Fri, Dec 26, 2014, 2:10 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 7 hrs 20 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ConocoPhillips Message Board

stakeholder_9999 22620 posts  |  Last Activity: Dec 5, 2014 3:10 PM Member since: Aug 12, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    History

    by mitchamz Oct 21, 2014 6:58 PM
    stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Dec 5, 2014 3:10 PM Flag

    Let's see a little Fremont history for you, mitchamaz,

    Fremont's bank was seized after it failed as the third largest subprime lender in the United States.

    Previously Fremont's Life Insurance Company was seized by the California Division of Insurance after it was accused of $200 Million in defrauding senior citizens and it's Workers' Compensation Insurance company was seized after failing to pay $2.272 Billion (with a B) deficit in accepted but unfunded workers' compensation claims.

    After Fremont exited bankruptcy it performed a 10 to 1 reverse split increasing it's price from 82 cents per share to the current $8.20!

  • Reply to

    Watch Irans boys at Isis step up their attacks

    by nomas333 Nov 29, 2014 3:25 PM
    stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Nov 30, 2014 11:37 AM Flag

    nomas333,
    "Watch Irans boys at Isis step up their attacks on the Saudis. The Persians are steaming."

    ------------------------------------------------------

    I realize this may be a little difficult for you to understand, nomass333,

    But the Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia and Iraq have supported ISIS, while the Shi'a Islam in Iran have been supporters of Hezbollah, the Shi'a Islamist militant group and political party based in Lebanon and also the Bashar al-Assad's 13% (including the minority) Alawite sect are Shia Islam that controls the current Syrian government. Sunni Arabs which make up ISIS account for 59–60% of the population, of Syria.

    We must also remember, from the Iranian perspective, how the popular democratically elected government of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddeq, widely regarded as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran's modern history was overthrown in the 1953 U.S. CIA and British MI-6 sponsored Coup, after Mosaddeq had seized control of the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) in Iran.

    President Truman stated at that time:
    "We tried…to get the block headed British to have their Oil company make a fair deal with Iran. No, they could not do that. They know all about how to handle it---we didn't according to them."

    Later under the Eisenhower administration the US government supported and aided in the coup d'état that installed the Shah.

    Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was himself overthrown in 1979 which made possible the monarch's subsequent, 25-reign intensified to the increasingly unpopular Shah and the CIA-trained SAVAK, his repressive secret police force, solidified the anti-American "Blowback" character of the revolution in the minds of many Iranians.

    In 2000, Madeleine Albright, U.S. Secretary of State, said that intervention by the U.S. in the internal affairs of Iran was a setback for democratic government. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to Grand Ayatollah Khomeini's 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the "pro-Western" Shah and replaced the monarchy with an "anti-Western" Islamic Republic.

  • Barton Is (Sorta) Sorry for BP Apology

    —By Kate Sheppard

    | Thu Jun. 17, 2010 3:09 PM EDT

    Now Joe Barton is apologizing for his apology to BP, after his fellow Republican leaders distanced themselves from his BP-brown-nosing this morning.

    Except he doesn't actually apologize. He merely retracts the statement and notes regret for using the word "shakedown" and the "impact" his statement had—i.e. he's not sorry he said it, just sorry that it was blown up in the news for being as asinine as it actually was. Here's the statement:

    I apologize for using the term 'shakedown' with regard to yesterday’s actions at the White House in my opening statement this morning, and I retract my apology to BP. As I told my colleagues yesterday and said again this morning, BP should bear the full financial responsibility for the accident on their lease in the Gulf of Mexico. BP should fully compensate those families and businesses that have been hurt by this accident. BP and the federal government need to stop the leak, clean up the damage, and take whatever steps necessary to prevent a similar accident in the future.

    I regret the impact that my statement this morning implied that BP should not pay for the consequences of their decisions and actions in this incident.

  • Reply to

    BP Got Caught Cheating

    by vikkitrader Sep 17, 2014 3:29 PM
    stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Sep 30, 2014 1:52 PM Flag

    BP's statement is patently false !!!!

