Louisiana deep oil drilling disaster

[Peter Lemkin]

Gulf Oil Spill "Could Go on Years and Years" ...

by F. William Engdahl


Global Research, June 11, 2010

The Obama Administration and senior BP officials are frantically working not to stop the world’s worst oil disaster, but to hide the true extent of the actual ecological catastrophe. Senior researchers tell us that the BP drilling hit one of the oil migration channels and that the leakage could continue for years unless decisive steps are undertaken, something that seems far from the present strategy.



In a recent discussion, Vladimir Kutcherov, Professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden and the Russian State University of Oil and Gas, predicted that the present oil spill flooding the Gulf Coast shores of the United States “could go on for years and years … many years.” [1]



According to Kutcherov, a leading specialist in the theory of abiogenic deep origin of petroleum, “What BP drilled into was what we call a ‘migration channel,’ a deep fault on which hydrocarbons generated in the depth of our planet migrate to the crust and are accumulated in rocks, something like Ghawar in Saudi Arabia.”[2] Ghawar, the world’s most prolific oilfield has been producing millions of barrels daily for almost 70 years with no end in sight. According to the abiotic science, Ghawar like all elephant and giant oil and gas deposits all over the world, is located on a migration channel similar to that in the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico.



As I wrote at the time of the January 2010 Haiti earthquake disaster,[3] Haiti had been identified as having potentially huge hydrocasrbon reserves, as has neighboring Cuba. Kutcherov estimates that the entire Gulf of Mexico is one of the planet’s most abundant accessible locations to extract oil and gas, at least before the Deepwater Horizon event this April.



“In my view the heads of BP reacted with panic at the scale of the oil spewing out of the well,” Kutcherov adds. “What is inexplicable at this point is why they are trying one thing, failing, then trying a second, failing, then a third. Given the scale of the disaster they should try every conceivable option, even if it is ten, all at once in hope one works. Otherwise, this oil source could spew oil for years given the volumes coming to the surface already.” [4]



He stresses, “It is difficult to estimate how big this leakage is. There is no objective information available.” But taking into consideration information about the last BP ‘giant’ discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, the Tiber field, some six miles deep, Kutcherov agrees with Ira Leifer a researcher in the Marine Science Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara who says the oil may be gushing out at a rate of more than 100,000 barrels a day.[5]



What the enormoity of the oil spill does is to also further discredit clearly the oil companies’ myth of “peak oil” which claims that the world is at or near the “peak” of economical oil extraction. That myth, which has been propagated in recent years by circles close to former oilman and Bush Vice President, Dick Cheney, has been effectively used by the giant oil majors to justify far higher oil prices than would be politically possible otherwise, by claiming a non-existent petroleum scarcity crisis.


Obama & BP Try to Hide



According to a report from Washington investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, “the Obama White House and British Petroleum are covering up the magnitude of the volcanic-level oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and working together to limit BP’s liability for damage caused by what can be called a ‘mega-disaster.’” [6] Madsen cites sources within the US Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection for his assertion.



Obama and his senior White House staff, as well as Interior Secretary Salazar, are working with BP’s chief executive officer Tony Hayward on legislation that would raise the cap on liability for damage claims from those affected by the oil disaster from $75 million to $10 billion. According to informed estimates cited by Madsen, however, the disaster has a real potential cost of at least $1,000 billion ($1 trillion). That estimate would support the pessimistic assessment of Kutcherov that the spill, if not rapidly controlled, “will destroy the entire coastline of the United States.”



According to the Washington report of Madsen, BP statements that one of the leaks has been contained, are “pure public relations disinformation designed to avoid panic and demands for greater action by the Obama administration., according to FEMA and Corps of Engineers sources.” [7]



The White House has been resisting releasing any “damaging information” about the oil disaster. Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers experts estimate that if the ocean oil geyser is not stopped within 90 days, there will be irreversible damage to the marine eco-systems of the Gulf of Mexico, north Atlantic Ocean, and beyond. At best, some Corps of Engineers experts say it could take two years to cement the chasm on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. [8]



Only after the magnitude of the disaster became evident did Obama order Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano to declare the oil disaster a “national security issue.” Although the Coast Guard and FEMA are part of her department, Napolitano’s actual reasoning for invoking national security, according to Madsen, was merely to block media coverage of the immensity of the disaster that is unfolding for the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean and their coastlines.



