It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BP-chief-Tony-Hayward-sold-shares-weeks-before-oil-spill

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
This is starting to smell really, really fishy.


Tony Hayward cashed in about a third of his holding in the company one month before a well on the Deepwater Horizon rig burst, causing an environmental disaster.
Mr Hayward, whose pay package is £4 million a year, then paid off the mortgage on his family’s mansion in Kent, which is estimated to be valued at more than £1.2 million.

There is no suggestion that he acted improperly or had prior knowledge that the company was to face the biggest setback in its history.
His decision, however, means he avoided losing more than £423,000 when BP’s share price plunged after the oil spill began six weeks ago.
Since he disposed of 223,288 shares on March 17, the company’s share price has fallen by 30 per cent. About £40 billion has been wiped off its total value. The fall has caused pain not just for BP shareholders, but also for millions of company pension funds and small investors who have money held in tracker funds. www.telegraph.co.uk...




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Lucky sell then - I cant really see the conspiracy angle - aside from bad timing really.

It's in his right to sell a holding - but with bad timing I would think he's having a face/palm moment knowing full well what people will think of this move.

Ill be more concerned when it come to bonus time to see if he receives some sort of huge payout - then that will be the time to set the dogs on the guy. Think of the bank of scotland chief and multiply this by about 100!



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Silk
 

So obviously you believe in coincidences?
I don't.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Coincidence yes

Conspiracy or premeditation in this case no - I deny ignorance on that front.

Sorry look hard enough in stock trades and you can fine a one size fits all theory - unfortunately the real world is full of coincidences.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Silk
 
I see. If I may, I need to ask if you are employed or under contract with BP to minimize online negativity in open forums?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IcarusDeepSea
 


Disagreeing with a thread topic does not mean someone is a paid shill. It could just be a coincidence. If he really knew, why only sell a third of his shares?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
That is not an unusual situation. Execs will sell large lots of shares or cash out options as they mature many times a year in some cases. It's part of their compensation package and it doesn't do anything for them just sitting there.

I also find it amusing that he only gets paid 4million euro a year. I mean, aren't the big bad petroleum companies making record profits and screwing us all? I think that's rather reasonble as far as CEO compensation, if that is the total package.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Below is BP’s planned testimony to congress as to the real cause of the accident. Survivors confirmed this is what happened. Since I saw this, I felt it was done on purpose, possibly to push Obamas green agenda through. There are a lot of big wigs money involved in the Carbon Exchange and they were seeing it crumble in the wake of climate gate, etc. and then Obama approves drilling when he was so against it! Yea right!
This is FISHY!
This really seems like everyone should have known what was going to be the result. Why would these engineers and long time oil workers do something so ignorant? The displacement of drilling mud in the riser (pipe from well to drilling rig) with sea water caused the gas pressure to break through and blow up the rig. Normally, and this is always done, the cement to seal the well is put in with the drilling mud in the riser pipe. It then sinks down into the well and hardens forming a cement plug. Then the mud, which is heavier than water is replaced with sea water and then the rig can disconnect and move off. Why did BP request a different procedure to the MMS (federal Minerals Management Service)? They must have known this would or at least could happen and it was a very high pressure well. They had pressure problems drilling it. That is the question. I wonder if there was some conspiracy to stop drilling off shore and get the US citizens to demand Obama’s green energy plans. It was odd how he went against his stated position of no drilling just before this happened. I certainly hope that was not the case. Even if it was, I don’t think they realized what level of a disaster they were releasing. There is a cavern under the area where this well was drilled that is the size of Mt. Everest.

Taken from here:
www.theoildrum.com...

