USA is lawsuit vs BP

Patient Keeper · 15 Dec 2010 at 20:32

Bye bye UK pensions.

Why doesnt the US just **** off? That oil rig was providing oil to the US, to serve their unstoppable greed. Just like the wars in the Middle East are to service their greed. They should take a look at themselves before blaming everyone else.

Tefal · 15 Dec 2010 at 20:33

Who else read the thread title in a dodgy Russian accent?

Patient Keeper · 15 Dec 2010 at 20:34

I wonder if it was an Israeli company that caused it whether they would still never let it drop?

Cosimo · 15 Dec 2010 at 20:35

Tefal said:
Who else read the thread title in a dodgy Russian accent?

I didn't. You should seek advice if you did.

Cosimo · 15 Dec 2010 at 20:37

The OP is missing this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12005240

thedoc46 · 15 Dec 2010 at 20:40

How many of these are British though?

Anadarko Exploration & Production LP, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC, Triton Asset Leasing GMBH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc, Transocean Deepwater Inc

Danthus · 15 Dec 2010 at 20:41

thedoc46 said:
How many of these are British though?

Anadarko Exploration & Production LP, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC, Triton Asset Leasing GMBH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc, Transocean Deepwater Inc

Is that the full list?

Cosimo · 15 Dec 2010 at 20:47

OldCoals said:
Is that the full list?

It's nine companies including BP:

Orcish-Horde · 15 Dec 2010 at 20:51

In 30 years time we will find out that the dispersals used to control the oil spill messed up our climate for a few years leading to colder than normal winters. Due to messing up the gulf steam. Not that it matters, does BP not have a very high number of its employees as US nationals, 2/3 of their work force?

Morgoth · 15 Dec 2010 at 20:55

BP are in a strong position, I don't think this will kill the company off.

ci_newman · 15 Dec 2010 at 21:04

I don't really see how this is going to impact UK pensions... They fully deserve to get sued.

Von Smallhausen · 15 Dec 2010 at 21:05

The USA didn't invade Iraq for oil. Donald Rumsfeld said so and he seems a non hawkish non NeoCon sort of chap.

deuse · 15 Dec 2010 at 21:11

Transocean put up a insurance option on their shares a few months before the rig went.
Also Halliburton who was reinforcing the well with cement when it moved bought
the biggest cleanup company in the world "boots and coots" for $240 Mil 11 days before it happend.

From the BBC link
"Halliburton, the company that cemented the Macondo well, and Cameron International, which provided equipment for the well, were not targeted in the lawsuit"

And guess who is doing the clean up work? yep Boots and Coots they done a deal with BP.
Not only that but Halliburton's shares went up during the oil spill.

Not that I am saying anything..these are facts you can check.

yak.h'cir · 15 Dec 2010 at 21:53

I'll readily admit to not being an expert on this particular incident, but wasn't it a valve that failed causing the spill and not the cement work? Which would account for Halliburton not being included and possibly Cameron depending on what they supplied/who installed it/responsible for maintaining...

crisbduck · 15 Dec 2010 at 22:49

deuse said:
Transocean put up a insurance option on their shares a few months before the rig went.
Also Halliburton who was reinforcing the well with cement when it moved bought
the biggest cleanup company in the world "boots and coots" for $240 Mil 11 days before it happend.

From the BBC link
"Halliburton, the company that cemented the Macondo well, and Cameron International, which provided equipment for the well, were not targeted in the lawsuit"

And guess who is doing the clean up work? yep Boots and Coots they done a deal with BP.
Not only that but Halliburton's shares went up during the oil spill.

Not that I am saying anything..these are facts you can check.

I'm actually shocked

Greenlizard0 · 15 Dec 2010 at 22:50

Tefal said:
Who else read the thread title in a dodgy Russian accent?

I don't even understand the thread title. :confused:

Nix · 15 Dec 2010 at 22:53

"Sorry."

Locky · 15 Dec 2010 at 22:55

sabotage tbh

Glaucus · 15 Dec 2010 at 22:58

wasn't it a contractor who didn't do their jobs properly anyway? if so surly BP aren't liable unless it was obvious the contractors didn't do the job. Or under law do BP have to check all sub contractors work?

muon · 15 Dec 2010 at 23:14

AcidHell2 said:
wasn't it a contractor who didn't do their jobs properly anyway? if so surly BP aren't liable unless it was obvious the contractors didn't do the job. Or under law do BP have to check all sub contractors work?

You can't be held criminally liable for others actions(i think), but surely commercial liability does exist. The US government sues BP, and if BP feels the sub contractors' work was of sub-par quality, then BP sue them.

Otherwise an easy way to limit liabilities for anything would be to subcontract. Effectively putting a stop on all payouts.

UK pensions shouldn't come into the decision process. The question is how much BP are liable and how much damage they have caused. That's what I see as fair. If you you are worried about your pensions, how about as shareholders you check the business is being run correctly (or in the case of funds, that your fund manager is).