
Citigroup (NYSE:C) said today Cnooc Ltd. could make a bid of $10.2 billion for its 60 percent for BP's (NYSE:BP) stake in Argentina’s Pan American Energy LLC. Cnooc is the largest Chinese offshore exploration company.
The bid would be a 10 percent premium over what it paid earlier in 2010 for Pan American, but that is because they would assume control of the company if they are successful in their BP bid.
If this goes through, it would be close to double the approximate $10 billion in assets already sold, and two-thirds of the way toward the $30 billion BP is attempting to raise to meet liability obligations in relationship to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Cnooc is reportedly looking for a partner in the bid, which could come from Apache Corp. (NYSE:APA), Occidental Petroleum Corp. (NYSE:OXY) or Total SA (NYSE:TOT), all of which have operations in Argentina already.
The bid would be a 10 percent premium over what it paid earlier in 2010 for Pan American, but that is because they would assume control of the company if they are successful in their BP bid.
If this goes through, it would be close to double the approximate $10 billion in assets already sold, and two-thirds of the way toward the $30 billion BP is attempting to raise to meet liability obligations in relationship to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Cnooc is reportedly looking for a partner in the bid, which could come from Apache Corp. (NYSE:APA), Occidental Petroleum Corp. (NYSE:OXY) or Total SA (NYSE:TOT), all of which have operations in Argentina already.
BP's (NYSE:BP) Outgoing CEO Tony Hayward Denies Cutting Safety Corners
Giving testimony before a British parliamentary committee, the outgoing CEO at BP (NYSE:BP) said concerning safety at UK North Sea operations that the company hasn't cut corners.
Being pressed by committee chair Tim Yeo, who reminded Hayward that he said three years ago that he was going to focus "laser-like on safety,"
and that "On your watch as chief executive, in that three years, now we've had the biggest ever oil spill in U.S. waters," Hayward responded, saying that the record of BP was "better than the industry average."
Hayward added that the oil industry will be better concerning safety as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, especially in regard to the testing of blowout preventers.
He said they will "significantly enhance the testing protocols of blowout preventers."
Concerning the calls by some for deepwater drilling to be banned, Hayward implied that was an over-response to the situation.
He added that there were failures on the part of all parties involved, including Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) and Transocean (NYSE:RIG), who owned the rig.
The British committee is gathering information in order to make a decision on whether or not to add any more regulations for drilling off the coasts of the UK.
Being pressed by committee chair Tim Yeo, who reminded Hayward that he said three years ago that he was going to focus "laser-like on safety,"
and that "On your watch as chief executive, in that three years, now we've had the biggest ever oil spill in U.S. waters," Hayward responded, saying that the record of BP was "better than the industry average."
Hayward added that the oil industry will be better concerning safety as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, especially in regard to the testing of blowout preventers.
He said they will "significantly enhance the testing protocols of blowout preventers."
Concerning the calls by some for deepwater drilling to be banned, Hayward implied that was an over-response to the situation.
He added that there were failures on the part of all parties involved, including Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) and Transocean (NYSE:RIG), who owned the rig.
The British committee is gathering information in order to make a decision on whether or not to add any more regulations for drilling off the coasts of the UK.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Report Clearly About Avoiding "Gross Negligence"
There is no doubt the biggest concern of BP (NYSE:BP) is to be found "grossly negligent" concerning the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which would add billions in fines to the company, on top of the billions already paid out, and the billions committed to in the future.
With that in mind, their report on the causes of the Deepwater Horizon accident definitely was a marketing piece, although it did deal with legitimate issues.
Any report will go through similar possibilities that BP went through, creating probabilities concerning other companies who had worked on, provided equipment for, or had a stake in the well.
The report really points to those possibilities, and in some cases, points directly to specific companies and their alleged failures.
BP did what it meant to in the report, which was to give believable testimony as to real causes, while at the same time spreading the fault around to others having a part in the oil rig and well.
Now the onus will be on future reports to refute BP's assertions, which is made harder by the majority of failures being directed to others.
It's made harder because every assertion by BP will now have to be proven false if it is to point back to them.
