Controversies
The company has become the object of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million.[39] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[40] Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[41]
Bunnatine Greenhouse, a civil servant with 20 years of contracting experience, had complained to Army officials on numerous occasions that Halliburton had been unlawfully receiving special treatment for work in Iraq, Kuwait and the Balkans. Criminal investigations were opened by the U.S. Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Pentagon's inspector general.
In one Greenhouse's supposed examples of abuse, he said that military auditors caught Halliburton overcharging the Pentagon for fuel deliveries into Iraq. She also complained that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office took control of every aspect of Halliburton's $7 billion Iraqi oil/infrastructure contract. After her testimony, Greenhouse was demoted for poor performance.[42] Greenhouse's attorney, Michael Kohn, stated in the New York Times that "she is being demoted because of her strict adherence to procurement requirements and the Army's preference to sidestep them when it suits their needs.[43]
Halliburton is the only company mentioned by Osama bin Laden in an April 2004 tape in which he claims that "this is a war [in Afghanistan] that is benefiting major companies with billions of dollars."[44]
[edit] Sale of KBR
On April 15, 2006, Halliburton filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to sell up to 20 percent of its KBR stock on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "KBR", as part of an eventual plan for KBR to be a separate company from Halliburton.[45]
In November 2006, Halliburton began selling its stake in KBR, its major subsidiary, and by February 2007 had completely sold off the subsidiary. In June 2007, several days after Stewart Bowen, the Special Inspector General, released a new report, the Army announced that KBR would share another $150 billion contract with two other contractors, Fluor and Dyncorp, over the next ten years.[46]
[edit] Environmental issues
In 2002, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reports were completed to measure the amount of chemicals emitted from Halliburton's Harris County, Texas facility. The TRI is a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities reported annually by certain industries as well as federal facilities. The facility had 230 TRI air releases in 2001 and 245 in 2002.[47]
On June 7, 2006 Halliburton's Farmington, New Mexico facility created a toxic cloud that forced people to evacuate from their homes.[48]
Halliburton may also be implicated[49] in the oil spills in the Timor Sea off Australia in August 2009 and in the gulf of Mexico in April 2010 for improper cementing. An investigation is underway as to the cause of the Australia spill.
[edit] Baghdad incident
In accordance with the law of armed conflict and to maintain non-combatant status, Halliburton does not arm its truck drivers. Trucks are often the target of insurgent attacks. On September 20, 2005, a convoy of four Halliburton trucks was ambushed north of Baghdad. All four trucks were struck by improvised explosive devices and were disabled. Their US National Guard escort was thought to have abandoned the disabled vehicles, leaving the drivers defenseless. Three of the four truck drivers were killed by the insurgents while the surviving driver, Preston Wheeler, caught the event on video. Although the trucks had military camouflage paint, the drivers were civilian. The US military returned to the scene 45 minutes later.[50] However, in a statement by senior military officials in Iraq, an investigation revealed that troops did not abandon the civilians and they were all exiting the "kill zone" during the ambush.[51]
[edit] Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Halliburton was responsible for cementing the plug in the oil well. Improper cementing may have caused the original blowout.[52]
[edit] Subsidiaries
As of Halliburton's latest form 10-K filings with the SEC, Exhibit 21.1 lists the following as subsidiaries of Halliburton Co.[53]:
Breswater Marine Contracting B.V. (Netherlands)
DII Industries, LLC (United States)
Easy Well Solutions AS (Norway)
Halliburton Affiliates, LLC (United States)
Halliburton AS (Norway)
Halliburton Canada Holdings, Inc. (United States)
Halliburton Company Germany G.m.b.H. (Germany)
Halliburton de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico)
Halliburton Energy Cayman Islands Limited (Cayman Islands)
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (United States)
Halliburton Group Canada Inc. (Canada)
Halliburton Group Holdings (1) Company (Canada)
Halliburton Group Holdings (2) Company (Canada)
Halliburton Holdings (No. 3) (United Kingdom)
Halliburton International, Inc. (United States)
Halliburton Latin America S.A. (Panama)
Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Limited (United Kingdom)
Halliburton Netherlands Operations Cooperatie (Netherlands)
Halliburton Norge Holding AS (Norway)
Halliburton Norway Holdings C.V. (Netherlands)
Halliburton Overseas Limited (Cayman Islands)
Hobbymarkt Delft BV (Netherlands)
Kellogg Energy Services, Inc. (United States)
Landmark Graphics Corporation (United States)
Oilfield Telecommunications, LLC. (United States)
[edit] Headquarters
Halliburton headquarters (North Belt Office) in north Houston
Halliburton's headquarters (North Belt office) is located in Harris County, in northern Houston, Texas, near George Bush Intercontinental Airport.[54][55]
Halliburton had its headquarters in Dallas, Texas from 1961 to 2003.[55] The company moved its headquarters from the Southland Life Building in Dallas to 50,648 square feet (4,705.4 m2) of space in Lincoln Plaza in Downtown Dallas in 1985.[56] 20 employees worked in Halliburton's headquarters in Dallas.[57]
Halliburton planned to move its headquarters to Houston in 2002.[58] Halliburton, which signed its lease to occupy a portion of 5 Houston Center in Downtown Houston in 2002,[59] moved its headquarters there by July 2003.[60] Halliburton occupied 26,000 square feet (2,400 m2) of space on the 24th floor in 5 Houston Center.[55]
In 2009 Halliburton announced that it planned to move its headquarters to the North Belt offices in Houston. In addition it planned to consolidate operations at its Westchase and North Belt offices.[61] The move occurred in 2009.[54] The 90 acres (36 ha) North Belt complex will house 2,200 employees. Halliburton planned to add a research and development facility with laboratories, a new cafeteria, a childcare center, two additional parking garages, and fitness and wellness centers for employees.[55] The plans for the North Belt office had been delayed by one year, and Halliburton expects completion in 2013. The construction of the North Belt administration building is scheduled to begin in late 2010.[62]
According to Marilyn Bayless, the president of the North Houston Greenspoint Chamber of Commerce, in 2003, Halliburton had planned to move operations out of the North Belt office because other area school districts offered the freeport tax exemptions while the Aldine Independent School District (AISD), where the North Belt office is located, did not. In order to attract businesses, in May 2003, AISD began offering the same tax exemption as other jurisdictions. Subsequently, Halliburton retained the North Belt office.[63]
[edit] Corporate Giving
According to the company, Halliburton’s total corporate giving for 2009, including cash and in-kind donations, was more than $572 million. In addition, Halliburton employees volunteered more than 49,000 hours during the year.[citation needed]
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Deepwater Horizon data!.