Two Oil Firms Tie Rig Blast to 'Plug'
Mr. Probert plans to testify Tuesday that Halliburton had finished an earlier step, cementing the casing, which is the area in the hole outside the pipe, and that pressure tests showed the casing had been properly constructed.
It is at that point that it is common practice to pour wet cement down into the pipe. The wet cement, which is heavier than the drilling mud, sinks down through the mud and then hardens into a plug thousands of feet down in the well.
At that point, the mud is removed and replaced by seawater, but the cement plug holds back any underground gas.
In this case, a decision was made, shortly before the explosion, to perform the remaining tasks in reverse order, the expected Halliburton testimony to the Senate indicates.
"We understand that the drilling contractor then proceeded to displace the riser with seawater prior to the planned placement of the final cement plug…," Mr. Probert says in the prepared testimony, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Lloyd Heinze, chairman of the petroleum engineering department at Texas Tech University, agrees that this is an unusual approach. "Normally, you would not evacuate the riser until you were done with the last plug at the seafloor," he said in an interview.
A worker who was on the drilling rig said in an interview that Halliburton was getting ready to set a final cement plug at 8,000 feet below the rig when workers received other instructions. "Usually we set the cement plug at that point and let it set for six hours, then displace the well," said the worker.
According to this worker, BP requested permission from the federal Minerals Management Service to displace, or remove, the mud before the final plugging operation had begun. The mud in the well weighed 14.3 pounds per gallon; it was replaced by seawater that weighed nearly 50% less. BP didn't respond to request for comment on this account, nor did the MMS.








[edit on 5/6/10 by spirit_horse]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IcarusDeepSea
reply to post by Silk
 
I see. If I may, I need to ask if you are employed or under contract with BP to minimize online negativity in open forums?



Coming from someone who only registered here last month I find that comment offensive. Perhaps you are employed by Greenpeace to find forums and agitate sentiment against BP.

Your track record unlike mine does not give you the best light on this issue.

If you have them then perhaps you will have the guts to call into ATS live this evening ? ill be happy to debate with you.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by spirit_horse
 
Excellent information!. Thanks for sharing that. It is indeed a fishy, smelly development.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Would hate to see this thread sink


So will add that I

do not

believe in such 'coincidences'

either



In fact, I don't think I know anyone who would accept it as 'coincidence'


no matter HOW desperately it's 'sold' as such, online or elsewhere



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
If you read your own article you would see the most likely reason for him selling the shares, paying off a mortgage.

He sold 1.4 million in shares, then turned around and paid 1.2 million on a mortgage.

Maybe he just didn't pay the bill over the past months so it would pile up, then he could use his secret knowledge of the predetermined oil spill to sell his shares and then he would have a plausible alibi.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by spirit_horse
According to this worker, BP requested permission from the federal Minerals Management Service to displace, or remove, the mud before the final plugging operation had begun. The mud in the well weighed 14.3 pounds per gallon; it was replaced by seawater that weighed nearly 50% less. BP didn't respond to request for comment on this account, nor did the MMS.

This is very telling.
"BP didn't respond to request for comment on this account, nor did the MMS" I guess they didn't have a spin for it yet.








[edit on 5/6/10 by spirit_horse]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Interesting

www.godlikeproductions.com...

moneycentral.msn.com...


Think I remember seeing this info on ATS a while back, but if not, it's being stated around the traps that

Goldman Sachs Sold 44% of its BP stock THREE weeks before the Disaster!!!!!!!!!!



and it's being claime that

BP bought all outstanding stock in Boots & Coots. One of the biggest oil spill clean up companies around.



see above links


for more coincidences, possibly



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 


I wouldn't find it odd that an oil company owned stock in a company that cleaned up oil spills, especially a company with a record of accidents.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by Dock9
 


I wouldn't find it odd that an oil company owned stock in a company that cleaned up oil spills, especially a company with a record of accidents.



My, my. You must be a sitting target for con-men who make their living through selling the Statue of Liberty and the Golden Gate, then, huh ?


