Notes on financial statementshttp://www.bp.com/downloads/provisions36. Provisions continuedEnvironmentalSpill responseLitigation <strong>and</strong>claimsClean WaterAct penaltiesAt 1 January <strong>20</strong>10 – – – – –New or increased provisions 929 10,883 14,939 3,510 30,261Unwinding of discount 4 – – – 4Change in discount rate 5 – – – 5Utilization (129) (9,840) (3,966) – (13,935)At 31 December <strong>20</strong>10 809 1,043 10,973 3,510 16,335Of which – current 314 982 6,642 – 7,938– non-current 495 61 4,331 3,510 8,397Of which – payable from the trust fund 382 – 9,162 – 9,544As described in Note 2, <strong>BP</strong> has recorded provisions at 31 December <strong>20</strong>11 relating to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill including amounts in relation toenvironmental expenditure, spill response costs, litigation <strong>and</strong> claims, <strong>and</strong> Clean Water Act penalties, each of which is described below. The total amountsthat will ultimately be paid by <strong>BP</strong> are subject to significant uncertainty as described in Note 2.Subsequent to <strong>BP</strong> releasing its preliminary announcement of the fourth quarter <strong>20</strong>11 results on 7 February <strong>20</strong>12, <strong>BP</strong> announced on 3 March <strong>20</strong>12that it had reached a proposed settlement with the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC), subject to final written agreement <strong>and</strong> court approvals, to resolvethe substantial majority of legitimate economic loss <strong>and</strong> medical claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon accident <strong>and</strong> oil spill. The proposedsettlement has been reflected in the financial statements for <strong>20</strong>11 included in this report.Certain items are subject to settlement discussions or may be subject to settlement discussions in the future. Any further settlements which maybe reached relating to the Deepwater Horizon accident <strong>and</strong> oil spill could impact the amount <strong>and</strong> timing of any future payments.EnvironmentalThe amounts committed by <strong>BP</strong> for a 10-year research programme to study the impact of the incident on the marine <strong>and</strong> shoreline environment of theGulf of Mexico have been provided for. <strong>BP</strong>’s commitment is to provide $500 million of funding, <strong>and</strong> the remaining commitment, on a discounted basis, of$421 million was included in provisions at 31 December <strong>20</strong>11. This amount is expected to be spent over the remaining life of the programme.As a responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), <strong>BP</strong> faces claims by the United States, as well as by State, tribal, <strong>and</strong> foreigntrustees, if any, for natural resource damages (“Natural Resource Damages claims”). These damages include, among other things, the reasonable costsof assessing the injury to natural resources as well as some emergency restoration projects which are expected to occur over the next two years. <strong>BP</strong>has been incurring natural resource damage assessment costs <strong>and</strong> a provision has been made for the estimated costs of the assessment phase. Theassessment covers a large area of potential impact <strong>and</strong> will take some time to complete in order to determine both the severity <strong>and</strong> duration of theimpact of the oil spill. The process of interpreting the large volume of data collected is expected to take at least several months <strong>and</strong>, in order to determinepotential injuries to certain animal populations, data will need to be collected over one or more reproductive cycles. This expected assessment spend isbased upon past experience as well as identified projects. During <strong>20</strong>11, <strong>BP</strong> entered a framework agreement with natural resource trustees for the UnitedStates <strong>and</strong> five Gulf Coast states, providing for up to $1 billion to be spent on early restoration projects to address natural resource injuries resulting fromthe Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Funding for these projects will come from the $<strong>20</strong>-billion trust fund. The total amount provided for these items was $1,096million at 31 December <strong>20</strong>11. Until the size, location <strong>and</strong> duration of the impact is