Anadarko Petroleum (APC), Oasis Petroleum Inc. (OAS), Cameron (CAM), Halliburton (HAL), Marathon Petroleum (MPC), Transocean (RIG) and Whiting Petroleum Co. (WLL) had ratings and price targets on them adjusted by analysts.
CLSA upgraded Anadarko Petroleum (APC) from an "Outperform" rating to a "Buy" rating.
Pritchard upgraded Oasis Petroleum Inc. (OAS) from a "Neutral" rating to a "Buy" rating.
Raymond James downgraded Cameron (CAM) from a "Strong-Buy" rating to a "Market Perform" rating.
Raymond James downgraded Halliburton (HAL) from an "Outperform" rating to a "Market Perform" rating.
Deutsche Bank downgraded Marathon Petroleum (MPC) from a "Buy" rating to a "Hold" rating.
Raymond James downgraded Transocean (RIG) from a "Strong-Buy" rating to a "Market Perform" rating.
CLSA downgraded Whiting Petroleum Co. (WLL) from an "Outperform" rating to a "Buy" rating.
Showing posts with label Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cameron. Show all posts
Monday, April 16, 2012
Sunday, June 27, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Class Action Lawsuit: Class Action Attorney
One of New Orleans highly regarded and prominent chefs Susan Spicer, is suing BP (NYSE:BP) claiming that restaurants in the area have seen a decline in seafood supplies due to the negligence of the Gulf oil spill. She runs a restaurant called Bayone in the French Quarter of New Orleans.
The class action lawsuit is on behalf of all restaurants in the seafood industry that have experienced losses and damage caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon Rig on April 20th. The 18 page complaint was filed in Federal Court on Friday.
Serena Pollace, Spicer's lawyer said that due to the oil spill they are expecting to lose customers because of contamination fears, higher prices, lower tourism, and the lack of availability of local seafood. " Much of the plaintiffs business is based on the unique quality of Louisiana seafood as well as the chain of delivery of that resource from the initial harvester. Because this chain of delivery cannot be maintained, plaintiffs business has been and continues to be, materially damaged," said Pollace.
The lawsuit also names as defendants, Transocean who operated the rig, Cameron who provided the blowout preventer, and Halliburton that provided the cementing services. The lawsuit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from BP.
The class action lawsuit is on behalf of all restaurants in the seafood industry that have experienced losses and damage caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon Rig on April 20th. The 18 page complaint was filed in Federal Court on Friday.
Serena Pollace, Spicer's lawyer said that due to the oil spill they are expecting to lose customers because of contamination fears, higher prices, lower tourism, and the lack of availability of local seafood. " Much of the plaintiffs business is based on the unique quality of Louisiana seafood as well as the chain of delivery of that resource from the initial harvester. Because this chain of delivery cannot be maintained, plaintiffs business has been and continues to be, materially damaged," said Pollace.
The lawsuit also names as defendants, Transocean who operated the rig, Cameron who provided the blowout preventer, and Halliburton that provided the cementing services. The lawsuit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from BP.
Monday, June 21, 2010
YOU WILL PAY: BP (NYSE:BP), Transocean (NYSE:RIG), Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), and Cameron (NYSE:CAM)
You will pay is what is being told to BP (NYSE:BP), Transocean (NYSE:RIG), Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), and Cameron (NYSE:CAM). This demand is coming from 11 East Coast states that have already told BP they put the full responsibility of the damage from the oil spill disaster onto their shoulders.
Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal said, "even without oil actually reaching the Connecticut shoreline, this massive oil spill could still impose damage and destruction to the entire Atlantic coastline." Marine life and birds are likely to be "severely damaged."
Blumenthal added, "Connecticut and a coalition of states are putting BP and affiliated companies on notice that we will not pay the price for their monumental failures." This request seems a little premature considering there has yet to be any damage or destruction done.
Meanwhile, the containment cap that BP is using to contain the oil on Sunday captured 14,570 barrels of oil. While using a secondary containment system to burn off oil, burned 8,720 barrels on Sunday. Between the two systems there is a daily average of 28,000 barrels being captured.
Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal said, "even without oil actually reaching the Connecticut shoreline, this massive oil spill could still impose damage and destruction to the entire Atlantic coastline." Marine life and birds are likely to be "severely damaged."
Blumenthal added, "Connecticut and a coalition of states are putting BP and affiliated companies on notice that we will not pay the price for their monumental failures." This request seems a little premature considering there has yet to be any damage or destruction done.
Meanwhile, the containment cap that BP is using to contain the oil on Sunday captured 14,570 barrels of oil. While using a secondary containment system to burn off oil, burned 8,720 barrels on Sunday. Between the two systems there is a daily average of 28,000 barrels being captured.
BP (NYSE:BP) Escrow Fund Getting Murkier
The creation of the escrow fund by BP (NYSE:BP) after being pressured by U.S. lawmakers to do it, has gotten even more complicated, as the calls by some lawmakers to have Anadarko Petroleum (NYSE:APC) and Japanese partner Mitsui share in the liability costs will probably go to court now, partly on the basis of the escrow fund being created without them being part of the process.
In other words, it's questionable whether BP had the legal right to enter into the agreement without the two partners giving their consent.
So not only are there concerns raised over the misuse of the fund for purposes not associated with damage from the oil spill, but now it could cause major problems going forward concerning the part of the other partners in the oil well as far as paying damages goes.
Anadarko was 25 percent partner in the well and Mitsui was a 10 percent partner. BP was the majority partner, accounting for the other 65 percent ownership in the project.
A lawsuit was obviously coming concerning sharing in the liability for the accident anyway, as the recent attack by Anardarko CEO Jim Hackett was an obvious prelude to BP being forced to go to court to get them to keep the company from "shirking its responsibilities," as BP stated.
Hackett said, "The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions. BP's behavior and action is likely represent gross negligence or wilful misconduct."
This is alluding to the language used in the law on capping the amount of liability at $75 million for oil companies. The reality that BP said they would ignore the cap could be interpreted as an admission of guilt concerning the "gross negligence or wilful misconduct" accusation from Anadarko.
On BP's part, this was a big mistake, as Anadarko spokesman John Christiansen said, "Although we have not been involved in any way with the White House or BP in the process, we are pleased that BP has agreed to establish a $20bn escrow fund.
"We believe this action by BP is consistent with their continued message that they will pay all legitimate claims."
... And it could be interpreted that way going forward.
All of this and there has been no determination on what caused the accident, and that doesn't include Cameron International (NYSE:CAM), which made the blowout preventer, or Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), who did the cement work; either of which could have involved faulty work which resulted in the oil spill.
So we have all this liability being paid, with no one but BP involved in the decision-making process, and no knowledge of what caused the accident in the first place to see if there was negligence from other parties.
After the grandstanding by the politicians and twisting of BP's arm to get the escrow account, we see it as another mistake made by lawmakers trying to gain political capital without considering the overall picture.
From the point of view of sharing liability, this is a disaster, and it's not certain it will stand up in a court of law when partners are left out of negotiations.
It could also make BP more vulnerable than it maybe had to be, and why they should have not allowed themselves to be pressured into the escrow account, as possession is everything, and now that they have to turn their money over to the possession of the government, there isn't much chance they'll ever have a say in it.
BP should have taken their time with this no matter what the pressure was, as in hindsight they now see they've painted themselves into a corner, and calls by lawmakers who pressed them on it to now have their partners start to help them pay for liability claims, sounds hollow, as these same politicians created the circumstances which has led to yet another fiasco.
The legal questions continue to grow concerning the escrow fund, as it's not even confirmed that in and of itself it's legal. Add to that the potential abuses, and now the realization the other partners in the oil well weren't even communicated with by lawmakers or BP in the creation of the escrow fund, and the legal questions continue to mount as the process plays itself out.
Obama and the Democrats especially, are guilty of their own demagoguery in the matter, which created an atmosphere of a need to rush along the paying out of liability claims, as if them taking it over will in any way expedite the payouts. In the end, as always with government bureaucracy, it'll take longer.
