I have read your article and I see flaws in your argument:
That said, in an interview with me, the chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said there was no 100% certainty the final bill for the spill wouldn't be higher.
BP will pay for all this by selling assets worth $30bn - which Mr Svanberg insisted would not eat into the core of the business.
If he can't and won't give a rosy picture of the situation, then all is lost.. that is his job as chairman, hardly an unbiased source.
He also praised the long record at BP of the outgoing chief executive Tony Hayward, while saying that Mr Hayward was not the right man to lead the rebuilding of the business.
If he did such a stellar job, then why remove him for his stellar position in Russia, and compound it by categorically stating he is not the right man to lead the rebuilding effort. Surely if you had confidence in his ability to lead the company to boom years he would also be the man to lead your company from this one disastrous one... after all he has done it before...
Probably the most important statement made by BP today is that it doesn't believe that it has been "grossly negligent" in relation to the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and under the terms of the US Clean Water Act.
As I've mentioned before, its confidence that its culpability is less than some have feared stems from its recent success in capping the well: because there have not been further fractures of the well as internal pressure has risen, BP has a defence against the charge that it cut corners in the design of the well.
Again BP is the source stating that it will not be 'grossly negligent'... Again not the best source, because if they were not saying this, again all is lost!. Also they used the words grossly negligent... so they think that they are negligent but not grossly negligent.. what exactly does that mean? Isn't that like being 'a little pregnant'?
In practice, it may be able to recover 35% of much of the cost from the well partners, Anadarko and Mitsui.
So they are not recovering 40% from Transocean at all, but are looking to recover 35% from Mitsui and Anadarko. Incidentially (as the article states) Anadarko owns 25% of the well, while BP owns 75% of the same well... Transocean owned the rig which sank as a result of the explosion... so Transocean is not on the hook for anything according to the article... in fact it looks like they could sue BP and Anadarko for the price of a new rig...
But just to look on the dark side again, BP's $32.2bn pre-tax charge for the spill includes no allowance for any fines or penalties other than those under the Clean Water Act - and given the sheer number of government bodies that are investigating BP, it may not be safe to assume (as BP concedes) that there will be no other fines or penalties.
Interesting indeed... so obviously 32.2 bn may not be the full amount charged to BP, it could go much higher...
And finally I agree with this poster who wrote:
'... As for Mr Hayward his diamond encrusted departure (with optional reincarnation in Russia) simply reflects the enormous remuneration packages the elite of CE's receive and which should be the focus of governments and subject to the mandatory/statutory governance of our major corporations. Departure by mutual agreement before there is any resolution of culpability on his part e.g. failure to assure sound management systems and administration and not be too exercised on who left the tap on!'
I could care less about his compensation package... he is/was a CEO, so I expected nothing less... its the scrubbing of his involvement in this mess as the poster says through his 'failure to assure sound management systems and administration', that I find repulsive, thus giving cover for the new CEO (Dudley) ot state that all violations were previous to his taking the position, so not under his remit...
Which is why I said more than a month ago that Hayward would soon be gone as CEO...