The Obama administration also conspired with BP to hide the extent of the oil leak, according to the cited federal and state sources. After the oil rig exploded and sank, the government stated that 42,000 gallons per day were gushing from the seabed chasm. Five days later, the federal government upped the leakage to 210,000 gallons a day. However, submersibles monitoring the escaping oil from the Gulf seabed are viewing television pictures of what they describe as a “volcanic-like” eruption of oil.



When the Army Corps of Engineers first attempted to obtain NASA imagery of the Gulf oil slick, which is larger than is being reported by the media, it was reportedly denied the access. By chance, National Geographic managed to obtain satellite imagery shots of the extent of the disaster and posted them on their web site. Other satellite imagery reportedly being withheld by the Obama administration, shows that what lies under the gaping chasm spewing oil at an ever-alarming rate is a cavern estimated to be the size of Mount Everest. This information has been given an almost national security-level classification to keep it from the public, according to Madsen’s sources.



The Corps of Engineers and FEMA are reported to be highly critical of the lack of support for quick action after the oil disaster by the Obama White House and the US Coast Guard. Only now has the Coast Guard understood the magnitude of the disaster, dispatching nearly 70 vessels to the affected area. Under the loose regulatory measures implemented by the Bush-Cheney Administration, the US Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service became a simple “rubber stamp,” approving whatever the oil companies wanted in terms of safety precautions that could have averted such a disaster. Madsen describes a state of “criminal collusion” between Cheney’s former firm, Halliburton, and the Interior Department’s MMS, and that the potential for similar disasters exists with the other 30,000 off-shore rigs that use the same shut-off valves. [9]



Silence from Eco groups?... Follow the money



Without doubt at this point we are in the midst of what could be the greatest ecological catastrophe in history. The oil platform explosion took place almost within the current loop where the Gulf Stream originates. This has huge ecological and climatological consequences.



A cursory look at a map of the Gulf Stream shows that the oil is not just going to cover the beaches in the Gulf, it will spread to the Atlantic coasts up through North Carolina then on to the North Sea and Iceland. And beyond the damage to the beaches, sea life and water supplies, the Gulf stream has a very distinct chemistry, composition (marine organisms), density, temperature. What happens if the oil and the dispersants and all the toxic compounds they create actually change the nature of the Gulf Stream? No one can rule out potential changes including changes in the path of the Gulf Stream, and even small changes could have huge impacts. Europe, including England, is not an icy wasteland due to the warming from the Gulf Stream.



Yet there is a deafening silence from the very environmental organizations which ought to be at the barricades demanding that BP, the US Government and others act decisively.



That deafening silence of leading green or ecology organizations such as Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club and others may well be tied to a money trail that leads right back to the oil industry, notably to BP. Leading environmental organizations have gotten significant financial payoffs in recent years from BP in order that the oil company could remake itself with an “environment-friendly face,” as in “beyond petroleum” the company’s new branding.



The Nature Conservancy, described as “the world’s most powerful environmental group,”[10] has awarded BP a seat on its International Leadership Council after the oil company gave the organization more than $10 million in recent years. [11]



Until recently, the Conservancy and other environmental groups worked with BP in a coalition that lobbied Congress on climate-change issues. An employee of BP Exploration serves as an unpaid Conservancy trustee in Alaska. In addition, according to a recent report published by the Washington Post, Conservation International, another environmental group, has accepted $2 million in donations from BP and worked with the company on a number of projects, including one examining oil-extraction methods. From 2000 to 2006, John Browne, then BP's chief executive, sat on the CI board.



Further, The Environmental Defense Fund, another influential ecologist organization, joined with BP, Shell and other major corporations to form a Partnership for Climate Action, to promote ‘market-based mechanisms’ (sic) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.



