The Dead Zone (or, BP and the Oil Well That Keeps on Giving)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I hate to ruin your well-informed opinion but that wasn't just EA and CoD:MW2 is from Activision who actually seem to charge more for their games than EA do. EA games are mostly 45-50€ here while CoD games are 60 (yes, €, not $!) at release.

CR is quoting a typical, pre-tax, USD price. You are quoting a post-VAT EUE price, yes? What's the pre-tax equivalent?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I hate to ruin your well-informed opinion but that wasn't just EA and CoD:MW2 is from Activision who actually seem to charge more for their games than EA do. EA games are mostly 45-50 [euros]; here while CoD games are 60 (yes, [euros];, not $!) at release.

Whoops. I got the two game conglomerates we're supposed to hate confused. Well, just insert Activision for EA.

And in the US, video games on the PC have been $50 for normal edition copies at release forever. Only console games have been priced normally at $60 traditionally.

CR

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Seamus: 19% VAT over here (Netherlands) for most products, but of course 1 € is not 1 $... :shrug: I don't think those prices actually work like that, though: as I see it, it is more of a perception of price. A company simply creates the perception to charge 50 units of a given currency, or 60 units or whatever the price point they want taking into account the local custom of pricing products (with or without VAT). Hence why currency fluctuations seem to have no bearing on actual market price of these things.

Prices of games, DVD's and such like.

[drone]

No dividends for the rest of the year, $20 billion to be set aside over the next 4 years into escrow to handle the cleanup/recovery costs.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/bp.dividend.fortune/index.htm?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

[Lemur]

Oh, and it's Adam Scott, the cartoon is Dilbert.
And between the day he announced he was buying BP stock and today it has lost at least 40% of its value, so I think mebbe Dilbert's daddy got pwned. Timing is everything.

[Husar]

CR is quoting a typical, pre-tax, USD price. You are quoting a post-VAT EUE price, yes? What's the pre-tax equivalent?

It's including 19%VAT, but the point was that Activision still charges more than most others, including EA.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And between the day he announced he was buying BP stock and today it has lost at least 40% of its value, so I think mebbe Dilbert's daddy got pwned. Timing is everything.

If he sells now. :beam:

Also, from drone's link, the stock lost 45% of its value over the last year, and rose 1.4% after the dividend was cut.

Another interesting thing is the lack of a legal basis for forcing BP to start an escrow account for payouts. Of course, skirting and at times outright defying the rule of law has happened before under this administration in regards to company's finances.

CR

[Azathoth]

Only console games have been priced normally at $60 traditionally.

For the current generation of consoles. Before 2005 or 2006 new games used to be $50.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And between the day he announced he was buying BP stock and today it has lost at least 40% of its value, so I think mebbe Dilbert's daddy got pwned. Timing is everything.Timing is everything. Earlier today would've been a great time to buy BP.


Capitalism rewards moral bankruptcy.

The reputation of a company - it's moral standing with the public at large - roughly correlates negatively with how well its stock performs.
http://www.slate.com/id/2131777

In psychology, game theory, it turns out a majority of people is willing to incur personal loss just to punish cheaters, that is those who seek a profit at the expense of others. Companies that are perceived to do this, have a low reputation. However, in many a capitalist market, the incentives are to gain a profit at others expense.
Being hated is thus a good indicator of future succes.


Sad.

With a few corrections, many markets could be re-organised to other incentives, which take general interest instead of private interest into account. Unfortunately, this is a taboo in neo-liberalism, which holds that markets must be organised to suit immediate private interest, instead of long-term, sustainable, general interest.

Instead of re-organising our markets to operate to our advantage (including those of companies), we'll vote ourselves into worker ants, operating in an unsafe, unhealthy, dangerous, instable society. One would think we'd had enough by now of a new crisis every three months: resource, food, financial, environmental, monetary, etc etc.


Free market is a deceptive term. It is commonly used to mean little government intervention. This is not the case, never. The Congo has a free market, without government intervention. Western markets, by contrast, are organised by governments. As witness for example BP in the Gulf. There is no such thing as a 'free market' in this case. There is a government that grants concessions, decides who gets to drill, safeguards property, does this in a certain fashion (safeguards private, tangible property over intangible, public, environmental property), decides on saftey regulation, decides the mode of risk management (litigation instead of social risk) , etc.

