Tony Hayward Watch

vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#61
Report 8 years ago
#61
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
Why are you using a nearly 2 month old source with now outdated share prices and figures?
That was not to illustrate the share price but to back up my points about BP not settling its claims in a timely fashion as well as being crafty in delaying the claims process, and it is not a two month old article, it is from early June... hardly a lot of time has passed when it comes to delaing with claims... Get a clue....
0
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#62
Report 8 years ago
#62
(Original post by Elipsis)
He forms his opinion first and then tries to dig up facts and figures later, that's why.

Hello Elipsis, how is the world treating you? Nice to see you out and about again... still disseminating false information and passing them off as credible?

Nice to see that somethings never change... I chuckle at you ... hehehehe
0
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 8 years ago
#63
(Original post by vnupe)
That was not to illustrate the share price but to back up my points about BP not settling its claims in a timely fashion as well as being crafty in delaying the claims process, and it is not a two month old article, it is from early June... hardly a lot of time has passed when it comes to delaing with claims... Get a clue....
BP officials acknowledged that while no claims have been denied, thousands and thousands of claims had not been paid by late last week because the company required more documentation.
If you are giving out millions and millions, are you entitled to check to see the claims are valid first yes?
0
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#64
Report 8 years ago
#64
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
Oh so you guys will moan if they had sat on there ass, and when they didn't there must be something more sinister.

Oh, and I have read a few blogs which indicate BP can't be done for criminal negligence because of a factors and it will fail in court, from experts in law and business, not some people on a forum.

Tbh this proves they can't win with you and I won't bother replying because your opinions are crazy. You make the point BP and Transocean have many rigs together, BP have thousands of rigs over the world, none of these have been found faulty, so where does the main fault lie? See how easy it is to make up complete ******** like this which means nothing?
You won't reply because the facts all point to BP being the culprit in this
little soap opera...knowingly operating a faulty BOP, in order to cut costs, even against the advice of the company it used as consultants (transocean)... I chuckle at your assumption that I am out for BP blood.. I am out for any MNC that feels it can do whatever it wants and consequences be damned... IF we have been all over this before... this is no crusade... its just keeping a MNC honest... nothing more nothing less...

Also I would like to see the blogs to which you are referring when discussing how BP will not and could not be found 'criminally negligent'
0
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report 8 years ago
#65
Student Finance England which plans for a year, was in some cases 3 months late last year in giving payments to students for £10k.

It also asks people to send more information constantly, this is for £10k, these claims are up too millions, yet apparently they are not allowed to ask for more info?
0
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#66
Report 8 years ago
#66
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
If you are giving out millions and millions, are you entitled to check to see the claims are valid first yes?
Yes check the claims but not change the goal posts by asking for more information after being provided with the initial info...
0
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 8 years ago
#67
(Original post by vnupe)
You won't reply because the facts all point to BP being the culprit in this
little soap opera...knowingly operating a faulty BOP, in order to cut costs, even against the advice of the company it used as consultants (transocean)... I chuckle at your assumption that I am out for BP blood.. I am out for any MNC that feels it can do whatever it wants and consequences be damned... IF we have been all over this before... this is no crusade... its just keeping a MNC honest... nothing more nothing less...

Also I would like to see the blogs to which you are referring when discussing how BP will not and could not be found 'criminally negligent'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...the_brink.html

One of the most respected business reporters in the world.

There is more if you bother to use the invention called google.
0
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#68
Report 8 years ago
#68
(Original post by vnupe)
Yes check the claims but not change the goal posts by asking for more information after being provided with the initial info...
So if you develop a system in a week that student finance england took 3 years to get right, and still ask for more information repeatedly, that is wrong?

Right ok.. you are deluded tbh.
0
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#69
Report 8 years ago
#69
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...the_brink.html

One of the most respected business reporters in the world.

There is more if you bother to use the invention called google.
Thank you for the link.. and why google when I can simply ask you for the link... I am reading it now...
0
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#70
Report 8 years ago
#70
Infact it is far more complex than student finance, every business is different, handling business and employees from all different sectors will require all different information etc..

I bet half the people of the 60,000 are people who have sent the wrong stuff, happens with student finance and so is logical to think it is also happening here to some degree.
0
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#71
Report 8 years ago
#71
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
So if you develop a system in a week that student finance england took 3 years to get right, and still ask for more information repeatedly, that is wrong?

Right ok.. you are deluded tbh.
( I recieve no financial assistance, nor have I ever from student finance so this may be a little off but you will understand the gist of my argument)

Or if you look at it this way.. the student finance office wants to see your finance records which you provide, and then once they receive that information, then say I also need to see the finance info from your parents as well, in order to process your claim... you would absolutely flip a lid, since they never wanted nor asked for this information in the first place, thus causing you to wait longer for your loan check... upon giving that additional information.. they then ask for finance information from your grand parents.. etc...