You're very 'tolerant' too


BEcause you don't find it 'odd' (or 'coincidental') that an oil company would, as reported, divest itself of substantial shares shortly prior to the ruination of that company and virtual destruction of large swathes of US coastline, to say nothing of the killing of wildlife

and you further exemplify your tolerance for 'coincidence' by finding nothing 'odd/coincidental' about an oil company which buys an oil-spill cleaning company --- shortly before that same company creates the worst oil-spill in living memory, aligned with that very same company divesting itself of shares ?


You're almost Jesus, aren't you ?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
There are no coincidences

Everything is Connected ~ Everything has Purpose

The question is not coincidence or conspiracy, as it is obvious to observe the role the people, their organizations and agendas, perform in the global game.

This event string was initiated before our generations, and will grow for many generations - HOPI 7th Sign....

Every moment is an eternity ~ Every decision reflects who we are becoming


∞LOVE∞



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Dock9
 


I'd just like to think I'm rational. I tend to not jump to conclusions, or think every thing that happens in the world is some vast conspiracy.

How did BP "divest itself" of shares?

Does BP own shares of its own stock, did it sell the stock prior to the spill?

How much money has Goldman Sachs lost on their remaining shares? If BP has lost 40 billion I'd think shareholders have lost a ton also, why didn't they sell them all?

Honestly, have they done this before? Many companies and people regularly buy and sell stock, often in the same companies many different times. Its kinda how you make money.

Why did any company buy more stock? Are they not a part of this vast conspiracy, or is it a simple kansas city shuffle?

I'm sure if you looked on an individual basis, you might find a few times leading up to the spill that people sold all if not most of their stock in BP, did they also have foreknowledge of the spill?

I think some people just wear "conspiracy sunglasses" all day, and no matter what they see its part of a conspiracy of some sort to destabilize the US, the World, or both. Seriously man, how do you even sleep at night knowing your dresser and bed are conspiring to smother you with your blanket and run off with the loveseat.

I've really come to the determination that some people just WANT to believe that everything is bad, that the government is just out to kill you and make off with whats left. While there is bad apples on every tree, it doesn't mean the whole tree is rotten.

I'm honestly not saying there couldn't be some kind of conspiracy in play here, who honestly knows. But I'm not automatically assuming based on some stock sells that all of a sudden its the "smoking gun" or undeniable proof that some kind of evil plan is afoot.

Just today I blinked just mere seconds before a bug flew into my eye, did I have foreknowledge of the conspiracy to take out my eye, or was it a coincidence that I blinked at that time? I'll wait for the youtube video for a definate response.

Seriously, I still in no way find it odd that an oil company also owns stock in a company that cleans up oil spills, especially considering BP has had a few accidents. Wheres the proof that they bought the shares immediately before the accident, and even if so, so what? If I sold my helmet, then crashed my motorcycle 2 weeks later would it be a vast conspiracy on behalf of the helmet industry to show how unsafe I am without the helmet, or an unfortunate accident?

Would a company that made furniture be some kind of suspect because they own stock in a company that logs and mills lumber?

Hell what if the super high dollar hay industry was behind it. With all this talk of hay cleaning up the spill, they knew it was going to happen. How much stock did GS buy in any hay companies. You just might be on to something. It was actually Goldman Sachs. They did it to make anyone else that didn't sell their shares that much poorer and less of a threat.

I even heard that North Korea had a sub in the gulf and it was what caused the initial accident. I slapped a korean guy today just cause it MIGHT be true.

You never know.

Wheres Jack Bauer when you need him.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock9
Interesting

www.godlikeproductions.com...

moneycentral.msn.com...


Think I remember seeing this info on ATS a while back, but if not, it's being stated around the traps that Goldman Sachs Sold 44% of its BP stock THREE weeks before the Disaster!!!!!!!!!!


BP bought all outstanding stock in Boots & Coots. One of the biggest oil spill clean up companies around.



Ok so now we have 3 coincidences very interesting.
Anyone still believe these are all coincidences?
(I have a really clean, oil free beach in Louisiana I'll sell ya!)







[edit on 15-6-2010 by IcarusDeepSea]



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join