    278. It is also noted that BP’s Accident Investigation Report did not mention the 8:52 p.m. phone call between Vidrine and Hafle, and in fact states, “The investigation team has found no evidence that the rig crew or well site leaders consulted anyone outside their team about the pressure abnormality.”104 This statement is patently false. As reflected in the BP investigators’ notes and as members of the investigation team admitted at trial, the BP investigation team was aware of the 8:52 p.m. phone call.

    531. For these reasons, the Court concludes that a corporation is vicariously liable under the CWA’s enhanced penalty provision for the gross negligence and/or willful misconduct of its employees. Consequently, the Court need not determine whether BPXP authorized or ratified the conduct, or whether Vidrine and Hafle (or any other BP employee) were “managerial agents,” or any other attribution standard that may apply under general maritime law, “traditional” common law, or any other law or jurisdiction.

  • Reply to

    BP Court Appeals

    by bijom Sep 5, 2014 12:29 PM
    stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Sep 22, 2014 9:29 AM Flag

    heteddrol you state:
    "It may even result in future accidents because BP will be starved of cash to properly maintain or improve facilities. Its a bad situation."
    ----------------------------------------
    Then maybe BP should choose another line of business?

  • Reply to

    BP Court Appeals

    by bijom Sep 5, 2014 12:29 PM
    stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Sep 22, 2014 9:19 AM Flag

    warnbeeb,
    You sure are putting BP in some outstanding company!

  • stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Sep 11, 2014 11:07 PM Flag

    Responsibility for Misinterpretation of the Negative Pressure Test

    iii. 253. BP was responsible for designing the procedures for the negative pressure test, supervising the test, and ultimately determining whether the test was a success.

  • stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Sep 11, 2014 10:33 PM Flag

    252. If the negative pressure test had been correctly interpreted, the blowout, explosion, fire, and oil spill would have been averted. Consequently, the Court finds that the misinterpretation of the negative pressure test was a substantial cause of the blowout, explosion, fire, and oil spill.

  • stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Sep 11, 2014 10:18 PM Flag

    BP's Well Site Leader had the ultimate decision on the negative pressure test.

    255. Randy Ezell, Transocean’s senior toolpusher on the HORIZON (who was off duty at the
    time of the blowout) testified that it was typical for the on-duty BP Well Site Leader and the on-duty Transocean toolpusher to discuss the results of a negative pressure test, but that “it was BP’s well, and he [the BP Well Site Leader] had the final say [as to whether the negative
    pressure test was successful or not]. . . . He [the BP Well Site Leader] had the ultimate decision, but we had stop-work authority if we saw something wasn’t correct.”95

  • stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Sep 11, 2014 10:08 PM Flag

    ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? .

    285. BP’s Accident Investigation Report stated that “the investigation team could find no evidence that such a phenomenon is possible, leaving the 1,400 psi unexplained unless it was caused by pressure from the reservoir.”108

    286. Five days after the blowout, Well Site Leader Bob Kaluza sent an e-mail to BP personnel that provided a detailed explanation as to how the “bladder effect” could have created the anomalous pressure reading. Patrick O’Byran, BP’s Vice President of Drilling and Completions for the Gulf of Mexico at the time (and who, coincidentally, was on the HORIZON when the explosions occurred), responded to this explanation by typing:

    ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? .
    . .
    followed by roughly another 500 question marks. During trial Mr. O’Byran explained, “[A]s I sit here today, I don’t understand what Mr. Kaluza was trying to define, and this [the question-mark-only response] is what we have in front of us today.”109

  • stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Sep 11, 2014 9:57 PM Flag

    BP's statement is patently false !!!!

    278. It is also noted that BP’s Accident Investigation Report did not mention the 8:52 p.m. phone call between Vidrine and Hafle, and in fact states, “The investigation team has found no evidence that the rig crew or well site leaders consulted anyone outside their team about the pressure abnormality.”104 This statement is patently false. As reflected in the BP investigators’ notes and as members of the investigation team admitted at trial, the BP investigation team was aware of the 8:52 p.m. phone call.