Deepwater Horizon was an ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, semi-submersible offshore drilling rig. The rig was built in 2001 in South Korea, is owned by Transocean and was leased to BP plc until September 2013.[4] Deepwater Horizon was registered in Majuro, Marshall Islands. In September 2009, the rig drilled the deepest oil well in history at a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,680 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m).[5]
On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the rig left eleven crewmen dead. The resulting fire could not be extinguished, and on April 22, 2010, the rig sank, leaving the well gushing, causing the largest offshore oil spill in the United States.[citation needed]
Contents[hide]
1 Design
2 History
2.1 Construction
2.2 Ownership and lease
2.3 Drilling operations
3 Explosion and oil spill
3.1 Explosion and fire
3.2 Massive oil spill
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
//
[edit] Design
Deepwater Horizon was a fifth-generation, RBS-8D design, ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, column-stabilized, semi-submersible drilling rig,[6] or Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit, designed to drill subsea wells for oil exploration and production purposes. Deepwater Horizon was the second semi-submersible rig constructed of a class of two, although the Deepwater Nautilus, her predecessor, is not dynamically positioned. The rig was 396 by 256 ft (121 by 78 m),[6], could operate in waters up to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) deep, to a maximum drill depth of 30,000 feet (9,100 m),[7] and in 2010 was one of approximately two hundred deepwater offshore rigs capable of drilling in waters more than 5,000 ft (1,500 m).[8]
In 2002, the rig was upgraded with "e-drill," a drill monitoring system whereby technicians based in Houston, Texas, received real-time drilling data from the rig and transmitted maintenance and troubleshooting information.[9]
[edit] History
[edit] Construction
Designed originally for R&B Falcon, Deepwater Horizon was built by Hyundai Heavy Industries in Ulsan, South Korea. Construction started in December 1998 and the rig was delivered in February 2001 after the acquisition of R&B Falcon by Transocean, and was insured for $560 million.[10]
[edit] Ownership and lease
Transocean, the rig owner, operated the rig under the Marshalese flag of convenience.[11] Beginning in 2008, BP Exploration leased the Deepwater Horizon from Transocean Ltd.[11] In October 2009, the contract was extended until 2013.[4][11] The lease contract was worth $544 million, a rate of $496,800 per day.[12]
[edit] Drilling operations
The Deepwater Horizon worked on wells in the Atlantis and Thunder Horse Oil Fields, a 2006 discovery in the Kaskida field, and the 2009 Tiber oilfield.[13][14] On September 2, 2009, Deepwater Horizon drilled on the Tiber oilfield with a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,683 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m), of which 4,132 ft (1,259 m) was water, which was at the time the deepest oil well in the world.[14][15][16][17] The well was more than 5,000 feet deeper than the design specification on the company's fleet list.[18]
In March 2008, at the Minerals Management Service's lease sale,[19] BP purchased the mineral rights to drill for oil on Mississippi Canyon Block 252, referred to as the Macondo Prospect, in the United States sector of the Gulf of Mexico, about 41 miles (66 km) off the southeast coast of Louisiana.
The Deepwater Horizon commenced drilling in the Macondo Prospect in February 2010 at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m).[20] As of April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon was still working on the site.[21][22][13][23]
[edit] Explosion and oil spill
[edit] Explosion and fire
Main article: Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion
On April 20, 2010, the rig was in the final phases of drilling an exploratory oil well in which casing was being cemented in place as a reinforcement by Halliburton Industries.[21] The planned well was to be drilled to 18,000 feet (5,500 m) below sea level, and was then to be plugged and suspended for subsequent completion as a subsea producer.[20] At 9:45 p.m. CDT,[24] a geyser of seawater erupted from the marine riser onto the rig, shooting 240 ft (73 m) into the air. This was soon followed by the eruption of a slushy combination of mud, methane gas, and water. The gas component of the slushy material quickly transitioned into a fully gaseous state and then ignited into a series of explosions and then a firestorm. Workers immediately attempted to activate the blowout preventer, but it failed.[25]
Eleven workers were presumed killed in the initial explosion. The rig was evacuated, with numerous injured workers airlifted to medical facilities.[3] Support ships sprayed the rig with water in an ultimately unsuccessful bid to cool it and prevent it from capsizing. This was an attempt to buy time while attempts were made to stop the oil and gas that were feeding the flames from coming up the riser pipe. That would have reduced the flames and allowed special teams of firefighters to board the stricken rig and extinguish the remaining fire.[26]
After burning for approximately 36 hours, the Deepwater Horizon sank on April 22, 2010, in water approximately 5,000 ft (1,500 m) deep, and has been located resting on the seafloor approximately 1,300 ft (400 m) (about a quarter of a mile) northwest of the well.[21][27][28]
[edit] Massive oil spill
Main article: Deepwater Horizon oil spill
The oil was not stopped before the Deepwater Horizon sank. As of the beginning of June, 2010, the oil was still flowing. Some estimates of the spill make this the largest oil spill ever in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening fisheries, tourism, and the habitat of hundreds of bird species.[29]
[edit] See also
Nautical portal
Atlantis PQ
Ocean Ranger
Piper Alpha
Thunder Horse PDQ
Transocean John Shaw
Ixtoc I oil spill
Kola Superdeep Borehole
[edit] References
^ Transocean Ltd (April 26, 2010). "Transocean Ltd. Provides Deepwater Horizon Update". Press release. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/transocean-ltd-provides-deepwater-horizon-update-2010-04-26. Retrieved 21 May 2010.
^ "Deepwater Horizon: A Timeline of Events". Offshore-Technology. 07 May 2010. http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/feature84446/. Retrieved 21 May 2010.
