BP Alaska: What lessons for the Common Approaches?
A number of articles have appeared linking the failure of BP's due diligence in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay pipeline corrosion to potential failure of the ECA supported BTC pipeline from the Caspian to the Mediterranean. ECA Watch asks, will the new OECD Common Approaches to be approved at the end of 2006 stand up to new international standards of due diligence?
A. In Prudhoe Bay case, test of force majeure
(AP, Dallas, 16 August 2006) In an interesting article, lawyers and analysts argue that BP's oilfield partners Exxon Mobile and ConocoPhillips cannot rely on "force majeure" to avoid joint responsibility for loss of oil supplies, noting that BP's practices should have been questioned by its partners, given its previous troubles.
B. After Alaska, BP faces new pipeline crisis
(Independent, London, 12 August 2006) Environmental groups have warned that corrosion inside a controversial new ECA supported oil pipeline controlled by the British company BP could trigger a massive oil spill into some of the most environmentally-sensitive areas of the former Soviet Union.
C. BP's credibility gap
(New York Times business columnist Joe Nocera, 11 August 2006) BP "...is going to be raked over the coals by the U.S. Congress in hearings that are set for early September. It will have its worst documents exposed in lawsuits, and probably be accused of the worst sort of corporate greed and hypocrisy. It will be a long time before anyone believes anything BP has to say about its environmental sensitivity."
D. Ambassador warned of Azerbaijan oil pipeline risk
(Guardian, London, 21 August 2006) A British ambassador warned that emergency services would not cope if terrorists blew up a strategically important oil pipeline heavily supported by the UK government, a Whitehall document shows. Campaigners opposed [to] the pipeline... told the government before it gave [ECA] financial backing to the project that it was "a major security risk".
A. In Prudhoe Bay case, test of force majeure
(AP, Dallas, 16 August 2006) In an interesting article, lawyers and analysts argue that BP's oilfield partners Exxon Mobile and ConocoPhillips cannot rely on "force majeure" to avoid joint responsibility for loss of oil supplies, noting that BP's practices should have been questioned by its partners, given its previous troubles.
B. After Alaska, BP faces new pipeline crisis
(Independent, London, 12 August 2006) Environmental groups have warned that corrosion inside a controversial new ECA supported oil pipeline controlled by the British company BP could trigger a massive oil spill into some of the most environmentally-sensitive areas of the former Soviet Union.
C. BP's credibility gap
(New York Times business columnist Joe Nocera, 11 August 2006) BP "...is going to be raked over the coals by the U.S. Congress in hearings that are set for early September. It will have its worst documents exposed in lawsuits, and probably be accused of the worst sort of corporate greed and hypocrisy. It will be a long time before anyone believes anything BP has to say about its environmental sensitivity."
D. Ambassador warned of Azerbaijan oil pipeline risk
(Guardian, London, 21 August 2006) A British ambassador warned that emergency services would not cope if terrorists blew up a strategically important oil pipeline heavily supported by the UK government, a Whitehall document shows. Campaigners opposed [to] the pipeline... told the government before it gave [ECA] financial backing to the project that it was "a major security risk".