I for one am of the opinion that BP operated quite rationally within this market. Risks had to be taken. Once disater struck, rational policy is to prevent as little immediate private financial loss as possible, even at the expense of long-term, public, intangible loss (health, environment etc). Such are simply the incentives set by the market BP operates in.

[Fragony]

It's including 19%VAT, but the point was that Activision still charges more than most others, including EA.

EA ain't so bad, good quality control.

And BP are idiots we can clean things up for ya and it won't cost 20 billions http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-oil-spill-response-team-standby-us-oil-disaster

[ajaxfetish]

Oh, and it's Adam Scott, the cartoon is Dilbert. :smug:
I hate to invalidate your :smug: smily, but it's actually Scott Adams.

Ajax

[Crazed Rabbit]

I hate to invalidate your :smug: smily, but it's actually Scott Adams.

Ajax

Hoist on my own petard.

CR

[Vladimir]

How do you apologize for an apology? So much for Republican "leadership."

[PanzerJaeger]

Leadership? A bit, though not ringingly. Effective Politics? Yeah, probably....I just wish he was working towards an end-state I preferred.

Eh, the pundits (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38609.html) seem to agree with my position, essentially that the speech sucked. Noonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313181930072638.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories) has the best wrapup I've seen of the disaster it was so far.


It isn't Mr. Obama's fault that an oil rig blew in the Gulf and a gusher resulted. He already had two wars and the great recession. But the lack of adequate federal government response appropriately redounds on him. In a Wall Street Journal investigation published Thursday, reporters Jeffrey Ball and Jonathan Weisman wrote the federal government at first moved quickly, but soon "faltered." "The federal government, which under the law is in charge of fighting large spills, had to make things up as it went along." It hadn't anticipated a spill this big. The first weekend in May, when water was rough, contractors hired by BP to lay boom "mostly stayed ashore," according to a local official. "Shrimpers took matters into their own hands, laying 18,000 feet of boom," compared to about 4,000 feet by BP's contractors.

The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique. Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment." Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech "profoundly underwhelming," a "feeble call to action." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech "vapid." Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked "awkward and robotic." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann famously said "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Chris Matthews scored "a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk." Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama's well-written peroration: "It's nice but, again, how? Where was the 'how' in this speech when the nation is crying out for 'how'?"

The right didn't like the speech either.

It, of course, is yet to be seen whether the public will see it from your perspective. He's at 45% on Gallup and 41% on Rasmussen, and the Senate has essentially said that there isn't the will to do much on energy "reform". :shrug:

PS> Sorry for the obnoxious bolding, but it is hard to see links with this new skin.

[Beskar]

Obama called BP - British Petroluem, would be like me calling America - "British Colony".

[Justiciar]

That really is getting beyond tedium, Beskar. Several American citizens have lost their lives, thousands more have had their careers put on (quite likely perminant) hold, and the Gulf of Mexico has been reduced to a puddle of noxious gloop. Isn't that slightly more pressing than this largely imagined effrontery?

[Beskar]

I saw it on a tv show, I just reposted it. Thought it was funny.

[Incongruous]

That really is getting beyond tedium, Beskar. Several American citizens have lost their lives, thousands more have had their careers put on (quite likely perminant) hold, and the Gulf of Mexico has been reduced to a puddle of noxious gloop. Isn't that slightly more pressing than this largely imagined effrontery?

If it is damaging the diplomatic relationship between the two countries then no, it is not, oh and remember how many people American companies have killed over the past thirty years, moralising this issue is a no go.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That really is getting beyond tedium, Beskar. Several American citizens have lost their lives, thousands more have had their careers put on (quite likely perminant) hold, and the Gulf of Mexico has been reduced to a puddle of noxious gloop. Isn't that slightly more pressing than this largely imagined effrontery?

Not if Obama is using same form of xenophobia to deflect responsibility. The company is 60/40% British/American.

In any case, your outrage is misplaced, all the American companies would have acted in exactly the same way, and the administration set the regs that allowed the well to be drilled, and the rig to not have remote kill.

So... Nuts to Obama.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not if Obama is using same form of xenophobia to deflect responsibility. The company is 60/40% British/American.

In any case, your outrage is misplaced, all the American companies would have acted in exactly the same way, and the administration set the regs that allowed the well to be drilled, and the rig to not have remote kill.

So... Nuts to Obama.

No, they have not acted the same. It was BP, and their maintenance fund cuts, that led to 15 people dying at an explosion at the Texas City Refinery in 2005.