^ a b c McGill, Kevin (April 21, 2010). "Evacuated workers sought after oil rig explosion". The Houston Chronicle. The Associated Press. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6968340.html. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
^ a b "Deepwater Horizon contract extended". Offshore Magazine (PennWell Corporation). November 1, 2009. http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/6112303380/articles/offshore/volume-69/issue-11/departments/gulf-of_mexico/gulf-of_mexico.html. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Deepwater Horizon Drills World's Deepest Oil & Gas Well", Transocean press release
^ a b "Fleet Specifications, Deepwater Horizon", Transocean, retrieved May 12, 2010
^ "Transocean Deepwater Horizon specifications". Transocean. http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Deepwater-Horizon-56C15.html. Retrieved 2010-04-22.
^ "Rig Data Centre". Rigzone. 28 May 2010. http://www.rigzone.com/data. Retrieved 28 May 2010.
^ "Monitoring system reduces rig downtime". Offshore Magazine (PennWell Corporation). November 1, 2002. http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/161517/articles/offshore/volume-62/issue-11/news/general-interest/monitoring-system-reduces-rig-downtime.html. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Transocean Ltd. Provides Deepwater Horizon Update". Wallstreet Journal. 2010-04-26. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/transocean-ltd-provides-deepwater-horizon-update-2010-04-26.
^ a b c Reddall, Braden (2010-04-22). "Transocean rig loss's financial impact mulled". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2211325420100422. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
^ "The Well". Houston Chronicle. October 17, 2009. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6672098.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+houstonchronicle%2Fbusiness+%28chron.com+-+Business%29. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ a b Anadarko Petroleum (August 31, 2006). "BP & Partners Make Discovery at Kaskida Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico". Press release. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=35730. Retrieved April 24, 2010.
^ a b TransOcean (September 2, 2009). "Deepwater Horizon Drills World's Deepest Oil & Gas Well". Press release. http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/IDeepwater-Horizon-i-Drills-Worlds-Deepest-Oil-and-Gas-Well-419C1.html?LayoutID=6. Retrieved September 2, 2009.
^ "BP drills oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico". Offshore Magazine (PennWell Corporation). September 2, 2009. http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/7488119241/articles/offshore/drilling-completion/us-gulf-of-mexico/2009/08/bp-drills__giant_.html. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ Braden Reddall (September 2, 2009). "Transocean says well at BP discovery deepest ever". Reuters. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN02119720090902. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drills world's deepest oil and gas well". Red Mist Media. http://www.yourindustrynews.com/transocean%27s+deepwater+horizon+drills+world%27s+deepest+oil+and+gas+well_38385.html. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
^ http://www.deepwater.com/_filelib/FileCabinet/fleetupdate/2010/RIGFLT-APR-2010.xls?FileName=RIGFLT-APR-2010.xls
^ "Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Lease Sale 206 Information". US Minerals Management Service. 2008-08-08. http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/lsesale/206/cgom206.html. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
^ a b "Macondo Prospect, Gulf of Mexico, USA". offshore-technology.com. 2005-10-20. http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/macondoprospect/. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
^ a b c Robertson, Cambell; Robbins, Liz (April 22, 2010). "Oil Rig Sinks in the Gulf of Mexico". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/us/23rig.html?hp. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ BP (April 21, 2010). "BP confirms that Transocean Ltd issued the following statement today". Press release. http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061443. Retrieved April 21, 2010.
^ "Gibbs: Deepwater Horizon Aftermath Could Affect Next Lease Sale". Rigzone. 2010-04-30. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=92025. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
^ "12 missing after Gulf of Mexico oil rig blast: coast guard". Thenews.com.pk. 2010-04-22. http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=103368. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
^ Brenner, Noah; Guegel, Anthony; Watts, Rob; Pitt, Anthea (2010-04-29). "Horizon crew tried to activate BOP". Upstream Online (NHST Media Group). http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article213497.ece. Retrieved 2010-06-04.
^ "Gulf Oil Spill". NatgeoTV.com. National Geographic Channel. May 27, 2010. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/gulf-oil-spill-5488/behind-the-scenes. Retrieved 4 June 2010.
^ Resnick-Ault, Jessica; Klimasinska, Katarzyna (April 22, 2010). "Transocean Oil-Drilling Rig Sinks in Gulf of Mexico". Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHylLWhmGcI0. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. April 24, 2010. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=809&subtopic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=2&topic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=1. Retrieved April 25, 2010.
^ "Bird Habitats Threatened by Oil Spill". National Wildlife (National Wildlife Federation). April 30, 2010. http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Birds/Archives/2010/Oil-Spill-Birds.aspx. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
[edit] External links
Wikinews has related news:
Oil rig in Gulf of Mexico sinks after explosion; eleven missing
Gulf of Mexico oil spill expanding; submarines to try to stop leak
Deepwater Horizon detail at RigZone.com
Latest Reported Position from Sailwx
ABS Record
GOES-13 satellite images (CIMSS Satellite Blog)
"gCaptain's Deepwater Horizon Thread"
Photograph of the Deepwater Horizon in 2004, before it exploded
On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the rig left eleven crewmen dead. The resulting fire could not be extinguished, and on April 22, 2010, the rig sank, leaving the well gushing, causing the largest offshore oil spill in the United States.[citation needed]
Contents[hide]
1 Design
2 History
2.1 Construction
2.2 Ownership and lease
2.3 Drilling operations
3 Explosion and oil spill
3.1 Explosion and fire
3.2 Massive oil spill
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
//
[edit] Design
Deepwater Horizon was a fifth-generation, RBS-8D design, ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, column-stabilized, semi-submersible drilling rig,[6] or Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit, designed to drill subsea wells for oil exploration and production purposes. Deepwater Horizon was the second semi-submersible rig constructed of a class of two, although the Deepwater Nautilus, her predecessor, is not dynamically positioned. The rig was 396 by 256 ft (121 by 78 m),[6], could operate in waters up to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) deep, to a maximum drill depth of 30,000 feet (9,100 m),[7] and in 2010 was one of approximately two hundred deepwater offshore rigs capable of drilling in waters more than 5,000 ft (1,500 m).[8]
In 2002, the rig was upgraded with "e-drill," a drill monitoring system whereby technicians based in Houston, Texas, received real-time drilling data from the rig and transmitted maintenance and troubleshooting information.[9]
[edit] History
[edit] Construction
Designed originally for R&B Falcon, Deepwater Horizon was built by Hyundai Heavy Industries in Ulsan, South Korea. Construction started in December 1998 and the rig was delivered in February 2001 after the acquisition of R&B Falcon by Transocean, and was insured for $560 million.[10]
[edit] Ownership and lease
Transocean, the rig owner, operated the rig under the Marshalese flag of convenience.[11] Beginning in 2008, BP Exploration leased the Deepwater Horizon from Transocean Ltd.[11] In October 2009, the contract was extended until 2013.[4][11] The lease contract was worth $544 million, a rate of $496,800 per day.[12]
[edit] Drilling operations
The Deepwater Horizon worked on wells in the Atlantis and Thunder Horse Oil Fields, a 2006 discovery in the Kaskida field, and the 2009 Tiber oilfield.[13][14] On September 2, 2009, Deepwater Horizon drilled on the Tiber oilfield with a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,683 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m), of which 4,132 ft (1,259 m) was water, which was at the time the deepest oil well in the world.[14][15][16][17] The well was more than 5,000 feet deeper than the design specification on the company's fleet list.[18]
In March 2008, at the Minerals Management Service's lease sale,[19] BP purchased the mineral rights to drill for oil on Mississippi Canyon Block 252, referred to as the Macondo Prospect, in the United States sector of the Gulf of Mexico, about 41 miles (66 km) off the southeast coast of Louisiana.
