Anadarko Petroleum Attacks Well Partner BP

falcon · 06-19-2010, 04:50 AM

BP had a US partner in the deep water Horizon well. Anadarko Petroleum owns 25 percent of that well. One would also assume that Anadarko would be responsible for about 25 percent of the damages resulting from the spewing oil.

Anadarko has recently attacked BP for mistakes made during the drilling of that well.

http://newsok.com/anadarko-petroleum...stom_click=rss

Anadarko Chairman and CEO Jim Hackett's statement came after some elected officials said Anadarko should help pay for the massive cleanup and spill-related claims. Company spokesman John Christiansen said the comments were in response to "a week's worth of testimony” and other information and data compiled on the disaster.

"The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions,” said Hackett in the statement. "We recognize that ultimately we have obligations under federal law related to the oil spill, but will look to BP to continue to pay all legitimate claims as they have repeatedly stated that they will do.”

The information disclosed this week "indicates BP operated unsafely and failed to monitor and react to several critical warning signs during the drilling” the statement continued. "BP's behavior and actions likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct.”
Anadarko had no employees on the well and was a non-operating partner in the project. A subsidiary of Mitsui & Co. Ltd. of ***an had a 10 percent stake. The rig was owned by Transocean Ltd. of Switzerland and operated by BP.

nodog · 06-19-2010, 07:16 AM

One word for the imminent future,

carnage.

Those who own the company are bruised and bloody. That aint good when surrounded by 2 wolf packs.

Lemaitre · 06-19-2010, 08:17 AM

Executives at Anadarko and Mitsui must be sweating bullets right now. As passive investors, if that is in fact all they really were, they probably thought that the worst thing that could happen is that the well would be a dry hole and they would be out their investment in the partnership, not potentially liable for billions of dollars in damages and fines. I am not a lawyer so I have no idea if BP, even though it was in charge of the drilling rig, can require its partners in the venture to share the burden of compensating third parties damaged by the well. If the well had been a success Anadarko and Mitsui would have shared in the profits.

Expect Anadarko, and Mitsui, to protest that they had no idea what was going on aboard the Deep Water Horizen and had they known they would have been horrified and demanded BP run a tighter ship.

tangozulu · 06-19-2010, 08:28 AM

Seems to be a lot of speculation going on here. Perhaps equipment failure was the cause and the equipment was not owned by BP. Also if BP was working with all the required eqipment then the regulators are just as at fault. Seems to me BP is a convienient target and foreign makes it a safe sell. That said I bet most shareholders are in the USA.

falcon · 06-19-2010, 08:58 AM

IMO: Anadarko and Mitsui bear some responsibility for this train wreck.

I do not like the way that BP has been treated by Obama and his bunch. It is idiotic to assume that the CEO of the 4th largest company in the world had his pulse on that one well in the gulf. The MMS, a federal agency, approved the drilling plan and the spill plan when it was evident to the most casual observer that these plans were not right. Obama and Salazer did not clean up the corrupt and incompetent MMS.

Make no mistake about it BP is responsible for that oil well fire and blowout. The disaster at the deep water Horizon drilling rig could not have been worse if it had been choreographed. Numerous serious mistakes and miscalculations lead to this disaster.

BP took a series of cost saving shortcuts that lead to this environmental disaster. Halliburton wanted to put 21 centralizers on the casing to hold it centered in the well bore. BP decided to disregard this advice and had 6 centralizers installed instead. There were signs that all was not well down below but BP supervisors continued to take shortcuts. BP pumped the drilling mud out of the well and filled it with much lighter salt water. When it was evident that gas was entering the casing; rig hands wanted to pump mud down the well. They were over-ruled.

1. The blowout preventer was not maintained in working order.

2. The blowout preventer had been so modified by BP that it did not look like the as designed device: This was discovered when the remote control sub was sent down to close the BOP.

3. Bureaucratic BP policy prevented a timely attempt to shut down the well as the rig was burning. The rig captain yelled at a man who had his hand on the panic button that would have activated the emergency shut down of the well. BP procedure required that an executive on shore give permission to shut down the well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_mistakes

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/sc...me&ref=science

CalHunter · 06-19-2010, 02:04 PM

I agree. BP was incompetent but so was MMS. However, Obama won't ever own up to the government making any mistakes. He's just as incompetent and negligent as BP.

tangozulu · 06-19-2010, 03:35 PM

I'll bet haliberton will always ask for the moon or more than they need just to cover their butt. It would be nice to know how many another rig put in in a similar situation....six may be the norm. Just like the Navy asking for more than they need, no difference.

falcon · 06-19-2010, 05:45 PM

BP also refused to have cement bond log done. A cement bond log tells drillers how well that the cement bonded to the well casing. Schlumberger had their loggers on the rig to do the cement bond log but they were sent home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/sc...me&ref=science

Quote:

BP also did not order a cement bond log, a testing procedure that would have more fully evaluated the quality of the cement barrier. BP’s own engineers had run computer models suggesting that a good cement job was unlikely, and the company had a crew from Schlumberger on hand to conduct the test, which would have taken up to 12 hours

Lemaitre · 06-19-2010, 09:04 PM

Apparently BP did not do the cement bond log test because Schlumberger would have charged $128,000 for the test and the lease of the rig was $500,000 a day so that extra 12 hours to do the test would have cost BP another $250,000 on top of the $128,000.

cr422 · 06-20-2010, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangozulu

I'll bet haliberton will always ask for the moon or more than they need just to cover their butt..

Covering your butt is designed to forestall disasters like this. Businesses should be run by engineers and salesmen, not by accountants and MBAs. (And I'm a CPA as well as a lawyer.)