And it's BP, with their disregard for safety that's led to this.

They use the 'long string' pipe design, which is worse at handling natural gas blowouts, significantly more often than other big oil companies. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313010283981200.html)

A Journal analysis of records provided by the U.S. Minerals Management Service shows that BP used the less costly design—called "long string"—on 35% of its deepwater wells since July 2003, the earliest date the well-design data were available. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a minority partner of BP's in the destroyed well, used it on 42% of its deepwater Gulf wells, though it says it doesn't do so in wells of the type drilled by BP.

Both companies used the design much more often, on average, than other major Gulf drillers. Out of 218 deepwater wells in the Gulf drilled since July 2003, 26% used the long-string design. It derives its name from its use of a single, long "string" of pipe from the sea floor to the bottom of the well.

Other big drillers use long-string design less frequently than BP, according to the Journal's data analysis. Royal Dutch Shell PLC used long string designs on 8% of its wells and Chevron Corp. on 15%. Australian firm BHP Billiton PLC used long string on 4% of its wells.

Though I think they should have said no to the oil escrow fund and the demand to pay oil workers laid off because of Obama's decision.

Speaking of Obama, he hasn't suspended the protectionist Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920), or the Jones Act, a union handout that demands ships working in US waters be built and crewed by Americans. Which means other nations who've offered to help cannot.

He could suspend it, as Bush did during Katrina, but hasn't.


Obama called BP - British Petroluem, would be like me calling America - "British Colony".

Except America was never known simply as 'British colony', they haven't been a british colony for 230+ years (unlike BP changing a decade ago), and no one has called them "British colony" in hundreds of years.

CR

[Justiciar]

In any case, your outrage is misplaced..Outrage? No, sir. A sense of scale.

[Lemur]

I just found this in the dictionary, under "tone deaf (http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/article/wheres-bps-tony-hayward-at-a-yacht-race/19523020)":


In what one environmentalist described as "yet another public relations disaster" for embattled energy giant BP, CEO Tony Hayward took time off Saturday to attend a glitzy yacht race around England's Isle of Wight.

As social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook lit up with outrage, BP spokespeople rushed to defend Hayward, who has drawn withering criticism as the public face of BP's halting efforts to stop the worst oil spill in U.S. history. [...]

Wine described the race as "one of the biggest sailing events in the world and he's well known to have a keen interest in it."

He said Hayward will be returning to the United States, though it's unclear when.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Tony's just trying to get his life back.

BP relied on cheaper wells. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313010283981200.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird)


The insight into BP's record comes amid fierce pressure on the oil giant and its partners, who share billions in liability in the accident. Anadarko blasted BP Friday in a statement by Chief Executive Jim Hackett, who said: "The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions."
A long-string design is cheaper because a single pipe runs the length of the well and can be installed in one step. But it also can create a dangerous pathway for natural gas to rise unchecked outside the pipe.
The alternative, known as liners, is seen as safer because it has more built-in places to prevent oil or gas from flowing up the well uncontrolled. "There are more barriers, and the barriers are easier to test," says Gene Beck, an engineer and professor at Texas A&M University.

MMS signed off on this design. Those involved should be held liable too before they end up on the Nuclear Protection Agency.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why shouldn't the CEO be attending a glitzy yacht race? BP is a serial environmental criminal. If 'major health and environmental disaster happening' should prevent a party, then no BP CEO could've ever done any fun stuff in the past decades.


Silly BP should do what it's always done: organise 'citizen rallies' against government intrusion (except for handouts), buy science that shows the spill is not hazardous, and convince the public that oil, as an organic product, is a natural substance of the seas and that a slight increase of oil levels in the ocean does not mean we have Antropomorphic Environmental Change.

Well BP has a very succesful lobbying track record, managing to convince people of more absurd things than those...

[Beskar]

Well BP has a very succesful lobbying track record, managing to convince people of more absurd things than those...

Like no climate change and inhaling oil fumes being a health benefit?

[Husar]

Well, I read to the open ocean the oil isn't very dangerous and is dealt with in a few days, "just" at the beaches and for the birds and dolphins it's very problematic.
And no, that wasn't a BP press release and I'm not an eggspert, just wanted to mention it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Like no climate change and inhaling oil fumes being a health benefit?

BP is lobbying for a 'climate change' bill - a cap and trade scheme on carbon emissions.