That is what BP are doing to claimants...
0
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report 8 years ago
#72
(Original post by vnupe)
( I recieve no financial assistance, nor have I ever from student finance so this may be a little off but you will understand the gist of my argument)

Or if you look at it this way.. the student finance office wants to see your finance records which you provide, and then once they receive that information, then say I also need to see the finance info from your parents as well, in order to process your claim... you would absolutely flip a lid, since they never wanted nor asked for this information in the first place, thus causing you to wait longer for your loan check... upon giving that additional information.. they then ask for finance information from your grand parents.. etc...

That is what BP are doing to claimants...
They ****** it up the first couple of years and were months late in paying students.

And this was more simple than the system BP has now.

A system like that is not easy to install.
0
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#73
Report 8 years ago
#73
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...the_brink.html

One of the most respected business reporters in the world.

There is more if you bother to use the invention called google.
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...
0
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report 8 years ago
#74
(Original post by vnupe)
I have read your article and I see flaws in your argument:



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.



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...



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'?



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...



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:


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...
BP shares have recovered 33% of there loses in a month, does not seem to me there is no hope..

Like I showed, they have $200bil+ in assets, it just means ejecting some of there side projects, that is all.

As Robert said, the point that the well is holding under such pressure shows the well designs were sound. He would have argued this was not valid if it was not. So no, it is very unlikely to go higher.

BP are planning on sueing Transocean, use google.
0
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#75
Report 8 years ago
#75
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
BP shares have recovered 33% of there loses in a month, does not seem to me there is no hope..

Like I showed, they have $200bil+ in assets, it just means ejecting some of there side projects, that is all.

As Robert said, the point that the well is holding under such pressure shows the well designs were sound. He would have argued this was not valid if it was not. So no, it is very unlikely to go higher.

BP are planning on sueing Transocean, use google.
You are correct about the gains, but they had to eject some of the 'side projects' to pay for the spill and to make themselves leaner so that they would be stronger when a takeover big comes.. something we have also discussed a month or two before...

The well designs might be sound but the BOP was not sound.. which was what caused the blowout.

Wiki describes the BOP as this:

Use



A blowout preventer stack for a well being drilled in Northern Italy. An annular preventer and a single ram BOP are shown in the foreground with a double ram BOP to the rear.
The invention of blowout preventers was instrumental in reducing the incidence of oil gushers, blowouts, which are dangerous and costly.
Blowout preventers come in a variety of styles, sizes and pressure ratings. Several individual units serving various functions are combined to compose a blowout preventer stack. Multiple blowout preventers of the same type are frequently provided for redundancy, an important factor in the effectiveness of fail-safe devices.
The primary functions of a blowout preventer system are to:
Confine well fluid to the wellbore;
Provide means to add fluid to the wellbore;
Allow controlled volumes of fluid to be withdrawn from the wellbore.
Additionally, and in performing those primary functions, blowout preventer systems are used to:
Regulate and monitor wellbore pressure;
Center and hang off the drill string in the wellbore;
Shut in the well (e.g. seal the void, annulus, between drillpipe and casing);
“Kill” the well (prevent the flow of formation fluid, influx, from the reservoir into the wellbore) ;
Seal the wellhead (close off the wellbore);
Sever the casing or drill pipe (in case of emergencies).
In drilling a typical high-pressure well, drill strings are routed through a blowout preventer stack toward the reservoir of oil and gas. As the well is drilled, drilling fluid, “mud,” is fed through the drill string down to the drill bit, “blade,” and returns up the wellbore in the ring-shaped void, annulus, between the outside of the drill pipe and the casing (piping that lines the wellbore). The column of drilling mud exerts downward hydrostatic pressure to counter opposing pressure from the formation being drilled, allowing drilling to proceed.
When a kick (influx of formation fluid) occurs, rig operators or automatic systems close the blowout preventer units, sealing the annulus to stop the flow of fluids out of the wellbore. Denser mud is then circulated into the wellbore down the drill string, up the annulus and out through the choke line at the base of the BOP stack through chokes (flow restrictors) until downhole pressure is overcome. Once “kill weight” mud extends from the bottom of the well to the top, the well has been “killed”. If the integrity of the well is intact drilling may be resumed. Alternatively, if circulation is not feasible it may be possible to kill the well by "bullheading", forcibly pumping, in the heavier mud from the top through the kill line connection at the base of the stack. This is less desirable because of the higher surface pressures likely needed and the fact that much of the mud originally in the annulus must be forced into receptive formations in the open hole section beneath the deepest casing shoe.
If the blowout preventers and mud do not restrict the upward pressures of a kick, a blowout results, potentially shooting tubing, oil and gas up the wellbore, damaging the rig, and leaving well integrity in question.
Since BOPs are important for the safety of the crew and natural environment, as well as the drilling rig and the wellbore itself, authorities recommend, and regulations require, that BOPs be regularly inspected, tested and refurbished. Tests vary from daily test of functions on critical wells to monthly or less frequent testing on wells with low likelihood of control problems.[1]
Exploitable reservoirs of oil and gas are increasingly rare and remote, leading to increased subsea deepwater well exploration and requiring BOPs to remain submerged for as long as a year in extreme conditions. As a result, BOP assemblies have grown larger and heavier (e.g. a single ram-type BOP unit can weigh in excess of 30,000 pounds), while the space allotted for BOP stacks on existing offshore rigs has not grown commensurately. Thus a key focus in the technological development of BOPs over the last two decades has been limiting their footprint and weight while simultaneously increasing safe operating capacity.
So though the well may be sound, the blow out preventer which was what was supposed to stop the blow out was faulty:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_573839.html