In their own rush to build political capital, the administration has again proven they have a difficult time focusing on more than one thing at a time, and in the end, have made the circumstances much harder than it had to be.
In other words, it's questionable whether BP had the legal right to enter into the agreement without the two partners giving their consent.
So not only are there concerns raised over the misuse of the fund for purposes not associated with damage from the oil spill, but now it could cause major problems going forward concerning the part of the other partners in the oil well as far as paying damages goes.
Anadarko was 25 percent partner in the well and Mitsui was a 10 percent partner. BP was the majority partner, accounting for the other 65 percent ownership in the project.
A lawsuit was obviously coming concerning sharing in the liability for the accident anyway, as the recent attack by Anardarko CEO Jim Hackett was an obvious prelude to BP being forced to go to court to get them to keep the company from "shirking its responsibilities," as BP stated.
Hackett said, "The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions. BP's behavior and action is likely represent gross negligence or wilful misconduct."
This is alluding to the language used in the law on capping the amount of liability at $75 million for oil companies. The reality that BP said they would ignore the cap could be interpreted as an admission of guilt concerning the "gross negligence or wilful misconduct" accusation from Anadarko.
On BP's part, this was a big mistake, as Anadarko spokesman John Christiansen said, "Although we have not been involved in any way with the White House or BP in the process, we are pleased that BP has agreed to establish a $20bn escrow fund.
"We believe this action by BP is consistent with their continued message that they will pay all legitimate claims."
... And it could be interpreted that way going forward.
All of this and there has been no determination on what caused the accident, and that doesn't include Cameron International (NYSE:CAM), which made the blowout preventer, or Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), who did the cement work; either of which could have involved faulty work which resulted in the oil spill.
So we have all this liability being paid, with no one but BP involved in the decision-making process, and no knowledge of what caused the accident in the first place to see if there was negligence from other parties.
After the grandstanding by the politicians and twisting of BP's arm to get the escrow account, we see it as another mistake made by lawmakers trying to gain political capital without considering the overall picture.
From the point of view of sharing liability, this is a disaster, and it's not certain it will stand up in a court of law when partners are left out of negotiations.
It could also make BP more vulnerable than it maybe had to be, and why they should have not allowed themselves to be pressured into the escrow account, as possession is everything, and now that they have to turn their money over to the possession of the government, there isn't much chance they'll ever have a say in it.
BP should have taken their time with this no matter what the pressure was, as in hindsight they now see they've painted themselves into a corner, and calls by lawmakers who pressed them on it to now have their partners start to help them pay for liability claims, sounds hollow, as these same politicians created the circumstances which has led to yet another fiasco.
The legal questions continue to grow concerning the escrow fund, as it's not even confirmed that in and of itself it's legal. Add to that the potential abuses, and now the realization the other partners in the oil well weren't even communicated with by lawmakers or BP in the creation of the escrow fund, and the legal questions continue to mount as the process plays itself out.
Obama and the Democrats especially, are guilty of their own demagoguery in the matter, which created an atmosphere of a need to rush along the paying out of liability claims, as if them taking it over will in any way expedite the payouts. In the end, as always with government bureaucracy, it'll take longer.
In their own rush to build political capital, the administration has again proven they have a difficult time focusing on more than one thing at a time, and in the end, have made the circumstances much harder than it had to be.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Battle Brewing Between BP (NYSE:BP), Partners?
If the comments by Anadarko (NYSE:APC) CEO James Hackett are an indicator of things to come, the oil spill, largely attributed to BP (NYSE:BP) at this time, could expand liability to the other oil companies related to it, as Cameron International (NYSE:CAM), Transocean (NYSE:RIG) and Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) all have potential claims they may have to help pay for, and that seems to be what BP is pushing for at this time.