CR

[Slyspy]

I just found this in the dictionary, under "tone deaf (http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/article/wheres-bps-tony-hayward-at-a-yacht-race/19523020)":


In what one environmentalist described as "yet another public relations disaster" for embattled energy giant BP, CEO Tony Hayward took time off Saturday to attend a glitzy yacht race around England's Isle of Wight.

As social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook lit up with outrage, BP spokespeople rushed to defend Hayward, who has drawn withering criticism as the public face of BP's halting efforts to stop the worst oil spill in U.S. history. [...]

Wine described the race as "one of the biggest sailing events in the world and he's well known to have a keen interest in it."

He said Hayward will be returning to the United States, though it's unclear when.

In other shock news, man has day off.

[tibilicus]

Good to see a lot of Americans still insisting "British petroleum" is evil because its British. Just like the British Queen, BP too have ambitions of enslaving the world and causing unknown havoc. I've said it once and I'll say it again, this was waiting to happen. America's lust for oil is intangible, your oil consumption for capita is absurd.

As for Tony's day off, leave him alone. Pretty sure Bush took time off to shoot some golf just as American troops were heading in to Afghanistan. Then again I suppose, by the grace of God, he wasn't an evil Brit, out to destroy everything good about the world. Who knows, Maybe BP did this deliberately, perhaps it was a conspiracy? Seriously though, lets drop this anti-British rhetoric, it's unnecessary and it just perpetuates the concept that many people around the world already view, that some, yes note "some" Americans refuse to acknowledge that there great nation can be responsibly for any ills in the world and that when ever things go wrong, they look for the easiest get out, that get out this time just happens to be a company with the word "British" in its name.

Yes, BP is undeniably responsible for this catastrophe, but the refusal to re-asses your use of oil and the methods your nation goes to when securing oil just shows sheer arrogance on your part. "Drill baby, drill".

[PanzerJaeger]

Good to see a lot of Americans still insisting "British petroleum" is evil because its British. Just like the British Queen, BP too have ambitions of enslaving the world and causing unknown havoc. I've said it once and I'll say it again, this was waiting to happen. America's lust for oil is intangible, your oil consumption for capita is absurd.

As for Tony's day off, leave him alone. Pretty sure Bush took time off to shoot some golf just as American troops were heading in to Afghanistan. Then again I suppose, by the grace of God, he wasn't an evil Brit, out to destroy everything good about the world. Who knows, Maybe BP did this deliberately, perhaps it was a conspiracy? Seriously though, lets drop this anti-British rhetoric, it's unnecessary and it just perpetuates the concept that many people around the world already view, that some, yes note "some" Americans refuse to acknowledge that there great nation can be responsibly for any ills in the world and that when ever things go wrong, they look for the easiest get out, that get out this time just happens to be a company with the word "British" in its name.

Yes, BP is undeniably responsible for this catastrophe, but the refusal to re-asses your use of oil and the methods your nation goes to when securing oil just shows sheer arrogance on your part. "Drill baby, drill".

What in God's name are you talking about? Are you serious?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What in God's name are you talking about? Are you serious?

"Drill baby, drill" is part of the national anthem didn't you know.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Drill baby, drill" is part of the national anthem didn't you know.

Missed that verse. Oh well, I have really only heard the first two, who knows what Frank put in the 6th stanza....

[tibilicus]

What in God's name are you talking about? Are you serious?

In a nut shell, minus the sarcasm, stop the witch-hunt for BP's CEO and acknowledge that BP doesn't have 100% moral accountability with the spill. America's drilling polices are some of the most lax in the world and the US also consumes an absurd amount of oil as a nation. The point being that whilst yes, this spill is a disaster, the US was quite frankly asking for it to happen. The anti-British rhetoric and the witch-hunt for the BP heads might well calm the American people and allow Obama to "kick some ass", but it doesn't change the fact that if you continue the "drill baby, drill" mantra and don't tighten up your laws and regulations (difficult considering the power of the petroleum lobby in the US), something like this will happen again.

Why not turn crisis into opportunity and re-assess policy? I know the US wont, but still..

[Crazed Rabbit]

The point being that whilst yes, this spill is a disaster, the US was quite frankly asking for it to happen.

Ridiculous.

I repeat again; this is not big oil's fault, it is BP's fault. The best way to reduce the risk of something like this or Texas City from happening again is to get rid of BP.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ridiculous.

I repeat again; this is not big oil's fault, it is BP's fault. The best way to reduce the risk of something like this or Texas City from happening again is to get rid of BP.

