You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Economy
BP boss Hayward resigns over Gulf oil disaster
2010-07-28
[The Nation (Nairobi)] BP's vilified chief executive Tony Hayward resigned Tuesday as the British oil giant revealed the Gulf of Mexico disaster will cost over 32 billion dollars after causing a record quarterly loss.

Hayward, whose PR gaffes handling the oil spill made him a target of US fury, will be succeeded by Bob Dudley, who is currently in charge of BP's Gulf clean-up operations and will become the group's first US chief executive.

BP said it had made a record 16.9-billion-dollar loss in the second quarter and that it will sell 30 billion dollars of assets over the next 18 months as it seeks to streamline operations and return to profitability.

The troubled firm was pushed into the red by the 32.2 billion dollars (24.7 billion euros) set aside to pay for the costs of the spill -- the worst environmental disaster in US history.

"The Gulf of Mexico explosion was a terrible tragedy for which -- as the man in charge of BP when it happened -- I will always feel a deep responsibility, regardless of where blame is ultimately found to lie," Hayward said.

BP and Hayward in particular have been mauled by Washington since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers and unleashing millions of gallons of crude into the sea and onto the US Gulf coast.

"BP today announced that, by mutual agreement with the BP board, Tony Hayward is to step down as group chief executive with effect from October 1," it said, adding he will be nominated as a non-executive director of TNK-BP, a Russian joint venture.

BP's share price has plunged about 40 percent since the explosion -- wiping tens of billions of dollars off the group's market value. BP shares rose 0.49 percent in value to 419 pence in Tuesday trade.

"As expected, BP reported the worst figures in UK corporate history," said ETX Capital trader Manoj Ladwa.

"Despite the company going through significant management and structural change, the future still remains uncertain for the oil giant and BP in a years' time could be significantly different from the company today."
Posted by:Fred

#9  Well, there's a little good news in the world: the microbes are on the job:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_sc3270
Posted by: mom   2010-07-28 22:21  

#8  the BOP's fail,

BOP means blow-out preventer, junkiron? It seemed the most likely of the options google presented.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-07-28 20:52  

#7  The first time I went to BOP school was in 1973. But I still remember the instructor telling the class that allowing an oil well to get out of control is like incest. It is something that should never ever be allowed to happen. And it is absolutely unforgivable if it does. The oil companies priorities have always been to control the well in the first place. Not what do if a blowout occurs.
In basic training I was taught that the M-60 machine gun was the last line of defense. And if that fails and the enemy is still coming , its time to fix bayonets, thrust and parry, and what ever else you can come up with.
If the an oil well gets to the point that the BOP's must be relied on to control the well , and the BOP's fail, you are pretty much at the fix bayonets stage. You are already way beyond the manual, because it's not supposed to ever be allowed get that far in the first place.
Posted by: junkiron   2010-07-28 18:47  

#6  Thanks AH9418, fairly difficult environment indeed. Suppose in a shallow/less pressure environment something like that could work, or is it more to do with oil/ocean/etc chemical properties?
Posted by: swksvolFF   2010-07-28 16:55  

#5  #4 - I believe something like you mentioned was indeed tried very early on, but it was clogged by materials which formed a semi-solid under the temperature & pressure conditions at the leak site, stopping the flow out through the 'siphon' and allowing the leak to continue as if the funnel hadn't been there at all.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2010-07-28 13:29  

#4  I have a question/idea:

Why not build a large inversed funnel and anchor it so all the oil from a blown well like this (was) is channeled into the the spigot and then into a pipe for harvesting? Sure there might be a little water at first but wouldn't the pressure from the oil expel the seawater; much like blowing air into a swimming mask?

I guess if there wasn't constant continuous siphoning of the funnel volume there would be overspill...just playing around, better than just letting it all spill out...maybe some splitters for the line so there are multiple receiving options?
Posted by: swksvolFF   2010-07-28 12:04  

#3  Besoeker, that's why I said bullshit, that's more truthfull, and NOT what it said,
Only way you could reach that high is to pay everybody what they ask and pay no attention to If the Bill is true or wildly ficticious.

Like Say, giving a Taxi driver $500,000 because he lost the paying customers that Might have used his Taxi.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2010-07-28 11:57  

#2  will cost consumers over 32 billion dollars after causing a record quarterly loss.

NO BULLSHIT.
Posted by: Besoeker   2010-07-28 00:30  

#1  will cost over 32 billion dollars

BULLSHIT.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2010-07-28 00:24  

00:00