assessed, it is not possible to estimate reliably either the amountsor timing of the remaining Natural Resource Damages claims other than the emergency <strong>and</strong> early restoration agreements noted above, therefore noamounts have been provided for these items <strong>and</strong> they are disclosed as a contingent liability. See Note 43 for further information.Spill responseFurther amounts were provided relating to the spill response during <strong>20</strong>11, totalling $0.6 billion. This primarily reflected increased costs of shorelineclean-up, patrolling <strong>and</strong> maintenance <strong>and</strong> vessel decontamination. The majority of the active clean-up of the shorelines had been completed by the end ofthe year.Litigation <strong>and</strong> claimsIndividual <strong>and</strong> Business Claims, <strong>and</strong> State <strong>and</strong> Local Claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) <strong>and</strong> claims for personal injury<strong>BP</strong> faces claims under OPA 90 by individuals <strong>and</strong> businesses for removal costs, damage to real or personal property, lost profits or impairment ofearning capacity, loss of subsistence use of natural resources <strong>and</strong> for personal injury (“Individual <strong>and</strong> Business Claims”) <strong>and</strong> by state <strong>and</strong> local governmententities for removal costs, physical damage to real or personal property, loss of government revenue <strong>and</strong> increased public services costs(“State <strong>and</strong> Local Claims”).The estimated future cost of settling Individual <strong>and</strong> Business Claims, State <strong>and</strong> Local Claims under OPA 90 <strong>and</strong> claims for personal injuries, bothreported <strong>and</strong> unreported, has been provided for. Claims administration costs <strong>and</strong> legal fees have also been provided for.Subsequent to <strong>BP</strong> releasing its preliminary announcement of the fourth quarter <strong>20</strong>11 results on 7 February <strong>20</strong>12, <strong>BP</strong> announced on 3 March<strong>20</strong>12 that it had reached a proposed settlement with the PSC, subject to final written agreement <strong>and</strong> court approvals, to resolve the substantial majorityof legitimate economic loss <strong>and</strong> medical claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon accident <strong>and</strong> oil spill. The details of the proposed settlementagreement are explained in Legal proceedings on pages 160 to 164.In <strong>20</strong>10 <strong>and</strong> for the <strong>20</strong>11 preliminary results, <strong>BP</strong> believed that the history of claims received, <strong>and</strong> settlements made, provided sufficient data toenable the company to use an approach based on a combination of actuarial methods <strong>and</strong> management judgements to estimate IBNR (Incurred But Not<strong>Report</strong>ed) claims to determine a reliable best estimate of <strong>BP</strong>’s exposure for claims not yet reported in relation to Individual <strong>and</strong> Business claims, <strong>and</strong> State<strong>and</strong> Local claims under OPA 90. The amount provided for these claims was determined in accordance with IFRS <strong>and</strong> represented <strong>BP</strong>’s best estimate ofthe expenditure required to settle its obligations at the balance sheet date.In estimating the amount of the provision, <strong>BP</strong> determined a range of possible outcomes for Individual <strong>and</strong> Business Claims, <strong>and</strong> State <strong>and</strong> LocalClaims. As disclosed in the preliminary announcement of the fourth quarter <strong>20</strong>11 results, <strong>BP</strong> had concluded that a reasonable range of possible outcomesfor the amount of the provision as at 31 December <strong>20</strong>11 was $4.1 billion to $8.3 billion. This range was for claims payable through the Gulf Coast ClaimsFacility <strong>and</strong> State <strong>and</strong> Local Claims only.$ millionTotal232 <strong>BP</strong> <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Report</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Form</strong> <strong>20</strong>-F <strong>20</strong>11