CR

We do have the issue of government oversight and regulation though.

[PanzerJaeger]

In a nut shell, minus the sarcasm, stop the witch-hunt for BP's CEO and acknowledge that BP doesn't have 100% moral accountability with the spill. America's drilling polices are some of the most lax in the world and the US also consumes an absurd amount of oil as a nation. The point being that whilst yes, this spill is a disaster, the US was quite frankly asking for it to happen. The anti-British rhetoric and the witch-hunt for the BP heads might well calm the American people and allow Obama to "kick some ass", but it doesn't change the fact that if you continue the "drill baby, drill" mantra and don't tighten up your laws and regulations (difficult considering the power of the petroleum lobby in the US), something like this will happen again.

Why not turn crisis into opportunity and re-assess policy? I know the US wont, but still..

What anti-British rhetoric are you referring to? This, I think, is an excellent example of the media's ability to rile people up over nothing, and in fact those screaming the loudest over non-existent anti-British attitudes are in fact revealing their own anti-Americanism.

Also, are you saying that if the US lessened its consumption of oil, that would somehow prevent the possibility of an oil drilling related accident? What is the threshold that will stop such incidents? The UK currently imports about 8 million tons annually, and that is set to increase quite a bit (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/peace/uk-dependence-on-foreign-oil-to-increase-by-800). If we get our numbers down that low, will that magically make our oil rigs perfect - bereft of any chance of a spill?

[Centurion1]

^ agrees.

Stopping offshore drilling is so retroactive and reactionary its pathetic.

In other news republicans are ecstatic, I flipped on fox news and thought sean hannity was opening a christmas present. Id be more critical of them if democrats weren't even worse and with far less cause in katrina with bush.

Actually I heard someone on msnbc blame this on bush, which is why I flipped to fox.

[tibilicus]

What anti-British rhetoric are you referring to? This, I think, is an excellent example of the media's ability to rile people up over nothing, and in fact those screaming the loudest over non-existent anti-British attitudes are in fact revealing their own anti-Americanism.

Also, are you saying that if the US lessened its consumption of oil, that would somehow prevent the possibility of an oil drilling related accident? What is the threshold that will stop such incidents? The UK currently imports about 8 million tons annually, and that is set to increase quite a bit (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/peace/uk-dependence-on-foreign-oil-to-increase-by-800). If we get our numbers down that low, will that magically make our oil rigs perfect - bereft of any chance of a spill?

Anti-British rhetoric? The fact your media is on a witch-hunt for the BP CEO when all he wants to do is take a day off with his friends and family. Apparently that's unacceptable to the American media. Perhaps its different the way your viewing things in the US but over here, the media nor the general public is reacting kindly the the idea that the UK is responsible for this, in any way, shape or form. Although yes, this current saga has probably inflamed an anti-American rhetoric amongst some people, not surprising really considering the humiliation our last leader took us through.

And your still missing my point. Your wild consumption for oil drives you to drill more and more wells. Your regulations are also so lax that companies are also permitted to drill in places which other oil exporting countries wouldn't allow to be drilled. All I'm saying is how can a country which offers such lax rules be surprised when something goes wrong? What incentive was their for BP to follow the rules? Had this incident not occurred the American public would probably still be none the wiser that most companies don't bother too much about safety on rigs and at drilling sights, because as long as they keep the black stuff coming, no ones going to check up on them.


Ridiculous.

I repeat again; this is not big oil's fault, it is BP's fault. The best way to reduce the risk of something like this or Texas City from happening again is to get rid of BP.

CR

A fairly right-wing American member arguing to forcibly remove a business?! Where's the democracy? Where's the love for capitalism?! What happened to the right to freedom which allows me to drill anywhere I want through any method I like and with little or no regard for the safety of my drill site?

[Lemur]

The fact your media is on a witch-hunt for the BP CEO when all he wants to do is take a day off with his friends and family. Apparently that's unacceptable to the American media.
I have a hard time believing you wrote this with a straight face. But let's pretend you're serious, if only for the sake of debate.

Let's say you were CEO of a company that caused the largest ecological disaster in a generation. You know, let's play make-believe. Then let's say that your pronouncements to the press have been not-terribly-helpful from a P.R. perspective. Then let's say that no government has the gear or the know-how to fix the problem your company created, and the entire world is holding its breath, waiting to see if you can slow down your mess. (Nobody really expects you to clean it up at this stage, since getting petrochemicals out of wetlands is, you know, impossible.)

