Baker Hughes 2015 Annual Report Download - page 17

8
Khaled Nouh 48 President, Middle East and Asia Pacific Region of the Company since October 2013.
President, Middle East Region of the Company from 2009 to 2013. Vice President
Integrated Project Management Middle East at Schlumberger from 2008 to 2009.
Various other positions at Schlumberger from 1994 to 2008. Employed by the
Company in 2009.
Arthur L. Soucy 53 President, Europe, Africa and Russia Caspian Region of the Company since 2013.
President, Global Products and Services from 2012 to 2013. Vice President Supply
Chain of the Company from April 2009 to January 2012. Vice President, Global
Supply Chain for Pratt and Whitney from 2007 to 2009. Employed by the Company
in 2009.
Richard Ward 47 President, Global Products and Services of the Company since December 2014.
President of Completions and Wellbore Intervention of the Company from October
2013 until December 2014, President, Completions and Production from June 2012
until October 2013, Region President for Asia Pacific from 2009 to 2012, Vice
President for Baker Oil Tools in the Middle East Asia Pacific region from 2007 to
2009. Various positions within the Company from 1991 to 2007. Employed by the
Company in 1991.
Richard L. Williams 60 President, North America Region of the Company since October 2013. President,
U.S. Region from November 2012 to October 2013 and President, Gulf of Mexico
Region from 2009 to 2012. Various executive positions within the Company from
1975 to 2009. Employed by the Company in 1975.
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
We are committed to the health and safety of people, protection of the environment and compliance with laws,
regulations and our policies. Our past and present operations include activities that are subject to extensive
domestic (including U.S. federal, state and local) and international regulations with regard to air, land and water
quality and other environmental matters. We believe we are in substantial compliance with these regulations.
Regulation in this area continues to evolve, and changes in standards of enforcement of existing regulations, as
well as the enactment and enforcement of new legislation, may require us and our customers to modify, supplement
or replace equipment or facilities or to change or discontinue present methods of operation. Our environmental
compliance expenditures and our capital costs for environmental control equipment may change accordingly.
We are involved in voluntary remediation projects at certain of our facilities. On rare occasions, remediation
activities are conducted as specified by a government agency-issued consent decree or agreed order. Estimated
remediation costs are accrued using currently available facts, existing environmental permits, technology and
presently enacted laws and regulations. For sites where we are primarily responsible for the remediation, our cost
estimates are developed based on internal evaluations and are not discounted. We record accruals when it is
probable that we will be obligated to pay amounts for environmental site evaluation, remediation or related activities,
and such amounts can be reasonably estimated. Accruals are recorded even if significant uncertainties exist over
the ultimate cost of the remediation. Ongoing environmental compliance costs, such as obtaining environmental
permits, installation of pollution control equipment and waste disposal, are expensed as incurred.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (known as “Superfund”) imposes
liability for the release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. Superfund liability is imposed without
regard to fault, even if the waste disposal was in compliance with laws and regulations. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (the “EPA”) and appropriate state agencies supervise investigative and cleanup activities at
Superfund sites. We have been identified as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) in remedial activities related to
various Superfund sites, and we accrue our share of the estimated remediation costs of the site based on the ratio
of the estimated volume of waste we contributed to the site to the total volume of waste disposed at the site. PRPs
in Superfund actions have joint and several liability for all costs of remediation. Accordingly, a PRP may be required
to pay more than its proportional share of such costs. For some projects, it is not possible to quantify our ultimate
exposure because the projects are either in the investigative or early remediation stage, or allocation information is
not yet available. However, based upon current information, we do not believe that probable or reasonably possible
expenditures in connection with the sites are likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
statements because we have recorded adequate reserves to cover the estimate we presently believe will be our
ultimate liability in the matter. Further, other PRPs involved in the sites have substantial assets and may reasonably
be expected to pay their share of the cost of remediation, and, in some circumstances, we have insurance coverage
or contractual indemnities from third parties to cover a portion of the ultimate liability.