The Deepwater Horizon commenced drilling in the Macondo Prospect in February 2010 at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m).[20] As of April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon was still working on the site.[21][22][13][23]
[edit] Explosion and oil spill
[edit] Explosion and fire
Main article: Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion
On April 20, 2010, the rig was in the final phases of drilling an exploratory oil well in which casing was being cemented in place as a reinforcement by Halliburton Industries.[21] The planned well was to be drilled to 18,000 feet (5,500 m) below sea level, and was then to be plugged and suspended for subsequent completion as a subsea producer.[20] At 9:45 p.m. CDT,[24] a geyser of seawater erupted from the marine riser onto the rig, shooting 240 ft (73 m) into the air. This was soon followed by the eruption of a slushy combination of mud, methane gas, and water. The gas component of the slushy material quickly transitioned into a fully gaseous state and then ignited into a series of explosions and then a firestorm. Workers immediately attempted to activate the blowout preventer, but it failed.[25]
Eleven workers were presumed killed in the initial explosion. The rig was evacuated, with numerous injured workers airlifted to medical facilities.[3] Support ships sprayed the rig with water in an ultimately unsuccessful bid to cool it and prevent it from capsizing. This was an attempt to buy time while attempts were made to stop the oil and gas that were feeding the flames from coming up the riser pipe. That would have reduced the flames and allowed special teams of firefighters to board the stricken rig and extinguish the remaining fire.[26]
After burning for approximately 36 hours, the Deepwater Horizon sank on April 22, 2010, in water approximately 5,000 ft (1,500 m) deep, and has been located resting on the seafloor approximately 1,300 ft (400 m) (about a quarter of a mile) northwest of the well.[21][27][28]
[edit] Massive oil spill
Main article: Deepwater Horizon oil spill
The oil was not stopped before the Deepwater Horizon sank. As of the beginning of June, 2010, the oil was still flowing. Some estimates of the spill make this the largest oil spill ever in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening fisheries, tourism, and the habitat of hundreds of bird species.[29]
[edit] See also
Nautical portal
Atlantis PQ
Ocean Ranger
Piper Alpha
Thunder Horse PDQ
Transocean John Shaw
Ixtoc I oil spill
Kola Superdeep Borehole
[edit] References
^ Transocean Ltd (April 26, 2010). "Transocean Ltd. Provides Deepwater Horizon Update". Press release. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/transocean-ltd-provides-deepwater-horizon-update-2010-04-26. Retrieved 21 May 2010.
^ "Deepwater Horizon: A Timeline of Events". Offshore-Technology. 07 May 2010. http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/feature84446/. Retrieved 21 May 2010.
^ a b c McGill, Kevin (April 21, 2010). "Evacuated workers sought after oil rig explosion". The Houston Chronicle. The Associated Press. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6968340.html. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
^ a b "Deepwater Horizon contract extended". Offshore Magazine (PennWell Corporation). November 1, 2009. http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/6112303380/articles/offshore/volume-69/issue-11/departments/gulf-of_mexico/gulf-of_mexico.html. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Deepwater Horizon Drills World's Deepest Oil & Gas Well", Transocean press release
^ a b "Fleet Specifications, Deepwater Horizon", Transocean, retrieved May 12, 2010
^ "Transocean Deepwater Horizon specifications". Transocean. http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Deepwater-Horizon-56C15.html. Retrieved 2010-04-22.
^ "Rig Data Centre". Rigzone. 28 May 2010. http://www.rigzone.com/data. Retrieved 28 May 2010.
^ "Monitoring system reduces rig downtime". Offshore Magazine (PennWell Corporation). November 1, 2002. http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/161517/articles/offshore/volume-62/issue-11/news/general-interest/monitoring-system-reduces-rig-downtime.html. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Transocean Ltd. Provides Deepwater Horizon Update". Wallstreet Journal. 2010-04-26. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/transocean-ltd-provides-deepwater-horizon-update-2010-04-26.
^ a b c Reddall, Braden (2010-04-22). "Transocean rig loss's financial impact mulled". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2211325420100422. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
^ "The Well". Houston Chronicle. October 17, 2009. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6672098.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+houstonchronicle%2Fbusiness+%28chron.com+-+Business%29. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ a b Anadarko Petroleum (August 31, 2006). "BP & Partners Make Discovery at Kaskida Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico". Press release. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=35730. Retrieved April 24, 2010.
^ a b TransOcean (September 2, 2009). "Deepwater Horizon Drills World's Deepest Oil & Gas Well". Press release. http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/IDeepwater-Horizon-i-Drills-Worlds-Deepest-Oil-and-Gas-Well-419C1.html?LayoutID=6. Retrieved September 2, 2009.