This is really their last shot. This report, and future investigative reports from others, will determine how BP is designated in the incident, and how liable other parties are.
It'll be difficult to place all the blame on BP from an evidence standpoint, now that they've pointed out these series of failures which led to the destruction of the oil well, loss of life, and spewing of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
In a sense, this report rests their case, and now it's in the court of the rest of the participants and investigators to disprove what their findings were.
If BP can avoid being found in "gross negligence," they'll save billions, if others are found at fault, it'll spread the costs among them as well, saving even more billions. BP had nothing to lose, and this is one thing they did right, whether people like it or not.
With that in mind, their report on the causes of the Deepwater Horizon accident definitely was a marketing piece, although it did deal with legitimate issues.
Any report will go through similar possibilities that BP went through, creating probabilities concerning other companies who had worked on, provided equipment for, or had a stake in the well.
The report really points to those possibilities, and in some cases, points directly to specific companies and their alleged failures.
BP did what it meant to in the report, which was to give believable testimony as to real causes, while at the same time spreading the fault around to others having a part in the oil rig and well.
Now the onus will be on future reports to refute BP's assertions, which is made harder by the majority of failures being directed to others.
It's made harder because every assertion by BP will now have to be proven false if it is to point back to them.
This is really their last shot. This report, and future investigative reports from others, will determine how BP is designated in the incident, and how liable other parties are.
It'll be difficult to place all the blame on BP from an evidence standpoint, now that they've pointed out these series of failures which led to the destruction of the oil well, loss of life, and spewing of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
In a sense, this report rests their case, and now it's in the court of the rest of the participants and investigators to disprove what their findings were.
If BP can avoid being found in "gross negligence," they'll save billions, if others are found at fault, it'll spread the costs among them as well, saving even more billions. BP had nothing to lose, and this is one thing they did right, whether people like it or not.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Microbes Did Eat BP (NYSE:BP) Oil Says Latest Study
Even though it had already been proven, "government scientists" have now concluded a study confirming the microbes in the Gulf of Mexico have been eating the oil without having the detrimental effect of depleting the oxygen levels in the water.
The concern there is if that was happening, with could create what are called "dead zones," where fish would perish because of lack of oxygen.
This wouldn't have even have had to been done except some Democrat senators looking for an issue, along with so-called professors, who were environmental extremists, insisted the assertion by a government agency that about 75 percent of the oil had already evaporated, dispersed or was eaten by microbes.
Two extremely unreliable and unprovable studies were thrown out to confuse the issue, saying they had discovered a gigantic oil plume in the Gulf.
For some reason these "researchers" didn't choose to reveal the presence of this giant, invisible plume until about two months later, or after the report they didn't approve of, and which didn't fit the narrative they wanted.
Data for the latest study was conducted by nine private and government research ships across 419 different locations.
The Gulf has the strong ability to cleanse itself. That's not what the environmental extremists want to here.
Corexit, the dispersant used to help break up the oil, seemed to have helped, but the alleged discovery of a new microbe which consumes the oil leaves it unclear at this time which did the most work in helping to remove the oil.
The concern there is if that was happening, with could create what are called "dead zones," where fish would perish because of lack of oxygen.
This wouldn't have even have had to been done except some Democrat senators looking for an issue, along with so-called professors, who were environmental extremists, insisted the assertion by a government agency that about 75 percent of the oil had already evaporated, dispersed or was eaten by microbes.
Two extremely unreliable and unprovable studies were thrown out to confuse the issue, saying they had discovered a gigantic oil plume in the Gulf.
For some reason these "researchers" didn't choose to reveal the presence of this giant, invisible plume until about two months later, or after the report they didn't approve of, and which didn't fit the narrative they wanted.
Data for the latest study was conducted by nine private and government research ships across 419 different locations.
The Gulf has the strong ability to cleanse itself. That's not what the environmental extremists want to here.
Corexit, the dispersant used to help break up the oil, seemed to have helped, but the alleged discovery of a new microbe which consumes the oil leaves it unclear at this time which did the most work in helping to remove the oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)