So given all that, how sensible, from a P.R. perspective, does it seem to you to go yachting? This is assuming you don't want to be villified as an out-of-touch golden-parachuted CEO. Seriously, what could you possibly do that would look more upper-crust and insensitive? Attend a high-class bloodsport betting ring in the Swiss Alps? I'm open to suggestions, here.

And then, somehow the press's gleeful savaging of this CEO translates in your brain as anti-British jingoism? Really? Please, tell us all that you are kidding.

The energy consumption of the U.S.A. is an entirely separate issue, and does not deserve to be tacked on to this strange, defensive British thing you're cooking up.

[rory_20_uk]

Any company will sail as close to the rules as they can get away with. BP appears to have been using authorised techniques which on closer inspection were dangerous and not really tested.

As has been mentioned previously, they're really pushing the limit of what can be achieved currently: deep sea drilling in an area which has regular tornados. Anywhere else this would be viewed as insanity, but due to the need to keep gas cheap and securing supplies it was viewed as a good idea. If anyone at the top thought about the risks it appeared acceptable.

There is some inane idea that the CEO or whoever has to be on-site 24/7 in the event of a disaster. Is it a modern day vigil? There's no point Obama and BP's CEO sitting in sackcloth on the beach as, believe it or not, both have other things to be getting on with. Do you want such individuals making important decisions when they're too tired to think? Just like before exams, best to have a decent night's sleep to be fresh, rather than stay up every hour.

But we had this farce in Haiti with big wigs from all over the place jetting in to be pictured and incidentally blocking up the airport for such things as, well food and temporary shelter.

~:smoking:

[drone]

Giving Hayward grief is not a anti-British thing. It's all about out-of-touch CEO bashing. We did the same thing when the guys from Ford/GM/Chrysler took private jets to Congress to beg for bailout money. Hayward is just making it too easy.

[tibilicus]

I have a hard time believing you wrote this with a straight face. But let's pretend you're serious, if only for the sake of debate.

Let's say you were CEO of a company that caused the largest ecological disaster in a generation. You know, let's play make-believe. Then let's say that your pronouncements to the press have been not-terribly-helpful from a P.R. perspective. Then let's say that no government has the gear or the know-how to fix the problem your company created, and the entire world is holding its breath, waiting to see if you can slow down your mess. (Nobody really expects you to clean it up at this stage, since getting petrochemicals out of wetlands is, you know, impossible.)

So given all that, how sensible, from a P.R. perspective, does it seem to you to go yachting? This is assuming you don't want to be villified as an out-of-touch golden-parachuted CEO. Seriously, what could you possibly do that would look more upper-crust and insensitive? Attend a high-class bloodsport betting ring in the Swiss Alps? I'm open to suggestions, here.

And then, somehow the press's gleeful savaging of this CEO translates in your brain as anti-British jingoism? Really? Please, tell us all that you are kidding.

The energy consumption of the U.S.A. is an entirely separate issue, and does not deserve to be tacked on to this strange, defensive British thing you're cooking up.

So its purely his choice of yachting that you have a problem with? I don't see how his choice of recreational activity reflects his ability to do his job. Sure, not great from a PR stand point, but it just seems like another reason for your media to crucify him in the witch-hunt.

As for the anti-British sentiment, are you denying it doesn't exist? I obviously don't have the US networks to watch this event around the clock but from what I've heard there seems to be a nice line of congressmen, political pundits and others standing up to criticise "British Petroleum" and who seem to think we can do something about it or that it's some how our responsibility. Iv'e certainly heard calls for our PM to put pressure on BP and there's been people in this very thread who seem to think we, as a nation, some how have a responsibility for this mess. We have zero percent responsibility as far as I'm concerned. Arguably yes, such criticism aimed at BP by highlighting the fact it's a British company has died down over the last couple of weeks, but initially it was quite strong and it seemed to be an attempt by your current administration and various people within the media and Congress to find another person to blame for the spill.

Also, a little wake up call, whilst you all discuss this disaster,do I need to remind you all how much oil has been spilt in the Niger Delta in the last 20 years? Believe me, it's a lot. By the logic of some people here, why aren't all companies removed from the Niger Delta due to irresponsibility? By the same logic that CR is going off, the environmental damage is massive and its a continuous problem so surly all the company's involved should be banned from operation in the Delta? Or is it a different case?