^ "BP drills oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico". Offshore Magazine (PennWell Corporation). September 2, 2009. http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/7488119241/articles/offshore/drilling-completion/us-gulf-of-mexico/2009/08/bp-drills__giant_.html. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ Braden Reddall (September 2, 2009). "Transocean says well at BP discovery deepest ever". Reuters. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN02119720090902. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drills world's deepest oil and gas well". Red Mist Media. http://www.yourindustrynews.com/transocean%27s+deepwater+horizon+drills+world%27s+deepest+oil+and+gas+well_38385.html. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
^ http://www.deepwater.com/_filelib/FileCabinet/fleetupdate/2010/RIGFLT-APR-2010.xls?FileName=RIGFLT-APR-2010.xls
^ "Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Lease Sale 206 Information". US Minerals Management Service. 2008-08-08. http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/lsesale/206/cgom206.html. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
^ a b "Macondo Prospect, Gulf of Mexico, USA". offshore-technology.com. 2005-10-20. http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/macondoprospect/. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
^ a b c Robertson, Cambell; Robbins, Liz (April 22, 2010). "Oil Rig Sinks in the Gulf of Mexico". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/us/23rig.html?hp. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ BP (April 21, 2010). "BP confirms that Transocean Ltd issued the following statement today". Press release. http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061443. Retrieved April 21, 2010.
^ "Gibbs: Deepwater Horizon Aftermath Could Affect Next Lease Sale". Rigzone. 2010-04-30. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=92025. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
^ "12 missing after Gulf of Mexico oil rig blast: coast guard". Thenews.com.pk. 2010-04-22. http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=103368. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
^ Brenner, Noah; Guegel, Anthony; Watts, Rob; Pitt, Anthea (2010-04-29). "Horizon crew tried to activate BOP". Upstream Online (NHST Media Group). http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article213497.ece. Retrieved 2010-06-04.
^ "Gulf Oil Spill". NatgeoTV.com. National Geographic Channel. May 27, 2010. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/gulf-oil-spill-5488/behind-the-scenes. Retrieved 4 June 2010.
^ Resnick-Ault, Jessica; Klimasinska, Katarzyna (April 22, 2010). "Transocean Oil-Drilling Rig Sinks in Gulf of Mexico". Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHylLWhmGcI0. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. April 24, 2010. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=809&subtopic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=2&topic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=1. Retrieved April 25, 2010.
^ "Bird Habitats Threatened by Oil Spill". National Wildlife (National Wildlife Federation). April 30, 2010. http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Birds/Archives/2010/Oil-Spill-Birds.aspx. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
[edit] External links
Wikinews has related news:
Oil rig in Gulf of Mexico sinks after explosion; eleven missing
Gulf of Mexico oil spill expanding; submarines to try to stop leak
Deepwater Horizon detail at RigZone.com
Latest Reported Position from Sailwx
ABS Record
GOES-13 satellite images (CIMSS Satellite Blog)
"gCaptain's Deepwater Horizon Thread"
Photograph of the Deepwater Horizon in 2004, before it exploded
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Amendments to Immigration & Refugee Protection Act Can't find opposition amendments that were accepted ??.
According to press reports, the Liberals are close to a deal with the opposition on the changes to the Immigration & Refugee Act. I have a lot of problems with the bill in its original form and I have been trying to find an updated copy showing the amendments proposed and accepted by the Liberals/opposition. Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the accepted amendments? Please provide a link if you find it. On a related note, why hasn't the House of Commons updated the bill with the amendments yet, at least on their website?
Someone let me know at
msdogfood@hotmail.com
Thanks!
Someone let me know at
msdogfood@hotmail.com
Thanks!
Saturday, June 5, 2010
UPDATE 5-McDonald's recalls 13.4 mln 'Shrek' drinking glasses lack of comment on where drinking glasses were made,!
UPDATE 5-McDonald's recalls 13.4 mln 'Shrek' drinking glasses
* McDonald's recalls Shrek drinking glasses in US, Canada
* Cadmium levels in glasses slightly above safe levels
* McDonald's shares down 1.3 pct (Adds latest Canadian figures, manufacturer's lack of comment on where drinking glasses were made, updates stock price)
By Ben Klayman
DETROIT, June 4 (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp (MCD.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) has recalled at least 13.4 million "Shrek"-themed drinking glasses in the United States and Canada after consumers were warned to stop using them because they contain the toxic metal cadmium.
Cadmium was found in the painted design of the movie characters on the glassware, which McDonald's outlets sold for about $2 each, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Canada's health ministry Health Canada.
The recall affected 12 million glasses in the United States and at least another 1.3 million in Canada, according to McDonald's.
"A very small amount of cadmium can come to the surface of the glass, and in order to be as protective as possible of children, CPSC and McDonald's worked together on this recall," CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said in an email.
The CPSC said designs on the glasses, made by ARC International in Millville, New Jersey, contain cadmium and "long-term exposure ... can cause adverse health effects." Cadmium is a known carcinogen that research shows also can cause bone softening and severe kidney problems.
The agency said no incidents or injuries related to the glasses have been reported, but McDonald's said it was recalling them as a "precautionary measure."
A spokesman for ARC declined to comment on whether the glasses were made in the United States or abroad.
Shares of the world's largest hamburger chain were off 1.3 percent at $66.95 on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday afternoon.
Wolfson did not specify the amounts of cadmium that leached from the paint in tests by the CPSC but said the levels were slightly above the new stricter guidelines under development by the agency. He said it was far less cadmium than the children's metal jewelry the CPSC previously recalled.
McDonald's said consumers who bought the glasses should visit the company website at www.mcdonalds.com/glasses or call 800-244-6227 beginning Tuesday for instructions on how to return them and get a refund.
"The glassware was evaluated by an independent third-party laboratory which is accredited by the CPSC, and determined to be in compliance with all applicable federal and state requirements at the time of manufacture and distribution," the company said in a statement.
"However, in light of the CPSC's evolving assessment of standards for cadmium in consumer products, McDonald's determined in an abundance of caution that a voluntary recall of the 'Shrek Forever After' glasses is appropriate," the company added.
McDonald's said about 7 million of the glasses had been sold and about 5 million were in stores or had not been shipped yet in the United States. The company's Canadian office said 1.4 million had been sold or shipped to restaurants in that country.