Environmental non-profit groups that have accepted donations from or joined in projects with BP include Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and Audubon. That could explain why the political outcry to date for decisive action in the Gulf has been so muted. [12]



Of course those organizations are not going to be the ones to solve this catastrophe. The central point at this point is who is prepared to put the urgently demanded federal and international scientific resources into solving this crisis. Further actions of the likes of that from the Obama White House to date or from BP can only lead to the conclusion that some very powerful people want this debacle to continue. The next weeks will be critical to that assessment.





F. William Engdahl is the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order



Notes

[1] Vladimir Kutcherov, telephone discussion with the author, June 9, 2010.

[2] Ibid.

[3] F. William Engdahl, The Fateful Geological Prize Called Haiti, Global Research.ca, January 30, 2010, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=17287

[4] Vladimir Kutcherov, op. cit.

[5] Ira Leifer, Scientist: BP Well Could Be Leaking 100,000 Barrels of Oil a Day, June 9, 2010, accessed in http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/9/sci...be_leaking

[6] Wayne Madsen, The Coverup: BPs Crude Politics and the Looming Environmental Mega Disaster, May 6, 2010, accessed in http://oilprice.com/Environment/Oil-Spil...aster.html

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Tim Findley, Natures’ Landlord, Range Magazine, Spring 2003.

[11] Joe Stephens, Nature Conservancy faces potential backlash from ties with BP, Washington Post, May 24, 2010, accessed in http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02164.html

[12] Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------
NB - I take issue with one area mentioned above...that oil is not becoming more scarce....this is a complex and technical issue and one of 'definition', to a large extent. The supply IS limited; yes, much still remains, BUT now and into t he future what remains will increasingly bring an Environmental TOLL with it [externality cost] - as the current Gulf Oil Spill demonstrates quite nicely.....and there is no mention of the cost of using the oil (or having it tar ball us to death); no matter how much more remains!......

[Peter Presland]

I've got a lot of time for Engdahl in much of his geo-politics stuff but, as Paul R opined in another thread recently "I take truth where I find it" - likewise blinkered folly - and I'm afraid 'Blinkered folly' applies to Engdahl so far as 'Peak Oil' is concerned - IMHO anyway - with his:

What the enormity of the oil spill does is to also further discredit clearly the oil companies’ myth of “peak oil” which claims that the world is at or near the “peak” of economical oil extraction. That myth, which has been propagated in recent years by circles close to former oilman and Bush Vice President, Dick Cheney, has been effectively used by the giant oil majors to justify far higher oil prices than would be politically possible otherwise, by claiming a non-existent petroleum scarcity crisis.

I totally agree about the greedy duplicity of oilmen - the Bush/Cheyney/Haliburton axis being their exemplars. But Engdahl seems to simply ignore all the work of men like Colin Campbell and others who have made what are to date accurate predictions about discoveries and the production curves of individual countries and fields - the US being THE prime example

'Peak oil' is not 'the oil companies myth; it was being quietly and systematically documented in the teeth oil company denials, long before they finally began to acknowledge its approach about 3 years ago. The oilmen have in fact been all too well aware of it for decades but have kept mum until recently. Why is Cheyney's Oil task force report of the Late nineties still classified for example? Equally, they have been laying plans for decades which goes a long way to explaining just why it is the US military digs in everywhere where the easy-to-get-at stuff remains in any quantity.

Peak oil is NOT about running out of oil, it is about estimating just where the maximum possible global production rate lies - taking into account existing field declines, the rate of new discoveries and the costs of getting at it. All the evidence says we have already hit that production peak.

There may indeed be some some gynormous deep sea field out there - many of them even, but their production costs in dollar-terms - let alone the sort of catastrophic environmental costs unfolding in the GOM are just as gynormous.

IMHO, Engdahl's tunnel vision on the simple production mathematics of what is a finite resource, vitiates his analyses of the real drivers of US/UK/NATO geo-politics over the past 30 years or so.

One BIG caveat however: - IS ABIOTIC OIL A REALITY?

I have seen Engdahl argue that it is but, apart from some stuff out of Russia, I for one have seen precious little other evidence that it is a reality.

I really would love to be proven wrong.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Peter - Peak Oil and the Abiogenic deep origin of petroleum are effectively competing scientific hypotheses.

There is no doubt that Big Oil has systematically and deliberately lied about the extent of oil reserves and the technological capabilty and cost of extracting said reserves.