[ajaxfetish]

As for the anti-British sentiment, are you denying it doesn't exist?
Do you have any links for this anti-British sentiment? I don't watch the news, but the only evidence I've seen of it is British people in this thread getting upset, apparently assuming that calling BP British Petroleum must mean that Britain, rather than BP, is somehow responsible.


I don't see how his choice of recreational activity reflects his ability to do his job. Sure, not great from a PR stand point
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that BP's cleanup efforts will suffer for the sake of their fearless leader being away for a day. The bad PR's the point.



Also, a little wake up call, whilst you all discuss this disaster,do I need to remind you all how much oil has been spilt in the Niger Delta in the last 20 years? Believe me, it's a lot. By the logic of some people here, why aren't all companies removed from the Niger Delta due to irresponsibility? By the same logic that CR is going off, the environmental damage is massive and its a continuous problem so surly all the company's involved should be banned from operation in the Delta? Or is it a different case?
Definitely a different case. There are no international superpowers in the Niger delta to get upset and make others do what they want. Should the companies there suffer the same backlash? Of course. Will they? Nope. Sucks, but that's realpolitik. Are you suggesting America shouldn't be upset at a huge environmental disaster in its waters, because it's also happening elsewhere? Maybe we should just ignore this to show our solidarity with West Africa?

Ajax

[Lemur]

So its purely his choice of yachting that you have a problem with? I don't see how his choice of recreational activity reflects his ability to do his job.
Considering that a big part of his job is representing BP to the world, I'd say it shows him failing miserably at his role. The only way he could make thing worse would be to complain about how negro servants just aren't as snappy as they used to be when imported directly from the West Indes colonies.


As for the anti-British sentiment, are you denying it doesn't exist?
If you think that Americans are running around dumping tea in Boston Harbor and blaming inclement weather on the filthy British, you're dreaming. This entire persecution complex seems to originate from some people (mistakenly) calling BP "British Petroleum." Which was the freakin' name of the company for fifty-plus years. If you have something of greater substance to prove Brit-bashing, by all means, link and share. In the meantime, you seem to be asking everyone to defend a tidal wave of anti-British jingoism that you have yet to establish as, you know, existing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In keeping with my tradition of posting snide sarcastic commentary in this thread:


Maybe its time we prevented companies from evading taxes and safety regulations through the use of offshore havens. You know, stop bending over backwards for companies because 'it's good for business, therefore good for the people'. :idea:


P’s oil spew and foreign vessel operations on the outer continental shelf (OCS) were the focus of a June 17 hearing held by the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the House Committee on Transportation, which found that foreign rigs dominate drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, creating tax evasion and safety inspection problems.

The Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig that exploded April 20, killing eleven and smothering the Gulf of Mexico in oil, was a foreign mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) built in Korea, registered in the Marshall Islands and owned by Transocean, Ltd., a company incorporated in Switzerland “it’s assumed to avoid US tax,” said Subcommittee Chair Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Transocean’s tax in Switzerland is 16 percent, compared to 35% in the US.

Chairman Cummings stunned with his opening statement: “The Coast Guard can’t say” how many foreign-flagged MODUs are operating on the OCS because “they are not required to announce their arrival.” Devising a rule for such announcement began in 2006 but “it’s not done,” which is “tragically unacceptable,” he added.

Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) said the number of vessels operating under the US flag has plummeted and many are now operating “under flags of convenience…We don’t know what vessels are in US waters or what they’re doing.”

All foreign-flagged vessels must comply with the laws of their respective nations and the US concerning safety inspections, but Transportation Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) noted, “Some have low standards… Who verifies the Marshall Islands is doing proper inspections?” He referenced a dispute between BP and Transocean regarding maintenance of the Deepwater Horizon, and asked if the Coast Guard has the capability to take over inspections from the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

The MMS is charged with drilling inspections and according to Mary Kendall, Inspector General for the Department of the Interior, there are currently only 50 inspectors for 4000 rigs operating in the Gulf. Speaking before the House Natural Resources Committee at a separate hearing the same day, she reported “a dearth of regulations” for MMS inspections with “little direction regarding what and how to inspect.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8592477 If only British Petroleum really were a proper British company, (and if only Britain would properly tax and regulate companies), and if only the US would tax and regulate companies with the same determination that it taxes middle class families, then we'd see less of this.

[Furunculus]

(and if only Britain would properly tax and regulate companies)

i'm quite happy with the way things are, thank you very much.

