#Login Register


  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Home 


Feds kick off oil spill sanctions against BP, Transocean & Halliburton
10-13-2011, 04:53 AM #1
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
Like I say, they all ƒükkêd it up...

"The federal government today kicked off the process of fining BP, Transocean and Halliburton for violating offshore drilling rules tied to the 2011 oil spill.

The companies could be forced to pay as much as $45.7 million for 15 separate violations of those rules, which range from failing to keep BP’s Macondo well under control to working unsafely at the site.

The Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement launched the process by sending the three firms formal “incidents of non-compliance.” The documents lay out the violations but do not specify how long they occurred — a major factor in calculating the final penalty.

The foundation for the fines was built in September, when a Coast Guard and Interior Department investigation concluded that failures by all three companies led to the blowout of the Macondo well, killing 11 workers and unleashing the nation’s worst oil spill.

“The joint investigation clearly revealed the violation of numerous federal regulations designed to protect the integrity of offshore operations,” said bureau Director Michael Bromwich in a statement. “To ensure the safe and environmentally responsible conduct of offshore operations, companies that violate federal regulations must be held accountable.”

The bureau’s sanctions are separate from fines and other penalties that are expected to be imposed under the Clean Water Act, which could reach to $21 billion for BP, based on estimates that the Macondo well gushed 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The government is accusing BP of violating seven regulations governing work on the outer continental shelf. Transocean, which owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and Halliburton, which performed cementing work at the site, are each charged with four violations.

The violations carry a penalty of up to $35,000 per day per incident. In the case of the oil spill, violations may have covered 87 days — the time crude was gushing into the Gulf — creating a maximum potential tab per incident of $3.05 million. But some infractions may cover just one day, with a total cost of just $35,000.

Halliburton did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

BP stressed in a statement that “has taken steps to enhance safety and risk management throughout its operations and is in the process of implementing new voluntary standards in the Gulf of Mexico that exceed current regulatory requirements and strengthen oversight of contractors.”

Transocean said it would appeal. The company could be helped on two fronts. First, Transocean has stressed that its contract with BP specifically indemnifies the drilling contractor for all fines and penalties. Second, both Transocean and Halliburton could contest the violations on the grounds that as drilling contractors they are immune from offshore regulations that typically are imposed only on primary operators.

The action marks the first time the government has moved to sanction contractors for violating offshore regulations, a departure from the government’s traditional focus squarely on the oil and gas companies working on the outer continental shelf.

Traditionally, the government agencies that oversee offshore drilling have focused on oil and gas companies operating in coastal waters, and not the contractors and service companies that may collaborate on projects.

But under Bromwich, the agency has concluded that its regulatory reach extends to drilling rig owners, service firms and other contractors that work for the operators. Bromwich said that determination was affirmed by a legal interpretation made by Interior Department’s solicitor.

BP said the Obama administration’s decision to seek penalties against Transocean and Halliburton “makes clear that contractors, like operators, are responsible for properly conducting their deep-water drilling activities and are accountable to the U.S. government and the American public for their conduct.”

“We continue to encourage other parties — including Transocean and Halliburton — to acknowledge their responsibilities in the accident, make changes to help prevent similar accidents in the future and step forward to fulfill their obligations to Gulf communities,” BP added.

Executives from all three companies are set to testify before the House Natural Resources Committee on Thursday. It will be the first time the firms have testified on Capitol Hill since the Coast Guard and Interior Department’s report on the Deepwater Horizon disaster was issued last month.

Here are the federal regulations that BP is accused of violating:

30 CFR 250.107(a)(1) – BP failed to protect health, safety, property, and the environment by failing to perform all operations in a safe and workmanlike manner.
30 CFR 250.300 – BP did not take measures to prevent unauthorized discharge of pollutants into offshore waters.
30 CFR 250.401(a) – BP failed to take necessary precautions to keep the well under control at all times.
30 CFR 250.420(a)(1) and (2) – BP did not cement the well in a manner that would properly control formation pressures and fluids and prevent the direct or indirect release of fluids from any stratum through the wellbore into offshore waters.
30 CFR 250.427 – BP failed to conduct an accurate pressure integrity test.
30 CFR 250.446(a) – BP failed to maintain the Deepwater Horizon BOP system in accordance to API RP 53 section 18.10.3.
30 CFR 250.1721(a) – BP failed to obtain approval of the Temporary Abandonment procedures actually used at the Macondo well.

Here are the federal regulations that Transocean is accused of violating:

30 CFR 250.107(a)(1) – Transocean failed to protect health, safety, property, and the environment by failing to perform all operations in a safe and workmanlike manner.
30 CFR 250.300 – Transocean did not take measures to prevent unauthorized discharge of pollutants into offshore waters.
30 CFR 250.401(a) – Transocean failed to take necessary precautions to keep the well under control at all times.
30 CFR 250.446(a) – Transocean failed to maintain the Deepwater Horizon BOP system in accordance to API RP 53 section 18.10.3.

Here are the federal regulations that Halliburton is accused of violating:

30 CFR 250.107(a)(1) – Halliburton failed to protect health, safety, property, and the environment by failing to perform all operations in a safe and workmanlike manner.
30 CFR 250.300 – Halliburton did not take measures to prevent unauthorized discharge of pollutants into offshore waters.
30 CFR 250.401(a) – Halliburton failed to take necessary precautions to keep the well under control at all times.
30 CFR 250.420(a)(1) and (2) – Halliburton did not cement the well in a manner that would properly control formation pressures and fluids and prevent the direct or indirect release of fluids from any stratum through the wellbore into offshore waters."

