Seeking Alpha

A New Orleans appeals court has reversed a lower-court ruling and given BP (BP) access to $750M...

A New Orleans appeals court has reversed a lower-court ruling and given BP (BP) access to $750M in Transocean's (RIG) insurance to help pay costs from the Macondo Gulf oil disaster in 2010.
Comments (17)
  • finnvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    So how does this effect on Transocean?
    3 Mar 2013, 06:19 AM Reply Like
  • cheeryble
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    It means oil companies know Transocean is not to be trusted to deal with in future.
    3 Mar 2013, 06:59 AM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    TMZ is reporting that Chris Christy was spotted on the shores of the Mexican Gulf waving to the skys shouting "Marine One, Marine One...we have a great oppor...we can't waste a..."

     

    ...the winds are pushing debris out to sea...
    3 Mar 2013, 07:51 AM Reply Like
  • cheeryble
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    What a great year for shrimpers!
    Normally they have to work, then suddenly along comes a Big British Teat in the Sky and they can get even more obese....
    "Sho', we always get 5000 tons o' shrimp a month"

     

    Ah well can't complain it got me into BP at $31 chink chink
    4 Mar 2013, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • rube123
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    if the drilling contract is, as it states in the article " access to 750", that would explain why the vendors would operate the way they did, it would appear that BP would be liable for any negligence on the vendors part, as long as they were not drilling a cloud in the sky for oil..the way the vendors make it sound, you almost think BP went down to renta-center, and drilled the Macondo themself..should be interesting to see if the Judge buys that theory.....
    3 Mar 2013, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (764) | Send Message
     
    Well, anyone that has ever worked on an drilling rig knows that the Company Man calls the shots, and he represents the operating company. (BP in this case.) Not to say that RIG and the others are without fault, but BP made the decisions that led to the disaster and ultimately bears the responsibility.
    3 Mar 2013, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • rube123
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    having worked on a few, I know BP signed off on it, ....But......That is based upon what is presented......I also know, the company's are misled on regular basis for various reasons....I also know the vendor didn't shut the rig down (RIG) no pun intended, when they could have.Now that the vendors are suggesting that BP acted improperly, suggest that they had knowledge of the impending danger, and should have shut the rig down...And everybody knows, when you get in a taxi, you are the boss, until the cabbie STOPS
    4 Mar 2013, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • Content seeker
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    I believe the ultimate responsibility can be deciphered regardless of the hierarchy of ownership.
    3 Mar 2013, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • Content seeker
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    The judge needs to rule with the facts and apply resonable logic and not be forced to make a fast decision based on recent comment that it would be a quick resolution. How can he take this stance, when the Exxon Valdez is going on 18 years and it was not as complicated as this one. Hogwash on his rhetoric. I hope he reconsiders his postion.
    3 Mar 2013, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • Cash Flow Assets
    , contributor
    Comments (469) | Send Message
     
    BP will be going higher on Monday because some thing rules in their favor. Access to insurance amount is very low but its positive for BP.
    3 Mar 2013, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • OUSAOU
    , contributor
    Comments (79) | Send Message
     
    As an ex-employee of SEDCO, the company man was very much in the loop at all times. My experience was that the rig manager, under SEDCO, had the near same powers. The SEDCO book was the gospel. My belief is that all SEDCO managers and, by enlarge, all VPs had been drillers and even roughnecks. The SEDCO management experienced what successful drilling requires.
    Today the Transocean management is loaded with executive with college degrees such as master, or even doctorate. These executives did not have to get dirty hands; they do not understand the risks of not monitoring the return mud density and pit level. This monitoring is the early sign of a kick. They do not understand the value of the first pressure test after a cement job. This test, once drilling through the cement plug, is the geological formation bleeding pressure. This pressure is the confirmation of the validity of the cement job and set the maximum pressure drilling cannot exceed.
    We know those weekly pressure tests were not performed. For the blow out to come up, mud return had to be more that mud in the hole. The mud return density, with gas, had to be lighter that the mud in. For the casing cement job to fail, the cement job had to be under performed.
    The company man is responsible, but the Transocean management did not have the guts to say “NO”.
    3 Mar 2013, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (764) | Send Message
     
    Agreed. Always stop the job if you know it is wrong. I have heard that Co. Man was a real dick though, I know a couple guys that worked with him.

     

    Also, I heard they lost returns during the cement job so that is definitely a bad sign. However, I think the official report, which may have changed since I read it, claims the autofill floats did not convert and therefore didn't hold the well from coming in when they displaced to brine. That seems kind of odd to me though, cause if that happened the cement should have U-tubed up the casing quite a bit which would form a pretty good plug, unless they just lost all the cement in the formation. Anyway, I guess they know the situation better than me.
    3 Mar 2013, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (764) | Send Message
     
    I think it came up the annulus personally. Unless they totally pencil whipped their job log it can't have come up the shoe track, but I don't buy this idea of "gas channeling" either. For the flow rates coming out of that wellhead, I think they had to be losing cement into the formation.
    3 Mar 2013, 11:36 PM Reply Like
  • OUSAOU
    , contributor
    Comments (79) | Send Message
     
    Upon setting the first casing, you do a cement job. Once you drill through the plug, you do a pressure test. That, in my view, did not do what it is supposed to do. To be able to kill any kick, the bubble has to stay within the well design, the annulus or the hole.
    If you are unable to control and the flow goes between the casing and the formation, you lost control of the kick. Your only mean of control is the shear ram shut in, you handle the flow with the kill or shuck lines. This was the case; they were unable to control the bubble. I say shear ram because the other 2 are for the annulus. Obviously the flow was not been controlled, so shears had to be activated.
    I also herd that drill pipe was stuck in the BOP. If that is the case the shear ram did not do what it is supposed to do. The BOP design is a company item, BP responsibility.
    4 Mar 2013, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (764) | Send Message
     
    agreed. That said I hope BP pulls through this and then realizes that safety is better achieved through good judgement rather than having 2 more JSA's before every operation.
    4 Mar 2013, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (764) | Send Message
     
    Just checked the report again, they do claim the floats failed but also admit that the kick could have come up the annulus, however the job log shows full returns during the cement job. No mention of mud weight coming out of hole or gas.
    3 Mar 2013, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • MadDutch
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    From our (British) viewpoint, the legal battle looks like a bunch of flies (plaintiffs) around a honey pot (BP), full of greed and attacking what they see as an easy target. Obama asked "what does BP mean?" and when he was told "British Petroleum" he attacked what he thought was a foreign business.

     

    Wrong. BP was a merger of near equals, the other half was Amoco, and American. Transocean was the operator, but not worth too much effort because its honey pot was small. So the venom was directed at the "British" company. So much for the special relationship between our countries.

     

    If I was a CEO looking for an overseas investment, I would take US political risk into account and spend my money elsewhere.

     

    But this welcome news could encourage me to change my mind, except for one thing;

     

    Transocean is not an American business, it is Swiss. So the US has yet not convinced me that matters are now settled on a legal basis, and British assumptions of bias when America protects its own have not yet been proven wrong.
    4 Mar 2013, 07:39 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|