Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Mr.Coffee · 06-19-2010, 06:16 PM

Back in May I posted in this very thread the fact that BP is solely responsible based on the fact that they were the Operator under some kind of Joint Operating Agreement that would have governed operations and the relationship between Anadarko / BP. Looks like Anadarko agrees:

http://www.oilvoice.com/n/Anadarko_I...77ce8ab76.aspx

Well said by Anadarko as they (knowingly) prepare themselves for several BP AFE's at 25%. Time to take a strong legal stance that you're not in on this very expensive well. People are talking about how this could kill BP... sure... what about Anadarko which is a fraction of the size but still a 25% owner of the well.

Anadarko isn't exactly a small company either. Their future is at stake and they know they need to rely on the Agreement in place. It'll be interesting to see how BP classifies all the various costs they've incurred to date and how they can try and weasel Anadarko into paying some of them.

I especially like this part, something BP has NOT publicly admitted to themselves, just to make BP look that much worse:

Anadarko also announced that it will donate to charitable and civic agencies along the Gulf Coast any revenue it is entitled to receive from oil recovered from the clean-up efforts.

"We hope donating these proceeds to the people of the Gulf Coast will help offset some of the hardships being experienced in so many ways by those living in the affected communities," said Hackett. "We are saddened by the loss of lives that occurred in this accident and the livelihoods that have been damaged by the spill. We continue to offer our prayers to the families of those lost and to all of those who are still suffering through this tragic event."

I'd also like to add that "good and workmanlike manner" and "good oilfield practice" are fairly vague terms, but are in almost all oil and gas contracts (especially in Canada, whenever a CAPL Operating Procedure is used). I imagine a judge, unfamiliar with oil and gas, may interpret these words differently. Should make for an interesting legal battle between the 2 partners. I know that many legal cases here in Alberta, end up with judicial resolutions that make no sense for industry because the judge resolving the dispute has no understanding of how oil and gas companies rely on these contracts and the common understanding that the words actually are meant to be interpreted to mean.

06-19-2010, 06:16 PM	#464
Mr.Coffee damn onions Join Date: Mar 2006 Exp:	Back in May I posted in this very thread the fact that BP is solely responsible based on the fact that they were the Operator under some kind of Joint Operating Agreement that would have governed operations and the relationship between Anadarko / BP. Looks like Anadarko agrees: http://www.oilvoice.com/n/Anadarko_I...77ce8ab76.aspx Well said by Anadarko as they (knowingly) prepare themselves for several BP AFE's at 25%. Time to take a strong legal stance that you're not in on this very expensive well. People are talking about how this could kill BP... sure... what about Anadarko which is a fraction of the size but still a 25% owner of the well. Anadarko isn't exactly a small company either. Their future is at stake and they know they need to rely on the Agreement in place. It'll be interesting to see how BP classifies all the various costs they've incurred to date and how they can try and weasel Anadarko into paying some of them. I especially like this part, something BP has NOT publicly admitted to themselves, just to make BP look that much worse: Anadarko also announced that it will donate to charitable and civic agencies along the Gulf Coast any revenue it is entitled to receive from oil recovered from the clean-up efforts. "We hope donating these proceeds to the people of the Gulf Coast will help offset some of the hardships being experienced in so many ways by those living in the affected communities," said Hackett. "We are saddened by the loss of lives that occurred in this accident and the livelihoods that have been damaged by the spill. We continue to offer our prayers to the families of those lost and to all of those who are still suffering through this tragic event." I'd also like to add that "good and workmanlike manner" and "good oilfield practice" are fairly vague terms, but are in almost all oil and gas contracts (especially in Canada, whenever a CAPL Operating Procedure is used). I imagine a judge, unfamiliar with oil and gas, may interpret these words differently. Should make for an interesting legal battle between the 2 partners. I know that many legal cases here in Alberta, end up with judicial resolutions that make no sense for industry because the judge resolving the dispute has no understanding of how oil and gas companies rely on these contracts and the common understanding that the words actually are meant to be interpreted to mean. Last edited by Mr.Coffee; 06-19-2010 at 06:23 PM.