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/10/12/feds-...lliburton/
10-13-2011, 04:58 AM #2
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
I'm friends with the man that owned the company that provided the Shear Rams for the BOP on Macondo, Nice guy.

He was not indited for anything as the BOP was not maintained in accordance with mandatory specifications and was hooked up incorrectly. He will not discuss this in any way as a gagged by the federal courts.

10-13-2011, 08:46 AM #3
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,585 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
Unfortunately that doesn't make up the deficit. chuckle.gif But it least it made the parties wallets feel accountability.

wonder.gif
10-13-2011, 10:40 AM #4
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
(10-13-2011, 08:46 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  Unfortunately that doesn't make up the deficit. chuckle.gif But it least it made the parties wallets feel accountability.

Probably tax deductible...

JR I tell you, have worked side by side with BP on Upstream Research Projects at a local Engineering Lab. The work and Research BP was engaged in was designed with safety in mind.That's why I found it so hard to believe BP could be faulted. I have completed many a well with Halliburton and been on many of Transocean rigs. I knew from the beginning Transocean was at fault 1-way or another. Regardless from 1-group to the next within the same Company can be like working with a whole different Company.

However BP still totally sux...

10-13-2011, 02:42 PM #5
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,849 Threads:655 Joined:Feb 2011
(10-13-2011, 08:46 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  Unfortunately that doesn't make up the deficit. chuckle.gif But it least it made our wallets feel accountability.

Fixed it for you. There is a reason gas went up .10 cents a gallon overnight. MSM claimed it was because suddenly the economy doesn't look so bleak. Yeah, yeah, speculators blah blah. Don't you think the big shots in big oil invest in oil? It is known that speculators drive the price of oil. Who drives the speculators?


13.gif

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
10-13-2011, 03:45 PM #6
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
(10-13-2011, 02:42 PM)Kreeper Wrote:  
(10-13-2011, 08:46 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  Unfortunately that doesn't make up the deficit. chuckle.gif But it least it made our wallets feel accountability.

Fixed it for you. There is a reason gas went up .10 cents a gallon overnight. MSM claimed it was because suddenly the economy doesn't look so bleak. Yeah, yeah, speculators blah blah. Don't you think the big shots in big oil invest in oil? It is known that speculators drive the price of oil. Who drives the speculators?


13.gif

Speculators are driven by greed. Buy up tremendous amounts on the spot market and when supply looks a little short prices go up they dump it. Duh....

Just put $75 in my gas guzzling V-8 pickup and still just over 3/4 tank. It may burn a lot of gas, hard to park and expensive to own but at least when I hit that gas pedal it will go. Rode in a Nissan Leaf last weekend, not going to do that again. My truck goes faster in reverse than that thing. chuckle.gif
10-13-2011, 06:45 PM #7
yankees skier
Posts:5,889 Threads:215 Joined:Feb 2011
$45 million is hardly a deterrent or suitable punishment.

Biere.
10-14-2011, 03:49 PM #8
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
(10-13-2011, 06:45 PM)yankees Wrote:  $45 million is hardly a deterrent or suitable punishment.

Yes it is a deterrent. That's just the fines which is what?

"$35,000 per day per incident"

not to mention

"The bureau’s sanctions are separate from fines and other penalties that are expected to be imposed under the Clean Water Act, which could reach to $21 billion for BP, based on estimates that the Macondo well gushed 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico."

plus the money paid for cleanup and funding people put out of work. In addition to money invested in Macondo which is many millions.

It all adds up

Since BP was the majority owner, BP was responsible for damages. This is not saying that BP was at fault. So now BP will have to go after the other companies found at faulty legally. Many do not understand when a situation like Macondo blowout occurs somebody has to be immediately responsible whether they are guilty or not. Legally it is the majority leaseholder in this case BP. If it was not this way then every company involved would be trying to blame each other slowing down the process further.

This whole incident has hurt/killed people, hurt the environment, many businesses directly and indirectly and threatens the offshore oil and gas from The GOM that accounts for 32% of US domestic oil and gas production
10-14-2011, 04:16 PM #9
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,585 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
Sure, BP may not have been DIRECTLY responsible for the actual causes that lead to the blowout to the extent Halliburton and Transocean were, but on all projects I was involved in, (nothing to do with oil, mind you I was involved in land development) the general contractor was obligated to take responsibility for all the sub contractors they hired and were responsible to supervise their work and make certain it was done properly using best practices which precludes "shortcuts".
On the surface it looks like BP turned the blind eye when their Subs were doing their thing. Nevertheless, you are correct Taco, this will turn into lawyer ball before this is all over with.
I still feel BP should have had a better handle on this in terms of supervision.

wonder.gif
10-15-2011, 08:30 AM #10
Tacolover II Member
Posts:427 Threads:59 Joined:Feb 2011
(10-14-2011, 04:16 PM)JayRodney Wrote:  Sure, BP may not have been DIRECTLY responsible for the actual causes that lead to the blowout to the extent Halliburton and Transocean were, but on all projects I was involved in, (nothing to do with oil, mind you I was involved in land development) the general contractor was obligated to take responsibility for all the sub contractors they hired and were responsible to supervise their work and make certain it was done properly using best practices which precludes "shortcuts".
On the surface it looks like BP turned the blind eye when their Subs were doing their thing. Nevertheless, you are correct Taco, this will turn into lawyer ball before this is all over with.
I still feel BP should have had a better handle on this in terms of supervision.

Exactly JR.
I am not saying BP was not negligent because they were however BP has a fairly good offshore drilling record. I mean in comparison to their pipeline and refining record...That is until April 20th? 2010



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com