We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Part of me hopes an injunction will be attempted so this sword of Damocles is removed once and for all. In theory they have until spud date. However, a point of note is when the ship arrives, several million is due to Stena. (source https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/bahamas_petroleum_company/news/rns/story/rdzqj8w ) Every day that goes by raises the question of underlying motive. Is the real reason is to hurt BPC financially? If Exxon were the explorer, would an injunction be threatened or sought? They would likely wait until spud result to lobby for a few years prior to production.
Although the BPC EIA report is in the public domain (source https://www.depp.gov.bs/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/BPC-Perseverance-Well-EIA-Final-Feb2020.pdf ), we are not party to the contractual sign-off. It may have included change of ship or drilling contractor clauses. Furthermore, it is unlikely the gov were not kept informed of the changes to ship as part of the force majeure discussions. If the gov objected, IceMax would not be sailing there today.
If an injunction is attempted, the court will be aware that a force majeure event threw a spanner in the works back in March. To fulfil its contractual obligations albeit delayed, BPC procured an equally highly reputable operator and state-of-the-art class ship. Due to circumstances at the time, BPC could not have been expected to use the same named ‘West Saturn’ ship. Equally, Seadrill were under no obligation to charge the same rates nor provide the same ship.
The court may question the timing and motives. Why wait so long? Why wait till a few days before spud when the IceMax is on its way and after BPC has just paid $2m to Stena? Was it out of alleged malice to hurt BPC by announcing the planned injunction bang in the middle of BPC’s final funding needs as an attempt to put off Bizzell or derail other sources of finance? Who are paying the legal fees? And more importantly, how on earth can anyone seriously argue a change of ship of equal class necessitates ‘public consultation?’ Why don’t they state, ‘we’re trying to stop the drill on a technicality to substantially damage BPC financially. If it were Exxon we wouldn’t dare.’
From the evidence I see, influenced by the conduct of some of the actors (including some of the clearly false assertions made in the allegedly manipulative documentary I commented on yesterday) I personally am not concerned about the injunction being granted. However, I am no expert on Bahamian law.
Lastly, To add another angle to this ongoing soap opera, if the BPC SP surges over the next few days, it could be because the ‘environmentalists’ and their advisors know the arguments are flawed and may buy 3%/10%, to become shareholder activists. Now, that would be interesting! I wonder what would happen if Greta Thunberg at the height of her fame in 2019, persuaded families worldwide to buy a chunk of Exxon and fight from within.
IMHO. DYOR. GLA
Star
It is a non-starter, the approval was granted in May and listed all possible Stena vessels, including Icemax, Icemax is just what was confirmed and point of fact is one of the top specs listed in May.
Notwithstanding the confirmation in Sept, the injunction and grounds should have been pursued, albeit still spurious in 3 months from May.
Also, this chap has a habit of doing things spuriously.
Note the below response to one of his former claims, response from the Bahamas AG.
https://youtu.be/PxW8X78pIKM
It seems their argument for an injunction is all around changing the drill ship. If BPC have this covered then the injunction should be thrown out of court.
They cannot argue on environmental issues and oil spills that’s not up to the court.
The courts job is to make sure all the proper paper work is in place.
Mr Smith yesterday argued that, by changing to the Stena IceMAX drill ship, BPCV had requested an alteration be made to its EA.
This, the QC said, had brought the application within the remit of the newly-passed Environmental Planning and Protection Act and the stipulation that all changes be subject to further consultation.
It is not as simple as they think,” he said of BPC. Any injunction application will likely be heavily contested by both the Government and BPC before the Supreme Court, with the latter said by sources to be represented by Graham, Thompson & Co and Sean McWeeney QC, the former attorney general.
Rashema Ingraham, executive director of Waterkeepers Bahamas and member of the steering committee for Our Islands, Our Future, also voiced concerns about the safety record of the Stena IceMAX and its owner, Stena Drilling.