[ad_1]
The company's contractor Odd B. Skjærseth is behind the world's first drill rig. The road has not been without hassle. At our meeting, the entrepreneur met with the former ABB partner at the Stavanger District Court
because Skjærseth would not pay the million dollars for an ABB management system delivered to the platform. continuous drilling (CMR). The contractor claimed that the system was useless and that they had to develop his.
Now, the contractor company, West Drilling Products, is to pay about $ 13 million to ABB after losing part of the battle
19659005] The pre-history of the payment arrears was that ABB should provide the technology to the drill ship.
Continuous Motion Rig
Management technology did not work as expected, and Skjærseth's company lifted the contract and refused to pay for the equipment. continuously without having to stop for each length of tube to be sealed. His company received the OTC technology award for the concept and was nominated for Technical Weekblad's "Technology Force".
After West Drilling Products did not pay, ABB responded to the pursuit of the network company. They claimed the grants awarded to the project, as well as the payment of unpaid bills. The requirement was of a total amount of nearly 28 million Norwegian kroner
– The fundamental problem in this case, in our view, is that the ABB system was not suitable. to some of the most fundamental movements of our system. Among other things, the system does not work when it comes to driving the drilling rigs up and down, West Entrepreneur Skjærseth told Tekniske Ukeblad before the trial.
The contractor, meanwhile, demanded a NOK 39 million refund from the electrician. In the latest accounts, the delivery of ABB has been described as "dysfunctional automation installation".
None of the parties won the lawsuit, but the Skjærseth company still has to cover ABB's costs because it refused an offer of settlement. ] ABB indicated that they have entered the project, in part because they could be profiled to new areas of activity. Instead, they perceived that false statements were made about them, among other things, in Technical Weekly Magazine, the Electrical Company said in court
"WDP (West Drilling Products, red.anm) has replaced ABB's operating system has issued serious and erroneous statements about the ABB's delivery, among others, Statoil and Technical Weekly Magazine, this goal is now confiscated, "says the company according to the judgment
The alleged behavior of the Gründer company was unfair and imprudent, claiming that it meant that the Skærseth company had to repay the financing it had received from ABB 19659014] ABB also argued against the court that the subsidiary had replaced the ABB control system because they had no money to pay the debt towards ABB.They also believe that it is the reason for which the gründer have submitted a series of claims regarding breaches in delivery.
Delivered as agreed
ABB also believes that they should pay nothing to the Skjærseth company because they took an "obligation of commitment" "In the project and not a" performance obligation. "
Gründers considered ABB to be one of the world's leading suppliers of automation solutions, reinforcing the obligation to evaluate the company in this project, that they had not violated the agreement with the drilling company.Therefore, the company Skjærseth had no right to to cancel the agreement with retroactive effect, so they have to pay the unpaid bills of about NOK 13 million to ABB
However, ABB will not receive the financial contribution.
– Disappointed and surprised
Skjærseth warns that they will appeal the verdict
– We are disappointed and surprised by the verdict. Tekniske Ukeblad
He believes that the court uses only two pages in the 25-page judgment to discuss the very central issue in the case, stating that
– In addition, there is no other significant statements from us that have substantial coverage and contrary to the conclusion of the court, he writes.
– In particular, we can mention that none of our expert witnesses were included in the assessment of the court, although only our witnesses who had expertise in drilling and in automation / robotization, said the entrepreneur.
] The judgment is not yet enforceable since the time limit for appeals has not expired.