The sale of the 16-ounce glasses was part of the promotional campaign for the movie "Shrek Forever After," which was produced by DreamWorks Animation (DWA.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and released last month by Viacom Inc's (VIAb.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz)(VIA.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Paramount Pictures.
The glasses, which McDonald's began offering on May 21, came in four designs with characters from the film: Shrek, Fiona, Puss in Boots and Donkey.
"Shrek," the fourth movie in the series about the lovable green ogre's adventures in his fairy tale land, opened May 21 and is currently the most popular movie in North America, having grossed almost $150 million through the end of May.
The CPSC was alerted to the problem through the office of U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, who was contacted by an anonymous source last week.
"Our children's health should not depend on the consciences of anonymous sources," Speier said in a statement posted on her website. (speier.house.gov/)
"Although McDonald's did the right thing by recalling these products, we need stronger testing standards," she said. "Cadmium is a toxic substance that is extremely dangerous to the developmental health of children."
McDonald's last recall with the CPSC occurred in 2002, involving 100,000 Chicago Bears bobble-head figurines with paint that contained excess levels of lead. (Reporting by Ben Klayman in Detroit, Jonathan Stempel in New York, Antonita Madonna Devotta in Bangalore, David Ljunggren in Ottawa; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Steve Orlofsky and Matthew Lewis)
* McDonald's recalls Shrek drinking glasses in US, Canada
* Cadmium levels in glasses slightly above safe levels
* McDonald's shares down 1.3 pct (Adds latest Canadian figures, manufacturer's lack of comment on where drinking glasses were made, updates stock price)
By Ben Klayman
DETROIT, June 4 (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp (MCD.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) has recalled at least 13.4 million "Shrek"-themed drinking glasses in the United States and Canada after consumers were warned to stop using them because they contain the toxic metal cadmium.
Cadmium was found in the painted design of the movie characters on the glassware, which McDonald's outlets sold for about $2 each, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Canada's health ministry Health Canada.
The recall affected 12 million glasses in the United States and at least another 1.3 million in Canada, according to McDonald's.
"A very small amount of cadmium can come to the surface of the glass, and in order to be as protective as possible of children, CPSC and McDonald's worked together on this recall," CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said in an email.
The CPSC said designs on the glasses, made by ARC International in Millville, New Jersey, contain cadmium and "long-term exposure ... can cause adverse health effects." Cadmium is a known carcinogen that research shows also can cause bone softening and severe kidney problems.
The agency said no incidents or injuries related to the glasses have been reported, but McDonald's said it was recalling them as a "precautionary measure."
A spokesman for ARC declined to comment on whether the glasses were made in the United States or abroad.
Shares of the world's largest hamburger chain were off 1.3 percent at $66.95 on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday afternoon.
Wolfson did not specify the amounts of cadmium that leached from the paint in tests by the CPSC but said the levels were slightly above the new stricter guidelines under development by the agency. He said it was far less cadmium than the children's metal jewelry the CPSC previously recalled.
McDonald's said consumers who bought the glasses should visit the company website at www.mcdonalds.com/glasses or call 800-244-6227 beginning Tuesday for instructions on how to return them and get a refund.
"The glassware was evaluated by an independent third-party laboratory which is accredited by the CPSC, and determined to be in compliance with all applicable federal and state requirements at the time of manufacture and distribution," the company said in a statement.
"However, in light of the CPSC's evolving assessment of standards for cadmium in consumer products, McDonald's determined in an abundance of caution that a voluntary recall of the 'Shrek Forever After' glasses is appropriate," the company added.
McDonald's said about 7 million of the glasses had been sold and about 5 million were in stores or had not been shipped yet in the United States. The company's Canadian office said 1.4 million had been sold or shipped to restaurants in that country.
The sale of the 16-ounce glasses was part of the promotional campaign for the movie "Shrek Forever After," which was produced by DreamWorks Animation (DWA.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and released last month by Viacom Inc's (VIAb.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz)(VIA.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Paramount Pictures.
The glasses, which McDonald's began offering on May 21, came in four designs with characters from the film: Shrek, Fiona, Puss in Boots and Donkey.
"Shrek," the fourth movie in the series about the lovable green ogre's adventures in his fairy tale land, opened May 21 and is currently the most popular movie in North America, having grossed almost $150 million through the end of May.
The CPSC was alerted to the problem through the office of U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, who was contacted by an anonymous source last week.
"Our children's health should not depend on the consciences of anonymous sources," Speier said in a statement posted on her website. (speier.house.gov/)
"Although McDonald's did the right thing by recalling these products, we need stronger testing standards," she said. "Cadmium is a toxic substance that is extremely dangerous to the developmental health of children."
McDonald's last recall with the CPSC occurred in 2002, involving 100,000 Chicago Bears bobble-head figurines with paint that contained excess levels of lead. (Reporting by Ben Klayman in Detroit, Jonathan Stempel in New York, Antonita Madonna Devotta in Bangalore, David Ljunggren in Ottawa; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Steve Orlofsky and Matthew Lewis)
Friday, June 4, 2010
Popular support for the ruling federal Conservative Party has slipped . (EKOS)
Conservative support ebbs slightly: poll
CBC News
(EKOS)
Popular support for the ruling federal Conservative Party has slipped following two weeks above 33 per cent, a new EKOS tracking poll suggests.
When asked who they would support if an election were to be held tomorrow, 31.7 per cent of respondents said they would back the Conservatives, while the Liberals remain stuck in the mid-20s with 26.2 per cent.
Support for the NDP is at 17.4 per cent, while the Green Party has 11.5 per cent, and the Bloc Québécois 10.3 per cent, says the poll, which was released exclusively to CBC News.
The EKOS poll is based on a random sample of 2,827 Canadians aged 18 and over between May 26 and June 1. The margin of error associated with the total sample is plus or minus 1.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Consistent with past weeks, 49.2 per cent of Canadians polled say the country is moving in the right direction and 39.1 per cent say it's moving in the wrong direction. Conservative supporters, residents of Alberta, and men are most likely to agree the country is moving in the right direction, pollsters said.
Also consistent with last week, 38.9 per cent of Canadians said the government is moving in the right direction, while 48 per cent of respondents believe it is moving in the wrong direction.