    531. For these reasons, the Court concludes that a corporation is vicariously liable under the CWA’s enhanced penalty provision for the gross negligence and/or willful misconduct of its employees. Consequently, the Court need not determine whether BPXP authorized or ratified the conduct, or whether Vidrine and Hafle (or any other BP employee) were “managerial agents,” or any other attribution standard that may apply under general maritime law, “traditional” common law, or any other law or jurisdiction.

  • BP found Gross negligent - but then why no punitive damages?

    275. Furthermore, it is inexplicable that Hafle did not take further action given that he believed the design of the cement job was “on [the] ragged edge” and that BP would get a “shittie” cement job. 102 Mr. Hafle also knew of the problems BP encountered with converting the float collar and the anomalous data that followed.

    276. But even if Hafle lacked context, Don Vidrine did not. The Well Site Leader already had firsthand knowledge of the negative pressure test that he himself approved an hour before. Furthermore, Vidrine stated in post-incident interviews that the negative pressure test results looked “squirrely” to him and that he was “concerned” about the pressure on the drill pipe. 103 If these statements accurately represent Vidrine’s beliefs on April 20, 2010, then when Hafle provided the information Vidrine already was obligated to know as a matter of fundamental well control—“you can’t have pressure on the drill pipe and zero pressure on the kill line in a test that’s properly lined up”—Vidrine should not have hesitated to order the Transocean drill crew to stop the displacement, shut in the well, and redo the negative pressure test.

    277. However, Vidrine did not order another negative pressure test after the phone call. Nor does any evidence indicate that Vidrine discussed the phone call with the Transocean crew. Instead, at 9:14 p.m. Mr. Vidrine affirmatively ordered that the pumps—which had stopped at 9:08 p.m. so a sheen test could be performed—be restarted and that displacement continue. He did this with the critical information the BP Senior Drilling Engineer had provided to him only minutes earlier.

    continued

  • One would think that Monsanto would be proud of their GMO products and would want them to be labeled!

    So what is the value of Monsanto's "Good Will" if it can't be advertised?

  • stakeholder_9999 by stakeholder_9999 Jun 10, 2014 5:52 PM Flag

    LA Senate Bill 469 bans lawsuits retroactively against oil companies!

  • LA Senate Bill 469.

  • stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 Jun 10, 2014 4:37 PM Flag

    Ironic isn't it hetedrol,

    BP which is now accusing other businesses owners of fraud is the very same company (BP) some of whose own employees HAVE been convicted of the fraud of hiding evidence regarding the circumstances of the cause of the Macondo blowout and the size of the oil spill.

    Now is it unreasonable or even fraudulent if, if for example, a car dealership in LA which sold automobiles primarily to fishermen should wish to make a claim against BP because sales are off would wish to make a claim against BP?

    We haven't even gotten to the injured clean-up employees who may have by now now come down with cancer after being exposed to BP's oil and Corexit?
    Are these people all supposed to show a direct correlation relationship of their cancers to BP's oil and dispersants spilled in the Gulf in 2010?

    Let's have some real independent numbers for the presumed fraud and not just the fallacy of anecdotal evidence, such as the direct statistical evidence for convictions for fraudulent claims versus all claims.

    It should be noted that the total value of the amount of fraud convictions, $12 Million, has been reported to so far be 2/100's of 1 Percent of the total amounts, $42 Billion, claimed against BP.

    Not very much, don't you agree, hetedrol?

    Or does BP now whish that we are no longer are to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law"?

    Would not the management of BP whish for the same consideration for themselves?

  • Supreme Court Rules BP Must Still Pay Claims
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    JUNE 9, 2014
    New York Times

    But was this unexpected?