Notes on financial statements36. Provisions continuedFollowing the proposed settlement agreement entered into with the PSC, subject to final written agreement <strong>and</strong> court approvals, <strong>BP</strong> reviewedthe amount of the provision for the items covered by the proposed settlement based upon information available at the time that the consolidated financialstatements were approved. The provision for these items at 31 December <strong>20</strong>11 is now $7.8 billion which represents a reliable best estimate of theliability under the proposed settlement agreement which, under accounting st<strong>and</strong>ards, is the amount that <strong>BP</strong> would rationally pay to settle the obligation.Substantially all of this amount is included as payable from the trust fund under Litigation <strong>and</strong> claims in the table above. Future claims administrationcosts are expected to be paid from the trust fund. However, at this time, the provision for these costs is shown as payable from outside the trust fund,consistent with how the administration costs associated with the GCCF were treated, as the proposed settlement is subject to final written agreement<strong>and</strong> court approvals. Further information on the proposed settlement with the PSC is included in Legal proceedings on pages 160 to 164.The provision is in addition to the $6.3 billion of claims paid in total ($2.9 billion in <strong>20</strong>11 <strong>and</strong> $3.4 billion in <strong>20</strong>10). Of this total paid, $6.1 billion isincluded within utilization of provision in the table ($2.9 billion in <strong>20</strong>11 <strong>and</strong> $3.2 billion in <strong>20</strong>10), <strong>and</strong> the remaining $0.2 billion was a period expenditureprior to the recognition of the provision at the end of the second quarter <strong>20</strong>10. Also included within the utilization of the provision of $4.4 billion (<strong>20</strong>10 $4.0billion) under Litigation <strong>and</strong> claims in the table are amounts relating to claims administration costs, legal fees <strong>and</strong> other settlements. Of the total paymentsof $6.3 billion, $5.9 billion was paid out of the trust fund ($2.9 billion in <strong>20</strong>11 <strong>and</strong> $3.0 billion in <strong>20</strong>10) <strong>and</strong> $0.4 billion was paid by <strong>BP</strong> in <strong>20</strong>10.Many key assumptions underlie <strong>and</strong> influence the reliable best estimates of total expenditures derived for both categories of claims. The amountprovided for Individual <strong>and</strong> Business Claims is based upon the expected terms of the proposed settlement with the PSC, which is subject to final writtenagreement <strong>and</strong> court approvals. Other key assumptions include the amounts that will ultimately be paid in relation to current claims, the number, type<strong>and</strong> amounts for claims not yet reported, the outcomes of any further litigation through potential opt-outs from the proposed settlement <strong>and</strong> the amountof administration <strong>and</strong> other costs associated with the proposed settlement. While <strong>BP</strong> has determined a reliable best estimate of the cost of the proposedsettlement with the PSC, it is possible that the actual cost could be higher or lower than this estimate.The outcomes of claims <strong>and</strong> litigation are likely to be paid out over many years to come. <strong>BP</strong> will re-evaluate the assumptions underlying thisanalysis on a quarterly basis as more information becomes available <strong>and</strong> the claims process matures.<strong>BP</strong> also faces other litigation for which no reliable estimate of the cost can currently be made. Therefore no amounts have been provided for theseitems. See Note 43 for further information.Clean Water Act penaltiesA provision has been made for the estimated penalties for strict liability under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Such penalties are subject to astatutory maximum calculated as the product of a per-barrel maximum penalty rate <strong>and</strong> the number of barrels of oil spilled. Uncertainties currently exist inrelation to both the per-barrel penalty rate that will ultimately be imposed <strong>and</strong> the volume of oil spilled.A charge for potential Clean Water Act Section 311 penalties was first included in <strong>BP</strong>’s second-quarter <strong>20</strong>10 interim financial statements. At thetime that charge was taken, the latest estimate from the intra-agency Flow Rate