It's also nearly impossible to assess objectively the Abiogenic deep origin of petroleum hypothesis because of the geology and science involved, which is - as you say - largely Russian in origin and contemptuously ignored in the West.

However, if Kutcherov is correct, and BP "hit" - perhaps more accurately ruptured - a deep Abiogenic "migration channel", then Gaia knows what's going to happen.

If Kutcherov is correct, then the consequences could be cataclysmic.

A War on Terra indeed.

[Peter Presland]

I agree with all that Jan.

But, unless the existing easy to get at fields replenish themselves from abiotic channels - if they indeed are a reality - and at a rate pretty close to historic extract ion rates, then we are stuck with having to get it from deep deep and pristene places like the GOM and arctic/antarctic - with commensurate costs both monetary and environmental. If we are to keep consuming at present or higher levels that is. The plain fact is that the biggest field of them all Gharwar in Saudi has had mounting water cut problems going back a decade or more and all the industry talk I come across says they are getting worse. So that's one filed that is NOT replenishing - along with the entire continental US of course.

The big BIG problem - economically and hence geo-politically - for the oil men right now, is the disparity between the production cost of a Middle-Eastern barrel and a GOM barrel. Haven't got the precise figures to hand but it is of the order of $10 and $ 40-50. The implications of that difference when production of the expensive stuff is an absolute requirement to meet demand are enormous. Like I've said before - or hinted at anyway - I think those dynamics - long since known understood and planned for by Big Oil and its government lackies - are high among the drivers of Western geo-political policy and initiatives.

[Paul Rigby]

A very germane cutting from this morning's press:

Gilligan Andrew, “Whitehall Gets Slick after BP,” The Sunday Coalitiongraph, 30 May 2010, p.3

A secret Whitehall subcommittee, named after some or other poisonous snake to convey the illusion of guile and deadly efficiency, has concluded its meetings on the full ramifications for Britain of BP’s ongoing travails in the Gulf of Mexico. Calling upon some of the finest minds in British diplomacy, spying and finance, the think-tank has produced a set of proposals for discussion by the full cabinet at some unspecified point this week, informed sources inform me via a plain brown envelope left with yesterday’s morning milk delivery.

Topping the agenda is the recommendation that the new government appoints, as a matter of urgency, a new ambassador to Washington where, it is widely agreed, a vigorous pounding for all things British is sure to follow. “We need a very special kind of diplomatist for these very special circumstances,” a senior Whitehall source said yesterday. “We need, in short, a most enormous arse to soak up the punishment and say precisely nothing. We believe we have just the man to begin the process of relubricating the wheels of Anglo-American comity.”

The arse in question

The man in question is believed to be Sir Denzil Tooth...

The Independent on Sunday cartoonist, Schrank, today illustrates the role of the arse in British diplomatic calculation viz the little local difficulty in the GoM. I continue to believe he has the wrong arse, but salute his recognition of the centrality of the arse, here depicted as Mr Anthony Hayward, who unquestionably is one:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the...60940.html

[Ed Jewett]

I threw out a challenge elsewhere suggesting people set up a serious debate, pro, con, otherwise, interesting, about the validity of peak oil. Some people interpret the peak oil theory as suggesting there is now limited oil and point to the gushing Gulf as proof of my impaired cognition and psyche (yet no one will put forth any documentation that peak oil is a conspiracy or a gross misconception). What I think the peal oil theory says is that, in order for the world to get and capture the vast amounts of remaining oil, they/we will have to do so at much greater expense and much greater risk, both of which will become prohibitively greater. The pelicans around Mississippi seem to agree.

There is also a theory that the slow response of BP in protecting the wetlands is by design because they want the mineral rights to those wetlands.

There is also a theory that BP is being taken down on purpose; by whom and for what reasons is up for grabs.

I think we could consider the death of the Gulf and its surrounding economies as collateral damage in non-inter-state economic warfare... that private banks, large multi-national corporations and the like are now dwarfing those things we used to call countries in their ability to engage in war.

