Ivytalk wrote:I'm surprised that BP actually thinks it can get away with this course of action. These are akin to "contracts of adhesion" that the law disfavors.
Common in construction. Had a (mostly) big prime out of SF...when I received payment, the backside of the check had (looked like) a 5,000 word microprint waiver and release contract on the back...literally took a magnifying glass to read the first few sentences..."By signing this check, the endorsee agrees..."
Chickenshit management. Shame on BP's lawyers.
At a time when BP needs to place focus on cleanup and PR, crap like this moves the ball back.
BTW, dback...
...there is not enough information yet about this particular Horizon incident to determine whether or not BP was negligent. The mere non-use of acoustic switches on their deep well (which only Norway and Brazil require), does not support a negligence allegation.
Since the crew manning the switchroom were some of the 11 killed, we may never know what happened. Could have been an act of terrorism or a rogue employee.
In retrospect, since the failsafe shutoffs didn't work, the logical course is to redesign them. The acoustics have not been used in the North Sea which has far worse operating conditions than the Gulf, and in the places where they are used, there has been no in-service failure requiring their deployment, though they have malfunctioned repeatedly during regular service requiring rig shutdown and valve reset: Failures that shut down operations for 2-3 days and result in ancillary equipment failures with total costs in the tens of millions.
Rather than jumping on the "hate big oil" bandwagon to assign blame for the failure, you might want to wait until the investigation is complete.
Save your anger for the schmuck attorneys...they're all bad.
).