Technical Group created by the National Incident Comm<strong>and</strong>er in chargeof the spill response was between 35,000 <strong>and</strong> 60,000 barrels per day. The mid-point of that range, 47,500 barrels per day, was used for the purposesof calculating the charge. For the purposes of calculating the amount of the oil flow that was discharged into the Gulf of Mexico, the amount of oil thathad been or was projected to be captured in vessels on the surface was subtracted from the total estimated flow up until when the well was capped on15 July <strong>20</strong>10. The result of this calculation was an estimate that approximately 3.2 million barrels of oil had been discharged into the Gulf. This estimateof 3.2 million barrels was calculated using a total flow of 47,500 barrels per day multiplied by the 85 days from 22 April <strong>20</strong>10 through 15 July <strong>20</strong>10 less anestimate of the amount captured on the surface (then estimated at approximately 850,000 barrels).This estimated discharge volume was then multiplied by $1,100 per barrel – the maximum amount the statute allows in the absence of grossnegligence or wilful misconduct – for the purposes of estimating a potential penalty. This resulted in a provision of $3,510 million for potential penaltiesunder Section 311.In utilizing the $1,100 per-barrel input, <strong>BP</strong> took into account that the actual per-barrel penalty a court may impose, or that the Government mightagree to in settlement, could be lower than $1,100 per barrel if it were determined that such a lower penalty was appropriate based on the factors a courtis directed to consider in assessing a penalty. In particular, in determining the amount of a civil penalty, Section 311 directs a court to consider a numberof enumerated factors, including ”the seriousness of the violation or violations, the economic benefit to the violator, if any, resulting from the violation,the degree of culpability involved, any other penalty for the same incident, any history of prior violations, the nature, extent, <strong>and</strong> degree of success of anyefforts of the violator to minimize or mitigate the effects of the discharge, the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, <strong>and</strong> any other matters asjustice may require.” Civil penalties above $1,100 per barrel up to a statutory maximum of $4,300 per barrel of oil discharged would only be imposed ifgross negligence or wilful misconduct were alleged <strong>and</strong> subsequently proven. <strong>BP</strong> expects to seek assessment of a penalty lower than $1,100 per barrelbased on several of these factors. However, the $1,100 per-barrel rate was utilized for the purposes of calculating a charge after considering <strong>and</strong> weighingall possible outcomes <strong>and</strong> in light of: (i) <strong>BP</strong>’s conclusion that it did not act with gross negligence or engage in wilful misconduct; <strong>and</strong> (ii) the uncertainty asto whether a court would assess a penalty below the $1,100 statutory maximum.On 2 August <strong>20</strong>10, the United States Department of Energy <strong>and</strong> the Flow Rate Technical Group had issued an estimate that 4.9 million barrelsof oil had flowed from the Macondo well, <strong>and</strong> 4.05 million barrels had been discharged into the Gulf (the difference being the amount of oil captured byvessels on the surface as part of <strong>BP</strong>’s well containment efforts).It was <strong>and</strong> remains <strong>BP</strong>’s view, that the 2 August <strong>20</strong>10 Government estimate <strong>and</strong> other similar estimates are not reliable estimates becausethey are based on incomplete or inaccurate information, rest in large part on assumptions that have not been validated, <strong>and</strong> are subject to far greateruncertainties than have been acknowledged. As <strong>BP</strong> has publicly asserted, including at a 22 October <strong>20</strong>10 meeting with the staff of the NationalCommission on the <strong>BP</strong> Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill <strong>and</strong> Offshore Drilling, <strong>BP</strong> believes that the 2 August <strong>20</strong>10 discharge estimate <strong>and</strong> similar estimates areoverstated by a significant amount, <strong>and</strong> that the flow rate is potentially in the range of <strong>20</strong>–50% lower. If the flow