Hi all, And just to add a bit from a legal viewpoint.. If as...

Hi all,
And just to add a bit from a legal viewpoint..
If as Naza suggests that the rig was damaged due to operations then this becomes complex. By now both contractor and charterer legal teams have dog-eared multiple copies of the contract and, along with in house and independent engineers, are working though the very complex issues of responsibility and proportionment as well as the revised maintenance/operational plan and revised AFE. If it was a simple, single (albeit large) maintenance issue solely with a BOP or other rig issue as stated that they embarked upon some 12 days ago, I believe we would have been clearly informed of the specifics and possible implications since then. It has become much more complex and resolution of an outcome is not yet publicly at hand.

CNs announcement was unambiguously just "unscheduled rig maintenance" and not "unscheduled rig maintenance related to drilling activities". And this could just be verbal positioning until the issue is resolved. Yet until each party has accepted the responsibility matrix and go-forward plan, I would not expect CN, given the potentially substantial $ consequences, to be forthcoming on any specific details until she is perfectly clear on the implications for FAR and its shareholders.

We can only hope this is mostly on Transocean's tab.

Cheers