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 is likely to be cleared of the potentially ruinous charge of gross negligence, according to City analysts, after a powerful US commission blamed "systemic" causes for the Gulf of Mexico disaster. Shares rose by more than 2% in trading this morning after Barack Obama's national commission released part of its final report into the disaster, ahead of full publication on Tuesday.
The report is the first of several parallel investigations, and will influence the crucial inquiry carried out by the US department of justice (DoJ). Unless new evidence comes to light showing that BP wilfully or singularly disregarded safety in the run-up to the world's biggest accidental offshore oil spill, the DoJ is unlikely to contradict the commission's findings and recommend a charge of gross negligence. BP is understood to expect the DoJ to conclude its inquiry in the second half of this year.
The national commission said its investigation found no evidence that the blowout which led to the disaster was the result of "aberrational decisions made by rogue industry or government officials". BP's contractors, the rig's owner, Transocean, and Halliburton, responsible for cementing the faulty well, were also found to be at fault. The report was highly critical of the now disbanded offshore regulator, the MMS, and Tuesday's full report is likely to recommend much tighter safety regulations for offshore drilling.
According to another cable, in January 2009 BP thought that a "bad cement job" was to blame for the gas leak in Azerbaijan. More recently, BP's former chief executive Tony Hayward also partly blamed a "bad cement job" by contractor Halliburton for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The blowout in the Gulf led to the deaths of 11 workers and the biggest accidental offshore oil spill in history.
Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by anon72
Dear Anon72,
First time I don't like one of your posts Sir/Madam. Have you been eating up the propaganda my friend? Surely you, of all people, realise that the work associated to the incident was sub-contracted to American companies (sorry but I can't be arsed to find the details, but I am 100% sure of that) who in fact were the ones who were negligent?
Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by Shenon
Dear Shenon,
Nice article. Thank you for the link. I'm not sure if that was meant for me asking where the information came from showing BP knew there was a problem in the Gulf of Mexico prior to starting drilling or not? If so, either i'm blind or there isn't anything in that article. If not, apologies for assuming it might be meant for me.
Regards,
T
Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by Shenon
Dear Shenon,
As per my other response to Blamethegreys, this actually proves nothing. I am sure you are aware of what can and can't be proven in a court of law. Something having happened previously, in another entirely different situation is circumstantial. I am being a devil's advocate I know, but your statement isn't actually anything based in facts, it is just "coincidence" when liability is at stake.
Regards,
T
Halliburton, the company responsible for cement in the well shaft, recommended using 21 “centralizers” to position the metal tube that ran down the center of the well. An off-center tube would cause cement to harden at different rates, producing gaps and channels that could weaken its structure and increase chances of failure. BP used just six centralizers. A mid-April review of the well said “it is unlikely to be a successful cement job,” but BP declined to run a “cement bond log,” a day-long evaluation of the cement’s integrity. A crew that arrived expecting to perform the evaluation was sent home.