rate is 50% lower than the 2 August <strong>20</strong>10estimate, then the amount of oil that flowed from the Macondo well would be approximately 2.5 million barrels, <strong>and</strong> the amount discharged into the Gulfwould be approximately 1.6 million barrels. If the flow rate is <strong>20</strong>% lower than the 2 August <strong>20</strong>10 estimate, then the amount of oil that flowed from theMacondo well would be approximately 3.9 million barrels <strong>and</strong> the amount discharged into the Gulf would be approximately 3.1 million barrels, which is notmaterially different from the amount we used for our original estimate at the second quarter of <strong>20</strong>10.Financial statements<strong>BP</strong> <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Report</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Form</strong> <strong>20</strong>-F <strong>20</strong>11 233
- Page 2 and 3:
Cover imagePhotograph of DeepseaSta
- Page 4 and 5:
Cross reference to Form 20-FPageIte
- Page 6 and 7:
Miscellaneous termsIn this document
- Page 8 and 9:
6 BP Annual Report and Form 20-F 20
- Page 10:
Chairman’s letterCarl-Henric Svan
- Page 13 and 14:
During the year, the remuneration c
- Page 15 and 16:
Business review: Group overviewBP A
- Page 17 and 18:
SafetyDuring the year, we reorganiz
- Page 19 and 20:
In Refining and Marketing, our worl
- Page 21 and 22:
Crude oil and gas prices,and refini
- Page 23:
In detailFor more information, seeR
- Page 26 and 27:
Our market: Longer-term outlookThe
- Page 29 and 30:
BP’s distinctive capabilities and
- Page 31 and 32:
Technology will continue to play a
- Page 33 and 34:
In detailFor more information,see C
- Page 35 and 36:
In detailFind out more online.bp.co
- Page 37 and 38:
BP Annual Report and Form 20-F 2011
- Page 39 and 40:
Below BP has asignificant presencei
- Page 41 and 42:
What you can measure6 Active portfo
- Page 43 and 44:
Business review: Group overview2012
- Page 45 and 46:
Our risk management systemOur enhan
- Page 47 and 48:
Our current strategic priorities ar
- Page 49 and 50:
Our performance2011 was a year of f
- Page 51 and 52:
Left BP employeesat work in Prudhoe
- Page 53 and 54:
We continued to sell non-core asset
- Page 55 and 56:
Reported recordableinjury frequency
- Page 57 and 58:
Business reviewBP in more depth56 F
- Page 59 and 60:
Business reviewThe primary addition
- Page 61 and 62:
Business reviewRisk factorsWe urge
- Page 63 and 64:
Business review2010. Similar action
- Page 65 and 66:
Business reviewBusiness continuity
- Page 67:
Business reviewSafetyOver the past
- Page 70:
Business reviewour review of all th
- Page 73 and 74:
Business reviewGreenhouse gas regul
- Page 75 and 76:
Business reviewresources such as dr
- Page 77 and 78:
Business reviewExploration and Prod
- Page 79 and 80:
Business reviewCompleting the respo
- Page 81 and 82:
Business reviewgrants, which were s
- Page 83 and 84:
Business reviewOur performanceKey s
- Page 85 and 86:
Business reviewwere in Russia (Oren
- Page 87 and 88:
Business reviewCanadaIn Canada, BP
- Page 89 and 90:
Business review• In March 2011, T
- Page 91 and 92:
Business reviewaccess advantageous
- Page 93 and 94:
Business reviewBP’s vice presiden
- Page 95 and 96:
Business reviewhttp://www.bp.com/do
- Page 97 and 98:
Business reviewbalance of participa
- Page 99 and 100:
Business reviewAcquisitions and dis
- Page 101 and 102:
Business reviewLPGOur global LPG ma
- Page 103 and 104:
Business reviewOther businesses and
- Page 105 and 106:
Business reviewLiquidity and capita
- Page 107 and 108:
Business reviewThe group expects it
- Page 109 and 110:
Business reviewFrequently, work (in
- Page 111 and 112:
Business reviewHazardous and Noxiou
- Page 113 and 114:
Business reviewpart of a larger por
- Page 115 and 116:
Directors andsenior management114 D
- Page 117 and 118:
Directors and senior managementDire
- Page 119 and 120:
Directors and senior managementH L
- Page 121 and 122:
Corporate governanceCorporate gover
- Page 123 and 124:
Corporate governanceAntony Burgmans
- Page 125 and 126:
Corporate governanceBoard oversight
- Page 127 and 128:
Corporate governanceBoard and commi
- Page 129 and 130:
Corporate governancefinancial repor
- Page 131 and 132:
Corporate governancechairs and secr
- Page 133 and 134:
Corporate governance• Oversee GCR
- Page 135 and 136:
Corporate governanceCommittee’s r
- Page 137 and 138:
Corporate governanceControls and pr
- Page 139 and 140:
Corporate governanceThe Act require
- Page 141 and 142:
Directors’ remuneration reportRem
- Page 143 and 144:
Directors’ remuneration reportSum
- Page 145 and 146:
Directors’ remuneration reportSaf
- Page 147 and 148:
Directors’ remuneration reportRem
- Page 149 and 150:
Directors’ remuneration reportThe
- Page 151 and 152:
Directors’ remuneration reportSha
- Page 153 and 154:
Directors’ remuneration reportNon
- Page 155 and 156:
Additional informationfor sharehold
- Page 157 and 158:
Additional information for sharehol
- Page 159 and 160:
Additional information for sharehol
- Page 161 and 162:
Additional information for sharehol
- Page 163 and 164:
Additional information for sharehol
- Page 165 and 166:
Additional information for sharehol
- Page 167 and 168:
Additional information for sharehol
- Page 169 and 170:
Additional information for sharehol
- Page 171 and 172:
Additional information for sharehol
- Page 173 and 174:
Additional information for sharehol
- Page 175 and 176:
Financial statements174 Statement o
- Page 177 and 178:
Consolidated financial statements o
- Page 179 and 180:
Consolidated financial statements o
- Page 181 and 182:
Consolidated financial statements o
- Page 183 and 184: Consolidated financial statements o
- Page 185 and 186: Notes on financial statements1. Sig
- Page 187 and 188: Notes on financial statements1. Sig
- Page 189 and 190: Notes on financial statements1. Sig
- Page 191 and 192: Notes on financial statements1. Sig
- Page 193 and 194: Notes on financial statementshttp:/
- Page 195 and 196: Notes on financial statementshttp:/
- Page 197 and 198: Notes on financial statements3. Bus
- Page 199 and 200: Notes on financial statements5. Dis
- Page 201 and 202: Notes on financial statements5. Dis
- Page 203 and 204: Notes on financial statementshttp:/
- Page 205 and 206: Notes on financial statementshttp:/
- Page 207 and 208: Notes on financial statements7. Int
- Page 209 and 210: Notes on financial statements10. Im
- Page 211 and 212: Notes on financial statements15. Ex
- Page 213 and 214: Notes on financial statementshttp:/
- Page 215 and 216: Notes on financial statementshttp:/
- Page 217 and 218: Notes on financial statementshttp:/
- Page 219 and 220: Notes on financial statements26. Fi
- Page 221 and 222: Notes on financial statements26. Fi
- Page 223 and 224: Notes on financial statements26. Fi
- Page 225 and 226: Notes on financial statements29. Tr
- Page 227 and 228: Notes on financial statements33. De
- Page 229 and 230: Notes on financial statements33. De
- Page 231 and 232: Notes on financial statements34. Fi
- Page 233: Notes on financial statementshttp:/
- Page 237 and 238: Notes on financial statements37. Pe
- Page 239 and 240: Notes on financial statements37. Pe
- Page 241 and 242: Notes on financial statements37. Pe
- Page 243 and 244: Notes on financial statements38. Ca
- Page 245 and 246: Notes on financial statementsTotal
- Page 247 and 248: Notes on financial statements39. Ca
- Page 249 and 250: Notes on financial statements40. Sh
- Page 251 and 252: Notes on financial statements42. Re
- Page 253 and 254: Notes on financial statements45. Su
- Page 255 and 256: Notes on financial statements46. Co
- Page 257 and 258: Notes on financial statements46. Co
- Page 259: Notes on financial statements46. Co
- Page 262 and 263: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 264 and 265: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 266 and 267: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 268 and 269: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 270 and 271: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 272 and 273: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 274 and 275: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 276 and 277: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 278 and 279: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 280 and 281: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 282 and 283: Supplementary information on oil an
- Page 284 and 285:
SignaturesThe registrant hereby cer
- Page 286 and 287:
Parent company financial statements
- Page 288 and 289:
Parent company financial statements
- Page 290 and 291:
Parent company financial statements
- Page 292 and 293:
Parent company financial statements
- Page 294 and 295:
Parent company financial statements
- Page 296 and 297:
Parent company financial statements
- Page 298 and 299:
Parent company financial statements