Only Conservative supporters are happy with the direction of the government. Almost 75 per cent of Conservative Party supporters said the government was going in the right direction, according to the poll.
Dissatisfaction with the government's direction is most intense among supporters of the Bloc Québécois, at 78.8 per cent, and among NDP backers, at 66.5 per cent. Liberal supporters and Green Party supporters express similar levels of dissatisfaction at roughly 57 per centRead more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/02/ekos-poll.html#ixzz0prH7xsoR
CBC News
(EKOS)
Popular support for the ruling federal Conservative Party has slipped following two weeks above 33 per cent, a new EKOS tracking poll suggests.
When asked who they would support if an election were to be held tomorrow, 31.7 per cent of respondents said they would back the Conservatives, while the Liberals remain stuck in the mid-20s with 26.2 per cent.
Support for the NDP is at 17.4 per cent, while the Green Party has 11.5 per cent, and the Bloc Québécois 10.3 per cent, says the poll, which was released exclusively to CBC News.
The EKOS poll is based on a random sample of 2,827 Canadians aged 18 and over between May 26 and June 1. The margin of error associated with the total sample is plus or minus 1.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Consistent with past weeks, 49.2 per cent of Canadians polled say the country is moving in the right direction and 39.1 per cent say it's moving in the wrong direction. Conservative supporters, residents of Alberta, and men are most likely to agree the country is moving in the right direction, pollsters said.
Also consistent with last week, 38.9 per cent of Canadians said the government is moving in the right direction, while 48 per cent of respondents believe it is moving in the wrong direction.
Only Conservative supporters are happy with the direction of the government. Almost 75 per cent of Conservative Party supporters said the government was going in the right direction, according to the poll.
Dissatisfaction with the government's direction is most intense among supporters of the Bloc Québécois, at 78.8 per cent, and among NDP backers, at 66.5 per cent. Liberal supporters and Green Party supporters express similar levels of dissatisfaction at roughly 57 per centRead more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/02/ekos-poll.html#ixzz0prH7xsoR
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Kevin O'Leary of O'Leary Funds doesn't understand Google at all!
Yesterday on the CBC's flagship business program The Lang and O'Leary Exchange, Kevin O'Leary was commenting in reaction to leaked reports that Google was in the process of banning the installation and use of Microsoft Windows operating system because of security concerns. O'Leary disagreed with the stated reasoning. He believes Google feels threatened by Microsoft's Bing search engine and does not want to be caught supporting one of their competitors by using some of their technology in-house. If O'Leary had done proper research before making such a stupid comment, he probably would never have said it.
One of Google's chief liability problems is the possible risk of a security breach. Naturally, they do everything possible to prevent that from happening. One of the ways that a company can manage security is to only use operating system software that is naturally hardened against attack. Windows, any version, has never been successfully hardened against attack or vulnerability. In fact, no piece of Microsoft software has every been successfully secured. O'Leary is assuming that Google feels threatened by Microsoft but in their history they have never been threatened by Microsoft. This also shows his stunning lack of knowledge of IT security and the Internet industry as a whole.
His fellow host, Amanda Lang, countered his comment with a more logical scenario... that basically, Google evaluated the security of Microsoft products and found them lacking. That is a far more accurate statement than O'Leary's. Amanda Lang is the journalist of the two. In this particular case who would you want for your financial advisor? The guy who did not recognize that Google's move was a liability mitigation strategy instead of the sentiment of Oh God, Microsoft is coming after us, we are so scared, or the journalist who gave the dispassionate analysis of what the report actually meant? For technology plays, I would want Amanda Lang. At lease she thinks before she speaks, something that O'Leary doesn't do during the best of times. This does not inspire confidence in the management of O'Leary Funds. If I were a Canadian technology investor in the market for advice, Kevin O'Leary and O'Leary Funds would definitely not be my first choice. If Amanda Lang were offering investment advice I'd be more apt to listen to her as she is more cool headed and logical than he is. But she is an internationally respected business journalist so she won't be giving that advice.
The moral of the blog post is to make sure your money manager understands the industry they are selling products in or giving advice in because if they don't, you could be hit by the short end of the stick.
One of Google's chief liability problems is the possible risk of a security breach. Naturally, they do everything possible to prevent that from happening. One of the ways that a company can manage security is to only use operating system software that is naturally hardened against attack. Windows, any version, has never been successfully hardened against attack or vulnerability. In fact, no piece of Microsoft software has every been successfully secured. O'Leary is assuming that Google feels threatened by Microsoft but in their history they have never been threatened by Microsoft. This also shows his stunning lack of knowledge of IT security and the Internet industry as a whole.
His fellow host, Amanda Lang, countered his comment with a more logical scenario... that basically, Google evaluated the security of Microsoft products and found them lacking. That is a far more accurate statement than O'Leary's. Amanda Lang is the journalist of the two. In this particular case who would you want for your financial advisor? The guy who did not recognize that Google's move was a liability mitigation strategy instead of the sentiment of Oh God, Microsoft is coming after us, we are so scared, or the journalist who gave the dispassionate analysis of what the report actually meant? For technology plays, I would want Amanda Lang. At lease she thinks before she speaks, something that O'Leary doesn't do during the best of times. This does not inspire confidence in the management of O'Leary Funds. If I were a Canadian technology investor in the market for advice, Kevin O'Leary and O'Leary Funds would definitely not be my first choice. If Amanda Lang were offering investment advice I'd be more apt to listen to her as she is more cool headed and logical than he is. But she is an internationally respected business journalist so she won't be giving that advice.
The moral of the blog post is to make sure your money manager understands the industry they are selling products in or giving advice in because if they don't, you could be hit by the short end of the stick.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Recoup money from Mulroney, opposition urges ... 'Do the decent thing'!
Recoup money from Mulroney, opposition urges
CBC News
Former prime minister Mulroney says he didn't reveal his business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber to lawyers in 1995 because they didn't ask the right questions. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)
Opposition MPs are demanding the federal government recoup the $2.1 million paid to former prime minister Brian Mulroney in an out-of-court settlement of his libel suit against the government 13 years ago.