[Peter Presland]

I know I said I agreed with all Jan said above; but a caveat:

If - and I accept the major implications of this one big if - IF oil is indeed a finite resource and abiotic replenishment, per the main Russia scientific hypothesis turns out to be false, then 'Peak Oil is NOT a scientific hypothesis at all. It is a relatively straightforward mathematical equation. The equation has escalating demand/consumption on one side, balanced by the sum of the gaussian bell-shaped production rate curves (that have been applicable to EVERY oil-producing country, region and field to date), plus the rate of new discoveries. And it doesn't just apply to oil either, but to every finite resource where demand increases to consume available supply - Bacteria in a nutrient-rich Petri dish spring forcefully to mind with humanity the bacteria and planet earth the dish.

I started out looking hard at peak oil maybe 10 years ago - an original member of the Irish ASPO no less - when the whole thing was simply laughed at - when taken notice of at all. "We heard all this back in the early 70's and look what happened to those wackos" was the refrain back then. Matt Simmond's 'Twilight in the Desert' published in 2005 pretty much clinched the matter for me - and yes I know all about his big oil connections.

I accept that Big Oil judges its interests to be best served by muddying the waters, murdering, lying, cheating and every other big corporate trick in the book to keep the Sheeple in factional warring ignorance etc etc, but I've factored all that in to my own judgement, which is that the mathematics and the parabolic escalation of the cost of finding, developing and producing from new fields have become ever more difficult to obfuscate. The clear determination by US/UK/NATO to stake the farm on denying access to the easy stuff for anyone who doesn't see things their way is solid supporting evidence too

If abiotic oil creation were a reality, I've seen precious little persuasive evidence of it in the geo-politics of the past decade.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Cue more British paranoia as pension funds will now find it very difficult to hold BP shares.

BP credit rating slashed as oil spill costs mount
Fitch ratings agency concerned about short-term costs
BP rating cut from AA to BBB
Head of BP America to appear before Congress today

BP's credit rating has been slashed by Fitch to just two notches above junk status, as the potential cost of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill continues to escalate.

Fitch cut its rating on BP from AA to BBB this morning, a day after US politicians demanded the company deposits $20bn (£13.58bn) in an escrow account to cover the cost of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

The ratings agency said it was concerned that the balance between long-term and near-term cost payments would become "skewed much more heavily towards the near-term than previously anticipated" if the escrow account was created. Fitch also said it was concerned that BP will find it hard to access the capital markets for funding while the full cost of the oil leak remains unclear.

"In addition, Fitch would be surprised if BP did not suspend quarterly cash dividend payments until the operational and financial impact of the incident is clearer," it added.

Fitch's downgrade could make it more expensive for BP to borrow, especially if the other ratings agencies follow its lead. The company has around $5bn of cash reserves, and has spent more than $1.6bn fighting the spill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/...pill-costs

[Magda Hassan]

Whistleblower Sues to Stop Another BP Rig From Operating

by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - May 17, 2010 2:27 pm EDT