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl...ilure/19461009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...reventer-china

You get the idea...
0
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#76
Report 8 years ago
#76
To those that want to neg rep under the cover of darkness... I chuckle at you.. you obviously do not agree with my opinions but do not have the conviction to statement why or sign your name...

I suspect this type of mousy, mealy mouth behaviour will continue later on in life. Grow a pair and stand up for your convictions in an adult matter... I as a rule to not neg rep, as I find it a non-intellectual cop out... and very childish... I can not compete with his ideas so I neg rep as retribution.... I shake my head and chuckle at you...

I also suspect it to be that rogue Elipsis, or someone of that ilk... so sliver back in that cave/hole or yours... COWARD!!!
0
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report 8 years ago
#77
(Original post by vnupe)
You are correct about the gains, but they had to eject some of the 'side projects' to pay for the spill and to make themselves leaner so that they would be stronger when a takeover big comes.. something we have also discussed a month or two before...

The well designs might be sound but the BOP was not sound.. which was what caused the blowout.

Wiki describes the BOP as this:



So though the well may be sound, the blow out preventer which was what was supposed to stop the blow out was faulty:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_573839.html

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl...ilure/19461009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...reventer-china

You get the idea...
Funnily enough, BP does not design, produce or install the BOP.

Half the stuff in the world is made in China, for an article to give the impression because something was done in China, it ****** up. Is an insult to the technical abilites of the nation. China's top 25% in IQ is bigger than the US population.

BP I doubt will get taken over now the share price is beginning to rise again, it would have needed to have began by now as such a deal would take many months, and BP shares will only rise now.

Bare in mind BP is the 4th biggest company in the world, that means there are only a handful of companies who could even think about trying to buy BP, and if they did they themselves would need to take out massive massive loans.

Another article says BP were aware of tests done incorrectly, thats great.. but it is the people who did the tests who will end up being ******, the company who owned the BOP.
0
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#78
Report 8 years ago
#78
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
Funnily enough, BP does not design, produce or install the BOP.

Half the stuff in the world is made in China, for an article to give the impression because something was done in China, it ****** up. Is an insult to the technical abilites of the nation. China's top 25% in IQ is bigger than the US population.

BP I doubt will get taken over now the share price is beginning to rise again, it would have needed to have began by now as such a deal would take many months, and BP shares will only rise now.

Bare in mind BP is the 4th biggest company in the world, that means there are only a handful of companies who could even think about trying to buy BP, and if they did they themselves would need to take out massive massive loans.

Another article says BP were aware of tests done incorrectly, thats great.. but it is the people who did the tests who will end up being ******, the company who owned the BOP.
Not if BP knew it was faulty and decided to use the BOP anyway, that shows criminal negligence because people died as a result as well as the ensuing disaster...
0
reply
Idiot-Finder
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#79
Report 8 years ago
#79
(Original post by vnupe)
Not if BP knew it was faulty and decided to use the BOP anyway, that shows criminal negligence because people died as a result as well as the ensuing disaster...
BP knew the one hydrolic system had failed, shut that one down and reverted to the 2nd (that is the reason there is two.) It is not illegal to run on one.

For whatever reason the 2nd did not function, possibly because of damage from the beginning of the blow out.

No where in that is criminal negligence.
0
reply
vnupe
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#80
Report 8 years ago
#80
(Original post by Idiot-Finder)
BP knew the one hydrolic system had failed, shut that one down and reverted to the 2nd (that is the reason there is two.) It is not illegal to run on one.

For whatever reason the 2nd did not function, possibly because of damage from the beginning of the blow out.

No where in that is criminal negligence.
For whatever reason? That is a mighty huge caveat... with so much at stake, isn't it their duty to find out why? And if the one failed and they were designed by the same company, why would you 'think' or 'believe' the other to be operational? Again isn't the onus on them, as 75% stakeholders to find out?
I don't see why I would have to be arguing this fact... and not to see their culpability is truly remarkable... Again I don't care it is a British company ( I also find it funny that people state it is approx. 50% US, like that would make the matter any less bracing) or an American company... they caused this mess they have to pay... simples...

Also if there are two, then one must be a fail safe for the other one, meaning that one should work independently of the other, so the first failure should not have caused the second, unless both were faulty and should not have been used... either way ignorance is no excuse, BP should have done their due diligence and rectified the matter before proceeding...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

The new Gillette ad. Is it:

Man-hating bullsh*t (145)
45.74%
Pro-humanity (172)
54.26%

Watched Threads

View All