While their "partners" have helped point the finger at BP, with some increasingly becoming vocal in that regard, there is a slow recalling of the fact that BP wasn't in this alone, and BP is pushing for these companies to pay for their share in the claims related to the accident, which could result in an all-out war between the companies if the rhetoric level is raised too high publicly, as there are billions at stake, and BP is hoping to pass a portion of that onto the other oil companies.
Anadarko is becoming much louder and involved, as they're probably the most potentially liable of BP's partners, as they held a 25 percent stake in the project.
One thing all the other oil companies have protecting them is the information coming out which seems to implicate BP as being lax in their oversight of the project, which could help those companies in the long run.
The problem is though, what cause the accident hasn't been determined yet, and if it was a combination of factors, each of these partners with BP could end up being liable for a lot of the accident if they played a part in it, for example, the blowout preventer built by Cameron International, or the cementing job performed by Halliburton.
On Anadarko's part, they made what seems to be a preemptive strike against how much they may be liable, as James Hackett, chief executive of Anadarko Petroleum, said on Friday that "The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions."
If all of this ends up going to the courts, it'll be interesting to see whether or not BP would be forced to continue making payments if there is the possibility the other oil companies could be held liable as well.
While their "partners" have helped point the finger at BP, with some increasingly becoming vocal in that regard, there is a slow recalling of the fact that BP wasn't in this alone, and BP is pushing for these companies to pay for their share in the claims related to the accident, which could result in an all-out war between the companies if the rhetoric level is raised too high publicly, as there are billions at stake, and BP is hoping to pass a portion of that onto the other oil companies.
Anadarko is becoming much louder and involved, as they're probably the most potentially liable of BP's partners, as they held a 25 percent stake in the project.
One thing all the other oil companies have protecting them is the information coming out which seems to implicate BP as being lax in their oversight of the project, which could help those companies in the long run.
The problem is though, what cause the accident hasn't been determined yet, and if it was a combination of factors, each of these partners with BP could end up being liable for a lot of the accident if they played a part in it, for example, the blowout preventer built by Cameron International, or the cementing job performed by Halliburton.
On Anadarko's part, they made what seems to be a preemptive strike against how much they may be liable, as James Hackett, chief executive of Anadarko Petroleum, said on Friday that "The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions."
If all of this ends up going to the courts, it'll be interesting to see whether or not BP would be forced to continue making payments if there is the possibility the other oil companies could be held liable as well.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Crude Oil Futures Trading: Anadarko (NYSE:APC), Transocean (NYSE:RIG), Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), Cameron (NYSE:CAM), BP (NYSE:BP)
After seeing oil shares drop so sharply yesterday, todays crude oil futures trading prices have seen an increase in not only BP (NYSE:BP), but also Anadarko (NYSE:APC),
Transocean (NYSE:RIG), Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), and Cameron (NYSE:CAM). This extreme drop, which was BP's lowest since at least 1972, was said to be caused by the fear of the impending financial doom of the full scale of BP's fuel spill and the possibility of BP filing bankruptcy.
Today, investors were buying as quickly as they were selling yesterday. This gave BP a boost as well as oil stock prices across the board. Raymond James analyst Alex Morris said, "there was a lot of fear in the market yesterday, people maybe have slept on it and are getting a little less scared of the stock. People might just be thinking that yesterdays sell off was overblown and premature."
BP climbed almost 8 percent to $31.50, reaching the high of the day at $33.04.
Anadarko Petroleum rose 8.6 percent to $37.84, this was also after a huge loss on Wednesday of 19 percent. Anadarko is a minority share holder in the Macondo well.
Transocean was up to 4.5 percent to $44.52, there loss yesterday was 8.1 percent.
Halliburton dropped only 2 percent on Wednesday, but today saw a 5 percent rise to $23.72. Cameron was up 4.4 percent to $35.62.
Transocean (NYSE:RIG), Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), and Cameron (NYSE:CAM). This extreme drop, which was BP's lowest since at least 1972, was said to be caused by the fear of the impending financial doom of the full scale of BP's fuel spill and the possibility of BP filing bankruptcy.
