Seeking Alpha

The federal judge overseeing the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill trial dismisses all claims against...

The federal judge overseeing the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill trial dismisses all claims against Cameron (CAM), manufacturer of the blowout preventer which was supposed to shut down the Macondo well in an emergency. The extent of the evidence concerning the blowout preventer, Judge Barbier says, points "not at Cameron itself but rather at Cameron's customers in this case" - i.e., BP and Transocean (RIG).
Comments (14)
  • reeagle
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    bah humbug ... the preventer obviously didn't prevent
    :(
    3 Apr 2013, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • Midnite Cruiser
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    This is ridiculous on the judges part. How can the company that makes a device that is supposed to shut down a well before it creates a natural disaster not be held partially responsible when its device fails to perform? This defies all rationality but who ever thought that the justice system is rational or fair?
    3 Apr 2013, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • curious-george
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    Midnite,
    agree
    would say: "who ever thought a LEGAL system is rational or fair?"
    in law most all decisions are purely politically decided
    3 Apr 2013, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • joker
    , contributor
    Comments (102) | Send Message
     
    This judge definitely is biased. He should be removed from the case.

     

    No matter what, a Blowout Preventer, by the definition, should prevent a blowout. In BP's case, that one obviously did not. So what is this judge's reasoning?
    3 Apr 2013, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • curious-george
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    BTW the blowout preventer had two blind rams to seal off at the well head at the seas floor-- a two piston failure -- ugly!
    3 Apr 2013, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • doc47
    , contributor
    Comments (994) | Send Message
     
    The only logical reason for this ruling is that either BP or RIG were responsible for putting the device in place and monitoring it; otherwise this decision makes no sense.
    3 Apr 2013, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • zorrba
    , contributor
    Comments (397) | Send Message
     
    Likewise, a steering wheel is not faulty just because a collision happened. You have to be able to turn the wheel instead of being on the cell phone.
    3 Apr 2013, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • curious-george
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    faulty mechanical system according to what I've read:
    from the surface they signaled again and again for the two rams to execute -- both failed!
    as you say: they "turned the wheel" but the wheel did not work;
    they were not on cell phones
    all the very best
    3 Apr 2013, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • bikerskibum
    , contributor
    Comments (51) | Send Message
     
    Go BP go. Start the appeal procedures. Keep the money in your account. Delay everything. Then appeal again. It's the American way. It worked for Exon. It can work for you. Stop trying to be the nice guy that will just cost so much more in fraudulent claims.
    4 Apr 2013, 03:54 AM Reply Like
  • Indejay1
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    The link to the article clarifies the judges reasoning.

     

    BP begins to present its case Monday ... hoping that goes well!!!!

     

    Long BP
    4 Apr 2013, 04:37 AM Reply Like
  • jefb
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Like everything else you buy, if you don't read the instructions, kiss the warranty goodbye!
    4 Apr 2013, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • Hoopono
    , contributor
    Comments (218) | Send Message
     
    Seems to me after actually reading the judge's reasoning that he is way above average on that account. Of course that is bound to annoy those who want to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.
    4 Apr 2013, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • bikerskibum
    , contributor
    Comments (51) | Send Message
     
    Having read the judge's summary I am frankly baffled. Following his reasoning - if you buy a car and the brakes fail. Then any claim would fail if you happened to order cruise control or air conditioning when you ordered the car. You had input so it's your fault. Absurd. But no more absurd than anything else that has happened in this case.
    5 Apr 2013, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • Gravity404
    , contributor
    Comments (375) | Send Message
     
    All 12 comments above is an indictment on the true ignorance of the typical investor or just the typical SA investor.

     

    Prior to spouting off uneducated ignorance, do a little research. Not only get an understanding of what a BOP is (not 2 fail safes but 12, on this particular BOP curious George), how it works, but how they are used in the industry - refurbished by a company other than the OEM (by Philippinos - ESL is hard to read instructions JefB) by request of BP to save money. They are often times used over and over again.

     

    To use the car analogy, because it seems that's all you 12 can understand -- If I buy a Mercedes and sell it to someone else, and they take it to a Tata motors in India to get it refurbished, and then it is sold again and refurbished by Toyota dealer and the next driver fails to operate it correctly, the brakes fail and they hit someone at a stop sign...Who is liable?

     

    The Judge shouldn't be removed, Joker. Long CAM, HAL, and RIG. At the end of the day it's BPs fault. They called all the shots.

     

    Oh yeah, I think you all will like Yahoo MB better.
    5 Apr 2013, 11:06 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:

|