I sold out last week. America is such a corrupt economic terrorist I cannot see BP getting any justice or a fair hearing in their farcical courts. They cannot even follow the Geneva convention [ Guantanamo bay] which to my mind puts them on the same level as Putin.
BP is calling for a trial to hear arguments about the environmental harm caused by its 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico – and is fighting an attempt by the US government to keep evidence on its effects out of court.
If BP is judged to have been grossly negligent, the maximum penalty is $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled, compared with $1,100 per barrel if it was not.
In a filing to the US court hearing the oil spill case, BP argued that there had been “far less environmental impact than originally expected in 2010”, and a “robust recovery” afterwards. It said only one bird from an endangered or threatened species – a piping plover – was found dead after the spill, and it did not have any visible oil on it. Later this year, or early next, the US District Court in New Orleans will hear arguments over the size of the penalty faced by BP under the Clean Water Act, which could reach a maximum of about $18bn.
The judge has not yet ruled on either of those issues, but sparring has already started over the timing and scope of the next phase of the trial. US government lawyers argued in a filing last month that it could be covered by “a three-week trial with limited witnesses”.
LONDON (Reuters) - Oil and gas major BP said it had mothballed plans to explore in Libya's Ghadames basin because of security concerns, the latest in a series of companies to rethink their projects amid growing instability.
Three years of turmoil since the Arab Spring and tough contract terms have prompted oil firms to reassess their role in Libya, and several have said they would postpone their plans or scrap them altogether.
BP's exploration and production sharing agreement with Libya covers onshore acreage in Ghadames, near the border between Libya, Algeria and Tunisia, and offshore acreage in the central Sirte basin.
"With respect to the onshore exploration drilling programme, a security review in June concluded that this could not be safely and securely delivered by BP at this time. Alternative approaches are being considered," BP said on Thursday in its annual report.
The British company was continuing with its offshore plans, where safety risks are much lower.
"Preparation work towards our offshore exploration drilling programme is continuing," it said.
BP signed the agreement with Libya in 2007, when it was seen as a landmark deal that sealed former dictator Muammar Gaddafi's return to the international fold after years of sanctions.
BP is still at the exploration stage and does not produce oil in Libya. Its assets there were worth $472 million at the end of 2013, according to its annual report.
Thanks for researching and publishing that. My opinion and surely that of any logical person or goup should have been totally aware of the intentions of both parties in that they hoped to come to an early settlement that enabled claims to be paid without too much "umming and ahhing" but it was obviously not either sides intention to pay claims to claimants who were not involved in the consequences of the spill.It was not a "Benefit Claim" Unfortunately the crooked lawyers of which we know there are many tending towards 100% decided that there were enough gaps in the claims process to "Try it on " unfortunately again Judge Carl Barbier has misinterpreted the settlement which is not only to the detriment of BP but is going to forestall any future attempts to set up a quick claims procedure for the early benefit of genuine claimants. It is a big shot in the foot by the Americans especially as a substantial number of American Pension funds are invested in BP It is a shame
When BP reached a settlement to compensate people who were financially harmed by the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the two sides could barely contain their glee. At a November 8, 2012, hearing before New Orleans U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, lawyers for BP Exploration & Production Inc. and for the plaintiffs extolled the class action settlement as a shining landmark in mass torts resolutions.
BP’s lead lawyer, Richard Godfrey of Kirkland & Ellis, boasted how the parties were determined not to let this litigation turn into another Exxon Valdez quagmire, where the oil company is still fighting claims after two decades. Instead, he said, two years after the 2010 Deepwater disaster the two sides had crafted a creative solution that would streamline the processing of claims.
James Roy, one of the lead plaintiffs lawyers, gushed over BP’s generosity. “There is no cap on the amount BP will have to pay under this settlement,” he said. BP had valued this deal at $7.8 billion, but would pay much more if it had to, he added. “The truth of the matter, Your Honor, is that if it ends up paying 20, 25, 30 billion, BP has agreed to do that.”
A year and a half later, no one is smiling. After paying $3.84 billion in claims so far, BP has declared war against plaintiffs, their lawyers, and Judge Barbier. It loudly insists that the settlement agreement has been misinterpreted to allow claims by people and businesses whose losses weren’t caused by the Deepwater disaster. In a highly unusual move, it has even threatened to try to undo the settlement.
The plaintiffs lawyers maintain that BP is twisting the facts and has turned its back on a deal it now regrets. The company says that it is simply determined to have the settlement agreement applied correctly. “BP and its counsel have consistently maintained that the settlement agreement was designed to fairly and adequately compensate those who were injured as a result of the spill, and we have consistently sought enforcement of this requirement for class membership,” said BP group general counsel Rupert Bondy in a statement.
BP, however, is in an awkward, if not dangerous, position. The controversy over the settlement raises two basic questions. Did the oil giant’s top in-house attorneys and its outside counsel at Kirkland & Ellis—one of the world’s most sophisticated litigation firms—draft an imprecise settlement agreement that exposed the company to claims it didn’t intend to pay? Or, as Barbier would later contend, have BP and its lawyers changed their story about this settlement?
BP said Tuesday that it would create a new business to manage its onshore oil and natural-gas assets in the U.S.'s lower 48 states. The decision is an attempt to reverse the struggles that BP--along with other large oil companies--has had trying to coax profits from the North American shale boom. Shares edged up 0.7% to $49.34.
Sorry Qwerty59 your original "there" was absolutely correct. Do not apologise for being correct.However the phrase was a bit clumsy finishing it with "then" It would have been enough to say "There we go"
LONDON (Reuters) - Oil major BP stands by its investments in Russia, chief executive Bob Dudley said on Tuesday amid calls from U.S. officials to isolate Russia and reduce economic cooperation with Moscow over the Ukrainian crisis.
"In terms of Russia, we absolutely stand by our investment in Russia," Chief Executive Bob Dudley, a U.S. citizen, told an investor conference on Tuesday.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NETbuilder and Interactive Data.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.