Log In | Register
Tony Hayward, the former chief executive of BP, has been accused of giving untruthful evidence to US Congress, by plaintiffs suing for damages over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
In court filings, lawyers argue that Mr Hayward "at best, has a unique view of the truth", citing his congressional testimony from June 2010, in which they claim he was untruthful over the scope of BP's internal investigation into the disaster.
The allegations were made in response to BP's attempts to preclude parts of Mr Hayward's deposition - when he was questioned by the plaintiff's lawyers in preparation for the court case - from being used in evidence at the trial on the grounds he was asked "improper questions".
Tony Hayward accused of 'lying' over Gulf spill - Telegraph
Seeded on Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:07 AM EST
Article Source: Telegraph
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (15)
We all know that they lied. What was shocking was not the fact they lied but the scale of it and the willful blindness of the regulators and enforcers of the laws in accepting these lies as truths.
- 5 votes
#1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:13 AM ESTNo surprise. I never thought for a second he would tell the truth but surely not the whole truth.
On another topic in your area of expertise, what is your opinion about the environmental safety of the XL pipeline?
- 5 votes
Que, had been too busy to look into that issue. Any pipeline that long is going to have environmental issues, no doubt about it. have not studied on it to really give any opinion. Much of my experience is on marine pipeline as well which I am more comfortable with also.
When any linear structure crosses rivers or skirt the steep slopes of mountainous terrain, there is going to be much higher cost involved with regard to increasing the stability and possibility of underground erosion and landslides. Whether all these had been factored in or just gloss over in the project costing.
Most of the problems will come years later from all these "forget the future" short-comings. This is just the general overview but a likely factor. Problems at site arise from the failure of "paper planning" in meeting realistic ground conditions. The costs balloon up depending on which scenario you take (planned for). There is no guessing which is taken to make the project commercially viable.
- 5 votes
Any crossing should be directionally drilled, in rock, deep enough to not be disturbed.
- 5 votes
Right BH, but more often than not they just save money. Cut & Fill ...yes Cut the cost and Fill their pockets.
- 5 votes
That rupture in the pipe crossing the Yellowstone(?) was a cut and cover, exposed because of heavy rain and flooding.
Wanna cross? Drill baby drill. Drill long and deep. In rock. Require 30-4 feet of cover.
- 5 votes
Agree with ya. Directional drilling is less destructive. Have always preferred them against cheaper more destructive options.
- 4 votes
with corruption in our justice system... it is to much to expect that justice will be done.
- 4 votes
#2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:39 PM ESTJustice = Just Ice = Just Us not you = JUST Inner Circle Elites.
- 4 votes
just read Palast's new book, Vulture's Picnic.. he goes into some real detail on the 'deals' and 'messes' of these oil pigs...
had to take a day once i finished it... just to settle down.
confirmation is always a drag... these guys are all senseless.
- 6 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