That suit was based on Mulroney's claims that the RCMP defamed him when it wrote a letter accusing him of taking kickbacks for Air Canada's purchase of Airbus jets in 1988.
Mulroney was prime minister from 1984 to 1993.
The opposition's calls came in response to a report released Monday by the Oliphant Commission looking into Mulroney's dealings with German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.
In his report, Justice Jeffrey Oliphant called into question the testimony Mulroney gave to Department of Justice lawyers in 1995 before the settlement was reached.
Mulroney told the Oliphant Commission that at the time, he did not reveal his business dealings with Schreiber to the lawyers simply because they didn't ask the right questions. But Oliphant called that claim "patently absurd."Schreiber gave Mulroney at least $225,000 in cash-stuffed envelopes in the 1990s. (Uwe Lein/Associated Press)
In his 1995 testimony, Mulroney said he and Schreiber merely had coffee from time to time.
Later, it was revealed that he, in fact, accepted at least $225,000 in cash from Schreiber after he left office.
Oliphant was appointed by the federal government two years ago to determine what the money was for, where it went and whether the cash relationship between Schreiber and Mulroney was appropriate.
In Monday's report, he ruled that although the money changed hands only after Mulroney left office, the dealings between the two were "inappropriate."
The terms governing Oliphant's inquiry barred him from looking directly into the Airbus affair — the allegations that Mulroney and Schreiber were involved in a kickback scheme over the 1988 purchase of Airbus aircraft by Air Canada — and the libel settlement.
Nevertheless, the opposition has argued that since the inquiry found that Mulroney did have inappropriate business dealings with Schreiber, he misrepresented the nature of his relationship with the businessman during the testimony on which his libel settlement was based and hence should forfeit that money.
'Do the decent thing'
Liberal MP Ralph Goodale, who was in cabinet at the time of the settlement, says the government of the day did what it had to do based on the information it had at the time.
"And it now appears that that information was deliberately false," said Goodale.
NDP MP Wayne Marston said Mulroney should volunteer to give the money back to taxpayers.
"I think he should do the decent thing and return the money to Canadians," Marston said. "And if he's not prepared to do that, it's up to the government to go after it."
In question period Tuesday, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings asked whether the government was going to try to recuperate the money, and the accrued interest, paid to Mulroney.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government will respond to Oliphant's report in "due course."
"The recommendations … [were] tabled yesterday," said Nicholson. "They are now with the appropriate authorities, and we'll look at any or all recommendations that come out of that process."
But before question period, Conservative backbencher David Tilson said he doesn't see any grounds to reopen the settlement.
"There isn't a court in this land that will set aside a settlement that has been made in good faith by two parties unless there is some sort of fraudulent activity. And at this stage, I haven't seen any," he said.
Mulroney has not responded to the report or to the calls to return the money but did release a statement Monday.
"I genuinely regret that my conduct after I left office gave rise to suspicions about the propriety of my personal business affairs as a private citizen," the statement said.Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/01/mulroney-money.html#ixzz0pevAaqM8
CBC News
Former prime minister Mulroney says he didn't reveal his business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber to lawyers in 1995 because they didn't ask the right questions. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)
Opposition MPs are demanding the federal government recoup the $2.1 million paid to former prime minister Brian Mulroney in an out-of-court settlement of his libel suit against the government 13 years ago.
That suit was based on Mulroney's claims that the RCMP defamed him when it wrote a letter accusing him of taking kickbacks for Air Canada's purchase of Airbus jets in 1988.
Mulroney was prime minister from 1984 to 1993.
The opposition's calls came in response to a report released Monday by the Oliphant Commission looking into Mulroney's dealings with German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.
In his report, Justice Jeffrey Oliphant called into question the testimony Mulroney gave to Department of Justice lawyers in 1995 before the settlement was reached.
Mulroney told the Oliphant Commission that at the time, he did not reveal his business dealings with Schreiber to the lawyers simply because they didn't ask the right questions. But Oliphant called that claim "patently absurd."Schreiber gave Mulroney at least $225,000 in cash-stuffed envelopes in the 1990s. (Uwe Lein/Associated Press)
In his 1995 testimony, Mulroney said he and Schreiber merely had coffee from time to time.
Later, it was revealed that he, in fact, accepted at least $225,000 in cash from Schreiber after he left office.
Oliphant was appointed by the federal government two years ago to determine what the money was for, where it went and whether the cash relationship between Schreiber and Mulroney was appropriate.
In Monday's report, he ruled that although the money changed hands only after Mulroney left office, the dealings between the two were "inappropriate."
The terms governing Oliphant's inquiry barred him from looking directly into the Airbus affair — the allegations that Mulroney and Schreiber were involved in a kickback scheme over the 1988 purchase of Airbus aircraft by Air Canada — and the libel settlement.
Nevertheless, the opposition has argued that since the inquiry found that Mulroney did have inappropriate business dealings with Schreiber, he misrepresented the nature of his relationship with the businessman during the testimony on which his libel settlement was based and hence should forfeit that money.
'Do the decent thing'
Liberal MP Ralph Goodale, who was in cabinet at the time of the settlement, says the government of the day did what it had to do based on the information it had at the time.
"And it now appears that that information was deliberately false," said Goodale.
NDP MP Wayne Marston said Mulroney should volunteer to give the money back to taxpayers.
"I think he should do the decent thing and return the money to Canadians," Marston said. "And if he's not prepared to do that, it's up to the government to go after it."
In question period Tuesday, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings asked whether the government was going to try to recuperate the money, and the accrued interest, paid to Mulroney.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government will respond to Oliphant's report in "due course."
"The recommendations … [were] tabled yesterday," said Nicholson. "They are now with the appropriate authorities, and we'll look at any or all recommendations that come out of that process."
But before question period, Conservative backbencher David Tilson said he doesn't see any grounds to reopen the settlement.
"There isn't a court in this land that will set aside a settlement that has been made in good faith by two parties unless there is some sort of fraudulent activity. And at this stage, I haven't seen any," he said.
Mulroney has not responded to the report or to the calls to return the money but did release a statement Monday.
"I genuinely regret that my conduct after I left office gave rise to suspicions about the propriety of my personal business affairs as a private citizen," the statement said.Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/01/mulroney-money.html#ixzz0pevAaqM8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)