A whistleblower filed a lawsuit today to force the federal government to halt operations at another massive BP oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico, alleging that BP never reviewed critical engineering designs for the operation and is therefore risking another catastrophic accident that could "dwarf" the company's Deepwater Horizon spill.
The allegations about BP's Atlantis platform were first made last year, but they were laid out in fresh detail in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Houston against Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and the Minerals and Management Service, the agency responsible for regulating offshore drilling in the Gulf.
The whistleblower is Kenneth Abbott, a former project control supervisor contracted by BP who also gave an interview to "60 Minutes" on Sunday night. In a conversation last week with ProPublica, Abbott alleged that BP failed to review thousands of final design documents for systems and equipment on the Atlantis platform -- meaning BP management never confirmed the systems were built as they were intended – and didn't properly file the documentation that functions as an instruction manual for rig workers to shut down operations in the case of a blowout or other emergency.
Abbott alleges that when he warned BP about the dangers presented by the missing documentation the company ignored his concerns and instead emphasized saving money.
"There were hundreds, if not thousands, of drawings that hadn't been approved and to send drawings (to the rig) that hadn't been approved could result in catastrophic operator errors," Abbott told ProPublica. "They turned their eye away from their responsibility to make sure the overall design works. Instead they are having bits and pieces fabricated and they are just hoping that these contractors who make all these separate pieces can pull it together and make it safe. The truth is these contractors see a piece of the puzzle; they don't see the whole thing."
BP did not respond to a request for comment from ProPublica, but has previously addressed Abbott's concerns in a January letter to congressional investigators stating that the allegations are unfounded and that the Atlantis platform had final documentation in place before it began operating.
According to an e-mail sent to Abbott by BP's ombudsman's office, an independent group employed by the company to address internal complaints, BP had not complied with its own rules governing how and where the documentation should be kept but had not necessarily violated any regulations for drilling. The e-mail does not address the specifics raised in the lawsuit.
A spokesperson for the Department of the Interior said the agency would not comment on pending litigation.
Congress and the Minerals and Management Service have been investigating Abbott's concerns since last year, when he and Food and Water Watch, an environmental organization based in Washington, D.C., first filed the complaints. But according to both Abbott and FWW, little has been done. After the Deepwater Horizon Gulf spill underscored their concerns, they decided to jointly file the lawsuit. Abbott was laid off shortly after he raised the concerns to BP management.
According to the lawsuit, by Nov. 28, 2008, when Abbott last had access to BP's files, only half of the 7,176 drawings detailing Atlantis' sub-sea equipment had been approved for design by an engineer and only 274 had been approved "as built," meaning they were checked and confirmed to meet quality and design standards and the documentation made available to the rig crew. Ninety percent of the design documents, the suit alleges, had never been approved at all.
The Atlantis rig is even larger than the Deepwater Horizon rig that sank in April. It began producing oil in 2007 and can produce 8.4 million gallons a day.
The components include some of the critical infrastructure to protect against a spill. According the suit, none of the sub-sea risers – the pipelines and hoses that serve as a conduit for moving materials from the bottom of the ocean to the facility -- had been "issued for design." The suit also alleges that none of the wellhead documents were approved, and that none of the documents for the manifolds that combine multiple pipeline flows into a single line at the seafloor had been reviewed for final use.
Directions for how to use the piping and instrument systems that help shut down operations in the event of an emergency, as well as the computer software used to enact an emergency shutdown, had also not been approved, the lawsuit says. According to the lawsuit, 14 percent those documents had been approved for construction, and none received final approval to ensure they were built and functioning properly.
"BP's worst-case scenario indicates that an oil spill from the BP Atlantis Facility could be many times larger than the current oil spill from the BP Deepwater Horizon," the lawsuit states. "The catastrophic Horizon oil spill would be a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the potential size of a spill from the BP Atlantis facility."
It is not clear from the lawsuit or the limited statements made by BP or federal regulators if BP has corrected the documentation problem since Abbott was laid off.
Abbott told ProPublica he raised the documentation issues repeatedly in e-mails and conversations with management, "saying this was critical to operator safety and rig safety."
"They just ignored my requests for help," he said. "There seemed to be a big emphasis to push the contractors to get things done. And that was always at the forefront of the operation."


Write to Abrahm Lustgarten at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Want to know more? Follow ProPublica on Facebook and Twitter, and get ProPublica headlines delivered by e-mail every day.

Tags: Atlantis Platform, BP, Deepwater Horizon, Gulf of Mexico, Oil Drilling
http://www.propublica.org/article/whistl...-operating

[Ed Jewett]

Bank of America Ordered Traders: No Oil Deals with BP Beyond June 2011

June 16th, 2010 Via: Reuters:
Bank of America Merrill Lynch has ordered its traders not to enter into oil trades with BP Plc that extend beyond June 2011, a market source familiar with the directive told Reuters.
The order to the bank’s traders came from a high-level executive and was made on Monday, according to a source familiar with it. It told traders not to engage in trade with BP for contracts beyond one year from this month.
The directive didn’t state a reason for the limit on longer-duration trades with the oil company, which comes as the British oil giant scrambles to stop an oil spill in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico for which it could eventually face billions of dollars in economic liabilities.
Limiting the duration of trades with a counterparty is one way in which banks can seek to protect themselves against risk that a company will be unable to meet its long-term obligations.
A BofA spokesman declined comment.
BP spokesman Toby Odone said the company doesn’t comment on market rumors or speculation.