Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill

By John Byrne
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010 -- 10:12 am



Firm's stock sale nearly twice as large as any other institution, but represented just 44 percent of total BP investment

The brokerage firm that's faced the most scrutiny from regulators in the past year over the shorting of mortgage related securities seems to have had good timing when it came to something else: the stock of British oil giant BP.

According to regulatory filings, RawStory.com has found that Goldman Sachs sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman's sales were the largest of any firm during that time. Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP's stock during the quarter.

If Goldman had sold these shares today, their investment would have lost 36 percent its value, or $96 million. The share sales represented 44 percent of Goldman's holdings -- meaning that Goldman's remaining holdings have still lost tens of millions in value.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0602/month-oil-spill-goldman-sachs-sold-250-million-bp-stock/

---

http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?Holding=Institutional+Ownership&Symbol=BP

[Spoonman]

1. Hot diggity!

I can't wait for the "911 truther / single toother" crowd to show up with their opinions on this......:popcorn:

[Lugnut]

2. K&R n/t

:kick:

[nyc 4 Biden]

3. Goldman busted the pipe?!1!

}(

Is that why there was a delay in pushing the panic button on the rig, they had to call Goldman and tell them the deed was done...sell..sell..sell! :tinfoilhat:

[hedgehog]

5. It may have been the fact that the stock was dropping and being sold

off that put the pressure on to bring the well in and to Hell with safety procedures.....

[cbdo2007]

4. Wow thanks - this doesn't really tell us anything.

Within 3 weeks from Jan 19 - Feb 8 their share price went from $62-$52 and this is well before the oil spill. GS was probably reacting to that and long term prospects rather than looking into their crystal ball and seeing the impending oil catastrophe happening, but hey, whatever floats your boat on getting worked up over GS and BP.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Has anybody yet come up with a satisfactory explanation for the initial explosion

on the BP rig? That seems to have become lost in the oil slick. Whenever I think a corpo-fascist 'news' article is going to discuss it, they veer off into the various shenanigans of "top kill" and "relief pipes" that BP dangles before us, and get all technical about those, but WHY this oil rig EXPLODED and fell into the sea has NOT been well accounted for. I saw something about methane (was it methane?) in the pipe and this seems to be written off to malfeasance, cost cutting, arguments among managers/execs, etc. WHY did this rig explode? Have the given explanations been sufficiently examined? Are they plausible? Are they TRUE (i.e., is that what happened)?

I myself started to ask the question, "Who benefits?", a couple of days ago. Sabotage has to have a beneficiary. Simply trashing a significant part of the planet to make environmentalists despair and give up is a bit vague as a motivation--although I've seen more than one corpo-fascist writer/operative asserting that the Gulf spill is the fault of California environmentalists who have prevented oil drilling in SHALLOW waters off the California coast, thus "forcing" BP and others to drill in deep waters elsewhere. But that seems more like opportunism than a plausible motive for sabotage. This (Goldman Sachs selling off BP stock before the disaster) is the first evidence I've seen that a plausible motive might have existed. It's certainly worth some thought and investigation.

And, again, how come this rig EXPLODED? How come EVERY safety precaution FAILED? Are people just GUESSING as to why? Is sabotage a possible explanation? Can it be ruled in or out? What actually happened and why? (And whose word do we have for that?)

[Peace Patriot]

8. It's interesting that Halliburton seems to have been a chief malefactor....

Just read this post by nashville_brook

Oil spill disaster marked by BP mistakes from the outset - St Pete Times
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8469441

--

Oil spill disaster marked by BP mistakes from the outset

By John Barry, Times Staff Writer


One day it will take a book or many books to categorize the gusher of BP's mistakes and miscalculations. But many damnable errors, spectacular misjudgments and horribly false assurances have already come to light since the start of this nation's Summer of Oil. Based on government hearings and investigative reports these past two months, here are the worst.

April 14-15: Six days before the explosion, BP won approval from the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service for a series of permit changes that would help it speedily conclude its over-budget drilling operation at Deepwater Horizon. BP had already won a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act the previous year. The changes it got on April 14-15 allowed BP to install a cheaper, smaller, single pipe in the length of the well, rather than double-lined pipe. A double-lined pipe would offer protection from escaping gas, but BP argued that the single pipe made the best financial sense.

April 20: On the day of the explosion, BP executives came on board Deepwater Horizon to celebrate the rig's safety record. At the same time, Halliburton, a contractor for BP, was trying to temporarily plug and cap the well with cement so the drilling rig could be moved to another job. BP now says mud might have contaminated the cement Halliburton used. Technicians noticed a rise in pressure from the well that suggested the cement wasn't holding. They did tests. One test showed a "very large abnormality.'' They took another test and misread it, declaring the well safe. BP called that a "fundamental mistake."

Although the pressure was rising, the workers began withdrawing drilling mud — which holds down oil and gas in the well. They replaced the drilling mud with seawater, which is standard procedure if all is well. Some workers say they objected but were overruled by a BP "company man." As they injected seawater, they observed a dangerous jump in pressure from oil and gas rising in the well.

The rig exploded. Technicians then hesitated to switch on their last line of defense — a blowout preventer, which is supposed to seal the well in a disaster. They waited for an official approval from BP. When they did switch it on, it had no hydraulic power. BP now says a seal may have leaked.

April 22: BP sent a robot camera down to look at the well. It said it found no leaking oil.

(MORE)

(my emphasis)

http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/article1099273.ece

--------------------

The writer attributes all of it to "mistakes" and "bad judgements." But with Halliburton involved--one of the most evil corporations on earth--you gotta wonder.

This article has raised another question in my mind. WHY was BP shutting down this well? It obviously was still producing lots and lots of oil. Why was it moving the rig to another oil site? I don't know if there is anything lurking in the answer to this question. Just curious.

Another thing that strikes me in reading this article is that nothing is definite about WHY the rig exploded. It's not that "spectacular" misjudgements can't happen when lots and lots and lots of money is involved along with notoriously greed, malfeasant corporations. We know they can and do. But I was just impressed with the iffiness of these explanations. Mud "MIGHT HAVE" contaminated "the cement Halliburton used"? Did it? Is this part of the "blame game" (BP trying to spread the blame around)? Was this "spectacular" malfeasance (by Halliburton)? Or what? But mainly, IS this what actually happened? And if so, how and why?

[rudy23]

7. Again---Rush was pretty quick to try and point to conspiracy in the opposite direction

There's something very suspicious about that, to me. It's like he was trying to pre-empt, or taint the cries of conspiracy coming from the other direction. Something to think about.

[glitch]

9. Rush is useful ONLY in that he always telegraphs their punches. nt

[rudy23]

10. Don't forget about Goldman's ties to Corexit!

http://atomicnewsreview.org/2010/05/30/media-ignores-goldman-sachs-ties-to-corexit-dispersant/

[Heywood J]

11. They probably bought it ten seconds before it was sold.

Thirty seconds before that, they bought it and sold it again ten seconds after that...