Why did Putin choose BP,rolex daytona watch imitation

Why would he pick BP as his ally in a venture seen both by hydrocarbon fans and environmental campaigners alike as of huge significance?

Given the horrified reaction of Greenpeace and of a couple of US congressmen to the deal who allege that America's national security may in some sense be threatened by the linked transaction of BP engaging in a share swap with the semi nationalised Russian oil giant, Rosneft perhaps it's a manifestation of Mr Putin's mischievous sense of humour.

For Bob Dudley,replica rolex oysterdate, the chief executive of BP whom I interviewed shortly before midnight on Friday soon after the deal with Rosneft had been signed it shows that his company has learned the important lessons of the debacle in the Gulf of Mexico (you can hear a good chunk of the interview by clicking here.

BP has set up a new safety division, to make sure that safety is a priority in all its operations. And perhaps more importantly it has ceased to delegate to contractors any autonomy over decisions which would have a serious impact on BP's reputation or its finances.

Although the argument may well rage in the courts for years about the balance of blame and financial liability to be distributed between BP and its contractors on the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico notably Transocean and Halliburton the big lesson for BP was that it was too trusting of Transocean and Halliburton to get it right.

Or to put it another way, Dudley argues that BP has learned the systemic lessons of the Gulf spill.

Here's the interesting thing. Let's say that the US presidential commission into the Macondo accident is correct that the accident highlights systemic risks and possible management weaknesses not only for BP and its contractors and partners,imitation rolex oyster date, but for all the offshore oil explorers and exploiters.

This, of course, is a conclusion that BP's competitors have denied. They would reject the implication that the Macondo horror could have happened to any one of them.

However prime minister Putin would apparently beg to differ. He seems to believe that a once bitten BP is now a highly reliable offshore explorer and has backed that judgement with a contract of huge important to his country's ecology, finances and energy reserves.

All of which may imply that BP has paradoxically won some kind of competitive advantage in having been forced so publicly to show that it understands what went wrong in the Gulf and that it is a changed company.

So what should that suggest to the non executives of Shell, Exxon and the rest? Do their companies need to demonstrate to the wider world why they're to be trusted when finding and extracting oil in challenging environments?

Comment number 1. At 11:09 16th Jan 2011, BobRocket wrote: I'm sue that environmentalists would have rejoiced that companies such as Shell or Exxon had been chosen to be partners to Rosneft given their green and non polluting past.

I can only assume that Rosneft and Mr. Putin are hard headed business men and could see the desperation in the eyes of BP and could negotiate very favourable terms.

(they might also see BP as a soft touch in the event of a spill given the way they rolled over under US pressure)

Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)

Comment number 2. At 11:19 16th Jan 2011, Wee Scamp wrote: It wasn't a matter of BP being too trusting of Transocean and Halliburton because contracting out responsibility is now an integral part of BP's business modus operandi. It saved them money which in turn pushed up profits and improved the dividend.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)

Comment number 3. At 11:24 16th Jan 2011, Jacques Cartier wrote: BP plugged the Macondo horror it was a fantasic demonstration of engineering skill. Now they can reap their rewards.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)

Comment number 4. At 11:27 16th Jan 2011, BadExcuse wrote: This reads like an advert for BP!

Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)

Comment number 5. At 12:03 16th Jan 2011, ARISESIRCRAIGWHYTE wrote: Because BP offered the best T and it was a good opportunity to stick two fingers up to the US. In the end don't think H was a big factor despite recent events.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)

Comment number 6. At 12:08 16th Jan 2011, Brian Golden wrote: I wouldnt rule out the devil you know being the deciding factor. Personal relationships and political contacts are key to business in Russia. BP's time there may not have been a pleasant experience but at least both side know each other. This could well be the Dudley deal former head of BP's existing Russian venture.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)

Comment number 7. At 12:29 16th Jan 2011, thankgodiamwelsh wrote: Mr Putin is clearly a very shrewd man. Given all the events surrounding the Macondo well disaster,rolex oyster perpetual day date imitation, it is not difficult to understand his reasoning.

It's just a pity that there has to be any exploration work undertaken in the Kara Sea. Let's hope that BP can now excel where it has previously failed.