    "BP Shareholders – Are you mad as hell at lawyers?" [GOOGLE]
    Posted by Tom Young
    June 3, 2014 10:45 AM

    And as for “fraud,” BP can only account for a bit over $12 million out of $42 billion, or .0002 of all claims. With most if not all convictions for same stemming from BP’s own in-house claims program, the now defunct GCCF, not the current payment system.
    ---------------------------------
    Who’s getting rich?
    Lawyers are. Just not the ones you think.

    BP has become one big law firm, employing hundreds of in-house and outside lawyers. Total attorneys fees have swelled beyond $1 billion according to recent reports.

    Deadline? What deadline?
    This should have all been over by now. When the Settlement Agreement was executed and Kumbayah sung over two years ago, April 22, 2014 seemed an eternity. That was the agreed upon last day anyone could submit a claim to BP, after April 22, 2014 he was out of luck.
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Game over. Case closed. BP was to be fully released from nearly all commercial liability over six weeks ago.

    But April 22, 2014 has come and gone and the Claims Administration is still open for business. In fact, according to the Settlement Agreement, the Claims Administrator will continue to accept new filings for at least another six months, and likely much longer (but see this caveat for claimants who procrastinate in Section 21.3).

    So the soonest possible deadline, as of today, is December 3,[9] 2014. Worse for BP, that date extends by each day BP keeps its losing appeals alive.

  • Reply to

    BP Motion Denied Today

    by vikkitrader Feb 26, 2014 2:34 PM
    stakeholder_9999 stakeholder_9999 May 21, 2014 2:42 AM Flag

    "Well, that's only the "criminal" fraud tally."

    Really, cuiosity99,
    What other kind of fraud is there?

  • Unsafe working conditions include rig areas covered in a “thick film of drilling mud,” supposedly watertight equipment that actually leaked and safety equipment that was past its inspection date. The recording of maintenance issues was “substandard with missing information and poor quality reports that lacked sufficient detail to convince the reader that the task had actually been performed in accordance with the procedure.”

    The findings reinforced those in two separate audits, obtained by The Times, that were performed in March and April by Lloyd’s Register Group, a maritime and risk-management organization. In an audit conducted April 1 to 12, investigators identified 26 components and systems on the rig that were in “bad” or “poor” condition.

    A month earlier, an audit on the rig’s “safety culture” by a separate division of Lloyd’s found some workers were dismayed about safety practices and feared reprisals if they reported mistakes.

  • stakeholder_9999 by stakeholder_9999 May 20, 2014 7:27 AM Flag

    Fair compensation and recovery not likely to happen for the citizens of Louisiana or their businesses. If history repeats itself, it could take over 19 years for Louisiana to wait for compensation from PB. Our last oil related crisis, the oil spill from the oil tanker the Exxon Valdez, resulted in Exxon escaping from paying any significant fines, fees and punitive damages for the 11,000 million gallons of oil spilled in Prince William Sound March 24, 1989.
    The Exxon Valdez case of Baker v. Exxon an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. Most Alaskans believed this was a just and fair settlement. It was the first time the extensive damage to their coastal envirnoment was being addressed. Exxon appealed the ruling and a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals on December 6, 2002 reduced it to 4 billion. After more appeals on January 27, 2006 the damages award was reduced to $2.5 billion. Exxon repealed again, and on February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 90 minutes and on June 25, 2008 Justice David Souter issued the judgment of the court, vacating the 2.5 billion award and recommended the case back to a lower court, finding that the damages were excessive with respect to maritime common law. The judgment limits punitive damages to 507.5 million. I'm not an expert on maritime common law, but I would guess not much has changed since 2008. I hope Louisianians take note and will not allow BP lawyers to wear them out, leaving all hope for compensation for the current damage. Our courts should be here to protect the rights of our citizens and our environment. History does not need to repeat itself.

COP
70.13-0.92(-1.29%)Dec 24 1:02 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Virgin America Inc.
NASDAQWed, Dec 24, 2014 1:00 PM EST
Southwestern Energy Co.
NYSEWed, Dec 24, 2014 1:02 PM EST