The BP Gulf Disaster

It appears BP can't wiggle off the hook on this one:

BP has deep pockets, like the rest of big oil, I expect they will survive, even this pay-out. The difference is quite stunning from all the corporate lawyering of the Exxon Valdez spill.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/17/4522034-first-thoughts-what-a-difference-a-day-makes

 

Where the F is the EPA? Or OSHA? IMHO they should be monitoring the living <snip> out of the cleanup effort, and enforcing whatever regulations are on the books with regards to worker safety. That includes respirator use and whatever else it takes to keep the workers safe while fixing the problem caused by the suits sitting high in their ivory towers.

Edit: I found this article and had to post it to illustrate the problem I have with the mindset of the incredibly wealthy corporate "nobility". I know that it was probably a slip of the tongue, but still, these guys are just <snip>holes!

Spoiler

BP chief regrets 'small people' remark

By Reuters
WASHINGTON - BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg Tuesday apologized for speaking “clumsily” by referring to those hurt by his company’s oil spill as “small people.”

“I spoke clumsily this afternoon and for that I am very sorry,” Svanberg said in a statement, after remarks he made following a White House meeting with President Barack Obama earlier Wednesday drew widespread ridicule and condemnation.

“What I was trying to say — that BP understands how deeply this affects the lives of people who live along the Gulf and depend on it for their livelihood — will best be conveyed not by any words but by the work we do to put things right for the families and businesses who’ve been hurt,” Svanberg said.

After meeting Obama, the BP executive, who is Swedish, apologized for the oil spill and tried to convey his concern for those affected by the environmental disaster.

“I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies who don’t care. But that is not the case in BP. We care about the small people,” Svanberg told reporters

 

Well, I'd say it's a good start. I imagine the full cleanup of the gulf region can have impacts far beyond $20 billion - as incomprehensible as that number is.

And I also agree that $20 billion in dividend payments for the rest of the year sounds about right. BP paid out $10 billion in dividends last quarter, and since there are two quarters remaining for the year, $20 billion sounds about right.

 

Check this out:

Republicans are apologizing to BP for them having to payout. Can you believe it?

Who else? Good ole gal, "Commie in the closet," Michele Bachman and also Dick Armey:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37759828/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/

 

I thought he was embarrassed by the strong-arm tactic used by Obama. When the most powerful man in the world calls a person into his office and basically 'makes him an offer he can't refuse' I can see why some would take exception to a government operating in that way. But then again, I'm just fine with the outcome -- I guess there are times the ends do justify the means.

 

If I were American, that would almost be enough to get me to vote Democrat. "Redistribution of wealth" my <snip>! They <snipped> up, made a mess, and now they need to pay for the cleanup and for the lives of others they inconvenienced. That's personal responsibility. The Republicans should be all over enforcing personal responsibility.

 

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain some of your outrage at Obama further?

 

Inconvenienced? Eleven people died on that oil rig. I consider an inconvenience when a truck gets into an accident on a highway, blocks the road, and I'm an hour late getting home. This a bit more than being inconvenienced.

I did not interperet T2's comments as outrage. In fact, he said he felt the ends justified the means - that sounds more like tacit support.

 

Thanks, Aldeth.

I have no problem with the government stepping in a forcing companies to "do the right thing" -- but I understand some people don't care for such strong-arm tactics (which is the ultimate form of regulation). I also have no problem with Barton saying what he did; he spoke as an individual and ensured everyone knew he was not speaking for the party or any part of the government. He has the same freedom of speech as any of us and I do not condemn him for his opinion.

I also have no issue with members of congress (and former members) questioning the legality of the fund and doing whatever they believe is necessary to ensure the funds are properly distributed -- to me that's all part of checks and balances. A significant portion of the population simply does not trust President Obama (I personally don't have any issue there, I trust him as much as any politician) and transparency in this would be a good thing.

Ultimately, the $20 billion is coming from those who have funds invested in BP. BP is simply jilting its stockholders and not spending anything from operating funds. I really don't see this as a great deal for anyone other than those along the gulf coast (and for them it's life line). Anyone with retirement funds in BP is getting royally screwed.

 

The word "embarrased" seems to imply that Obama did something to be "embarrased" about. What "strong-arm" tactic did Obama use that someone should be embarrased for?