Today, investors were buying as quickly as they were selling yesterday. This gave BP a boost as well as oil stock prices across the board. Raymond James analyst Alex Morris said, "there was a lot of fear in the market yesterday, people maybe have slept on it and are getting a little less scared of the stock. People might just be thinking that yesterdays sell off was overblown and premature."
BP climbed almost 8 percent to $31.50, reaching the high of the day at $33.04.
Anadarko Petroleum rose 8.6 percent to $37.84, this was also after a huge loss on Wednesday of 19 percent. Anadarko is a minority share holder in the Macondo well.
Transocean was up to 4.5 percent to $44.52, there loss yesterday was 8.1 percent.
Halliburton dropped only 2 percent on Wednesday, but today saw a 5 percent rise to $23.72. Cameron was up 4.4 percent to $35.62.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP): No To Cameron's Offer To Assist In Oil Spill Containment
You would think BP (NYSE:BP) would take all the help they can get, but they turned down Cameron's offer to assist in the oil spill containment effort. Cameron, the director in Avatar and Titanic is known for his campaigning for environmental protection.
Cameron said, "over the last few weeks I've watched, as we all have, with growing horror and heartache, watching whats happening in the Gulf and thinking those morons don't know what there doing." He made it apparent his specialty isn't in deep sea expertise, or in drilling for oil. He claims to know people that are very good in electronic optical fiber and operating underwater vehicles.
"I know really, really, really smart people that work typically at depths than what that well is at. Most importantly, they know the engineering that is required to get something done at that depth," said Cameron. He said today that BP "graciously" turned down his offer.
BP has said they've received thousands of ideas on how to stop the hazardous spill. These ideas have come from the everyday person to big corporations.
Cameron said, "over the last few weeks I've watched, as we all have, with growing horror and heartache, watching whats happening in the Gulf and thinking those morons don't know what there doing." He made it apparent his specialty isn't in deep sea expertise, or in drilling for oil. He claims to know people that are very good in electronic optical fiber and operating underwater vehicles.
"I know really, really, really smart people that work typically at depths than what that well is at. Most importantly, they know the engineering that is required to get something done at that depth," said Cameron. He said today that BP "graciously" turned down his offer.
BP has said they've received thousands of ideas on how to stop the hazardous spill. These ideas have come from the everyday person to big corporations.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Buying Oil Futures Biggest Oil Stock Drop In History Anadarko (NYSE:APC) BP (NYSE:BP) Transocean (NYSE:RIG) Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) Cameron (NYSE:CAM)
As well as BP, Anadarko, Transocean, and Halliburton all see significant drops at the close of the New York Stock Exchange at 4:00 pm. This was the foreseen outcome if BP failed on their "top kill" attempt. For Anadarko, this is their biggest loss on record.
Anadarko dropped 20 percent to $42.10, they own a 25 percent stake in the well. Transocean is the company responsible for leasing the drilling rig to BP which exploded on April 20th. They dropped to $50.04 which is a 12 percent loss.
Then there is Halliburton. They provided oilfield services on the well itself, dropped to $21.15 at a loss of 15 percent. Cameron plunged as well. They are responsible for the blowout preventer for Transocean's Deepwater Horizon Rig. Their are down to $31.89, losing 12 percent.
Finally, there's BP who had it's biggest decline since 1992. In one day BP lost 18 billion dollars of their market value, for a total market value loss of 68 billion dollars since April 20th.
Anadarko dropped 20 percent to $42.10, they own a 25 percent stake in the well. Transocean is the company responsible for leasing the drilling rig to BP which exploded on April 20th. They dropped to $50.04 which is a 12 percent loss.
Then there is Halliburton. They provided oilfield services on the well itself, dropped to $21.15 at a loss of 15 percent. Cameron plunged as well. They are responsible for the blowout preventer for Transocean's Deepwater Horizon Rig. Their are down to $31.89, losing 12 percent.
Finally, there's BP who had it's biggest decline since 1992. In one day BP lost 18 billion dollars of their market value, for a total market value loss of 68 billion dollars since April 20th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)