Full Lawsuit Filed By US Against BP Et Al

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
wiskeyrunner's picture

No such thing as a down market, can't have that, not after spending trillions.

Boilermaker's picture

BP down barely 1%...

It's a BS PR routine.  Probably another slap on the wrist fine that is insignificant to the company.

RobotTrader's picture

I'm looking for a rotation out of the land drillers (NOV, HAL, etc.) and into the beaten down offshore names like NE, RIG, DO once this "lawsuit" noise reaches Super Bowl levels.

tahoebumsmith's picture

RIG is right at the top of this list? Why would you even go there

Mongo's picture

Nigel Farage is at it again, this time wishing us merry christmas in his own style and words...


The failure of the euro is nothing to do with speculation, its nothing to do with the markets, be they currency or bonds. It’s becuase the north and the south in europe cannot today or at any point be put together in a single monetary union… it won’t work!



Raymond K. Hessel's picture

Halliburton with their crap cement gets off scott free. You can't make this shit up.

YHC-FTSE's picture


Been thinking the same. Halliburton, Transocean, Cameron International Corp., Andarko Petroleum Corp., M-I Swaco, BP, they're all equally at fault.


One thing I've learned out of all this: If an American company suddenly increases the insurance value of its oil rig/skyscraper, then steer clear of that area. Especially if they insist on terrorism cover.

NotApplicable's picture

I don't understand what Transocean has allegedly done wrong, other than owning the rig that they leased to BP. What am I missing?

YHC-FTSE's picture

Transocean? Other than being the owners of the faulty rig that exploded, having its employees on it at the time of the incident (BP only had 7 employees on the rig), and suspiciously increasing the insurance value of the rig from its cost of $290M in 2001 to $560M in 2009 when by ordinary accounting rules the asset should have depreciated, nothing.

LeBalance's picture

As stated in the earlier thread:

It is impossible for the US Gov to have the Oil Spill both as

(1) Something they can sue for unlimited damages over; AND

(2) Something that did no damage, that the oil merely dissolved, and that the leak stopped in June.  All of which this adminstration claimed while they were playing lap dog to the Queen's Oil Cartel.

This is not even entertaining criminal behavior.

These are scenes in a movie theater where the crowd starts to walk out.

No class. No finesse. No professionalism.

"Time to Change the Batter!" - Rocky Mountain Way - Joe Walsh

Cdad's picture


You might be right or you might be wrong...I don't pretend to know because I don't do politics.

I think the only thing that matters is that criminal syndicate Wall Street bankers bought the crap out of this thing exactly when they were telling average Joe to sell it in June.

And so the way this works now is that the syndicate will sell it and tell Average Joe that the lower prices are a great buying opportunity.

So the truth about the yin and the yang hardly come into it as Wall Street arbitrages to death everything on the surface of the planet and gives itself $100 million in bonuses.

But I respect your opinion on the matter while disclosing that I am short the stock.

LMAO's picture

@ LB

Yes, it's a total disgrace.

The real kicker is that they probably want to be compensated in Oil if they get a ruling in their favour. Thus using the Oil spill to extract the Oil directly from the said Cartel. Here we go in the merry-go-round, on the same day the $ 90 mark gets pierced and we read headlines like this:

WTI Crude Jumps By Over $2, Wipes Out $200 Billion In Annualized GDP In Under Two Hours


This headline alone screams "counter-strike" for the US gubbermint.

There we have it, the US gov. driving up the oil-prices by going after the Perps who they previously so "bravely" defended.



squexx's picture

They'll settle out of court for $10 million, like they usually do. And the officials involved will discover new Swiss numbered bank accounts in their names!

squexx's picture

Et Al?!? Shouldn't someone should inform his next of kin!

szjon's picture

Just two words for the american legislators.


Bhopal bitches!

digalert's picture

If this case is United States representing the people, against BP. What was the $20 billion demanded by Obama and who does Obama represent?

Money 4 Nothing's picture

That's all fine and dandy, but it's what they don't say speaks volumes. 

There quoting the Mocondo well, Mississippi canyon block 252, but they failed to mention BP assholes own 2 wells within that block, 1 was exploritory, drilled ran into a problem, then capped, they moved on to site 2 just south west from site 1, that was the blowout well, the one everyone saw on TV gushing shit, the North East well is the one that showed up one day on TV with a cap on it. So my question is.. why are they not mentioning the Lat Long of these locations? Look up there drilling contract with MMS and it states everything I just covered. Sorry, I just wanna know WHICH well there being sued for. One is sealed but the other one is the red headed stepchild that's still leaking to this day. BTW.. Good luck suing the Queen of England.   Floridaoilspillaw.com

CEOoftheSOFA's picture

It makes sense that Halliburton was not named in the suit.  BP was supposed to run a cement bond log.  Schlumberger was on the rig to run one.  The Schlumberger people refused to run it because they said the well was not dead.  Schlumberger left the rig just a few hours before it blew. 

It also makes sense that the BOP manufacturer was not held liable.  BP didn't attempt to close the BOP until the rig was engulfed in flames and had moved off it's position. 

BP should have recognised that the well was not under control about 10 hours before it blew.  That is the primary source of culpability.