The person in question apologized for an "Obama Shakedown." That was MY point. Where's the "Shakedown?" When I asked, I was greeted with this:

I believe that "an offer he can't refuse" is a quote from some mafia movie. Isn't it? Or am I wrong? So one Republican calls it a "Shakedown," and then the implication is, no, the stated point was "the government operating in that way." Sorry, but if the US government was acting like the "thugs" in some dumb mafia movie, then in MY opinion that would be outrageous. Which of course, I have not seen any evidence that the government was "operating" that way. So now I guess I'm losing something in the translation.

So now this:

How was BP "forced?"

What "strong-arm" tactic?

Sorry, but when a Senator speaks, he does speak for a "part of the government," since that is what he is, especially when he is conducting government business at an official gathering. That aside, this is a free conurty and people can say what they want, even the Klan has freedom of speech. I never questioned his right of free speech. Nice try at trying to put words in my mouth, T2. I expect better from you than a cheap tactic like that.

I don't know you what you mean here. You agree with his opinion? or that he can have his own opinion? They are two different things. Anyone can have an opinion, but not everyone has to agree, and the "opinion may be condemned" by anyone. Freedom of speech works both ways.

I'm sure that's what they are doing and that "politics" have nothing to do with it. You can explain that the president acted "illegally" in this instance? Can you explain what he did that was "illegal?"

You're kidding? I thought "everyone" trusted him.

What portion of this needs "transparency?" I thought you agreed with this? If you feel Obama did something he should not have, then I'm asking you to explain the specifics. I'm not asking about freedom of speech; I'm asking you to explain specifically what you feel Obama did that was wrong. Please don't confuse two issues that have nothing to do with each other.

Did you know that buying stock has a degree of risk? Investing is not a "sure thing" for shareholders. If you buy stock you should be aware that your investment is at risk from many factors, from the economy as a whole, to corporate incompetence. Never assume that your investment is 100 percent secure.

 

Bloody hell... America needs to drop this, man. It was an accident, it happens. A bad accident granted, but many accidents are. There was no intent for crying out loud. 'I know, we'll blow up a rig killing some guys and ruining the local ocean for years, that'll be a good laugh'. Yeah, right.

I saw on the news earlier the BP Chief Exec was treated appallingly by whoever those Americans were, the congress or whatever. If that's how politics are conducted in that country, especially with random women allowed into the room to shout insults and abuse, then BP should not lower themselves to speak to them further in public. America should be made to answer for the many thousands innocents dead in the middle east in the same vociferous manner, see how well they stand up. Despicable. Truly. I guess it's a handy vehicle for the Presso to direct public attention away from his massive Fail economy.

It's not often these days I get involved in this part of the forum, but come ON.

 

You didn't ask a question Chandos, you made a statement. I didn't put any words in your mouth. I didn't even interpret anything you said in any way. I didn't throw insults. You're the one trying to find a fight where one simply does not exist.

 

...And why did you feel the need to bring up "freedom of speech?"

If you feel Obama did something he should not have, just say what it is.

The question is if BP took risks by cutting corners -- trying to save a few bucks, which led to the result. Certainly the intent was not for the rig to blowup. I don't think anyone believes that.

 

This may be my favorite Barmy post of all time. I kept hoping that the BP guy would pull a "Tony Stark" from Iron Man 2 and basically tell them to go pound sand.

I love how everyone is swooning that Obama manned up and is making them put $20 billion in escrow. I got news for you, he didn't make them do anything. If they decided they didn't want to, there was nothing Obama or the government could do about it. Eventually it will be the courts that decide if there are any damages and what they are.

 

Yes, heaven forbid that our government should try to uncover why we just lost the Gulf of Mexico, thousands of people lost their livelihoods, and not to mention that 11 people lost their lives. How dare our government demand some answers from the corporate fatcats.

No, Really. I got news for you -- they got off easy. For all the talk that Obama was tough, mean and nasty, and all that media bull, he took the middle road. All they have to do is giveaway money that does not belong to them (what do they care?), rather than have to go to prison for a long time, as they deserve. They got off easy. You should be happy for them, Snook (no prison time for them).

 

You people do realise that the rig was directly run by Transocean right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transocean

BP leased it

Transocean have been under similar safetly concerns in the past:

The health and safety matters actually have very little to do with BP

 

Yes, that is widely known. They all tried to blame each other the last time they were before congress.

Here's the gig:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/201...ers-severe-bp-negligence-led-to-explosion.php

 

Both companies have tried to blame eachother, however, as transocean own the rig, legally they actually can overrule any decision made by BP which could cause damage to the rig or risk to the environment. As they own the rig itself, they are responsible for it.

 

You should watch the video. A jury may decide that you are wrong on who is responsible. As I suggest, start to research this by watching the report by 60 Minutes.