BP, the global oil exploration company formerly known as BP, which was singled out for retrospective penalties by the Obama administration over the Deepwater Horizon disaster last year is suing those companies it holds responsible with a $40bn lawsuit in negligence. Wholly or partly owned US companies in the chain of causation who were given an easy ride by the administration, Transocean, owners of the oil rig and Cameron International, manufacturers of the blowout preventer are named in the action as is the cement maker Halliburton joined for negligence, fraud and perverting the course of justice in concealing material evidence.

km

Which is exactly what I said last year. As sponsor of the operation US law held BP 100% responsible for the costs and fines. BP would then take the other corporations to court in a civil suit where a judge/jury would determine comparative liability for each litigant (including BP) and determine how much of the $40bn BP gets from the other corporations and what share each pays.

Right Llewelyn.

I also said the same thing as you did, last year.

If I remember correctly?
TransOcean already did pay BP, for their perceived portion as well as Halliburton.

If BP can get any further settlements is another question? ? BP under US law is 100% responsible for its actions and its subcontractors. Now I don't know what is written in BP sub contract terms and conditions? ? These normally would be i:

1 - Material cost and labor from a sub contractor (contract) reimbursement.
2 - LD's or late charges, that the sub contractors cause the project to be delayed.
3 - Any damages that a contractor caused to equipment other than their own.

So yes - It really comes down to (what) BP has worded in their sub contracts.

I suspect that the sub contractors will then go after their suppliers of materials, so this will go on for sometime as well.

BP, however cannot sue for;

1 - Damage to its public reputation.
2 - Punitive damage due to the incident.

After all BP is 100% responsible as being the owner of the well and the general contractor. BP has the responsibility to insure that (all) its sub contractors perform according to ALL laws and industry standards and that includes the sub contractors materials and schedules.

Hmmm - funny how they can sue for $40bn when they're 100 per cent responsible by law.

km

Erm .. it's entirely possible for a company to be 100% responsible for paying costs to an aggrieved party and still be able to themselves sue subcontractors for negligence (or whatever) to defray those costs. The two are not mutually exclusive.

He wasn't talking about 'costs'... costs are what's awarded to the winning party in litigation to offset legal fees. If by costs you mean the compensation payable to the victims, that liability was shared - the difference between the companies was that BP paid up and the others didn't.

km

Okay then:

"Erm .. it's entirely possible for a company to be 100% responsible for paying costs to an aggrieved party and still be able to themselves sue subcontractors for negligence (or whatever) to defray those costs. The two are not mutually exclusive."

I don't think that changed the point any, but thanks for the head-up ;-)

This American double-talk nonsense is getting beyond a joke.... all in one week we've had the miracle of someone being simultaneously armed and unarmed, resisting arrest and cowering... and now we've got 100 per cent liable but not 100 per cent liable.

km

Assuming you're talking about the bin Laden deal, I think you've misread the reports -- the narrative certainly changed over time, presumably on the availability of fresher information or maybe just getting their fabrication straight. Regardless, I don't remember official releases claiming the simultaneous conditions you describe ... (I also don't remember at any point any of them saying he was cowering, but perhaps that's another discussion ;-) ...



Who said they weren't 100% liable?

I'm thinking you haven't read them because I'm talking verbatim about what was said by US officials... the first account of his death on Monday 2 May was that bin laden was

"engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house...."

and was

"killed in that firefight"

so according to that account he was armed. Then on Tuesday we had the announcement that

"he was not armed"

Now, bin Laden couldn't have been simultaneously armed and unarmed yet you can read about that and other miracles including how his wife was killed and suddenly came back to life again in the Guardian.

km