[tibilicus]

Do you have any links for this anti-British sentiment? I don't watch the news, but the only evidence I've seen of it is British people in this thread getting upset, apparently assuming that calling BP British Petroleum must mean that Britain, rather than BP, is somehow responsible.


Ajax

Took me about 5 seconds of googling.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7839122/New-Orleans-drops-anti-British-tourism-ad-in-wake-of-BP-oil-spill.html

Ironically, the advert was paid for by BP, shows how much of a British company BP really is.


Definitely a different case. There are no international superpowers in the Niger delta to get upset and make others do what they want. Should the companies there suffer the same backlash? Of course. Will they? Nope. Sucks, but that's realpolitik. Are you suggesting America shouldn't be upset at a huge environmental disaster in its waters, because it's also happening elsewhere? Maybe we should just ignore this to show our solidarity with West Africa?

So your accepting that because the US is a superpower, it has the right to try and stick a company to the wall and to deny itself of any blame? Does it not also highlight the dangers of the unregulated industry, no? Nigeria has no such regulations and hence the oil companies do what they want. Obviously the USA's rules aren't as lax as Nigeria's but surely they to are part of the problem? As Rory highlighted, the "drill baby, drill" policy encourages companies to push the rules to the limits and generally speaking, if they go unnoticed no one really cares.

I don't think the Norwegians would have allowed BP to be operating a rig in such a way or in such a location either. Live and learn..

[Husar]

Definitely a different case. There are no international superpowers in the Niger delta to get upset and make others do what they want. Should the companies there suffer the same backlash? Of course. Will they? Nope. Sucks, but that's realpolitik. Are you suggesting America shouldn't be upset at a huge environmental disaster in its waters, because it's also happening elsewhere? Maybe we should just ignore this to show our solidarity with West Africa?
I think the problem is that the USA like to portray themselves as a force of good, the democratic world police that makes everything okay again, but when there's a huge catastrophe in Africa they don't even raise an eyebrow (unless it's a bunch of fisherman disrupting their perfect industrial flow of goods of course), if a similar thing happens in their waters, it's a big deal, you get the impression that the whole world police image is just big farce and that realization is quite sad and disturbing for all of us USA fanboys. Time to take down my US world police flags and put up some good old german flags, it's everybody for themselves after all.


i'm quite happy with the way things are, thank you very much.
Spoken like a true conservative. :bow:
You'd probably appreciate it then if BP stopped trying to fix that oil spill, right? ~;)

[Ser Clegane]

Took me about 5 seconds of googling.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7839122/New-Orleans-drops-anti-British-tourism-ad-in-wake-of-BP-oil-spill.html

Ironically, the advert was paid for by BP, shows how much of a British company BP really is.

That is an example of anti-British sentiment??

I have to admit that as a German I am used to more and and "nastier" tongue-in-cheek comments from our good friends in the UK.
Are there some more tangible things, e.g., people being asked to boycott products from Britain in general?

[PanzerJaeger]

Anti-British rhetoric? The fact your media is on a witch-hunt for the BP CEO when all he wants to do is take a day off with his friends and family.

Non sequitur.

Lemur said it all better than I could have.




And your still missing my point. Your wild consumption for oil drives you to drill more and more wells.


No, I am not. You drew a correlation between oil consumption and the occurrence of accidents. Can you support such a linkage? You are aware that even if oil consumption was vastly reduced, new wells would have to be drilled, right?

Also, according to Mr. Hayward in his testimony to congress, the US has some of the strictest drilling regulations in the world, which didn't matter because BP follows a global drilling policy that is even stricter. So it appears the problem is with corruption at both BP and the MMS, not lax regulation.


Took me about 5 seconds of googling.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...oil-spill.html

Ironically, the advert was paid for by BP, shows how much of a British company BP really is.

Now can you find another example? That was the only example of any anti-British sentiment I could find on the first 3 pages of google news - an aborted local ad campaign paid for by BP.


I obviously don't have the US networks to watch this event around the clock

That much is clear, as you are way off the mark on this one.

[Louis VI the Fat]

i'm quite happy with the way things are, thank you very much.In the UK election thread you insist that Labour ruined the UK and that their policies must be reversed.

Yet whenever there is any criticism about some British policy, you insist that Britain is perfectly to your liking as it is.




Is it your position then that Labour has ran a proper economic policy the past thirteen years, ran corporate taxation and regulation policies to your liking?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tib'

Part of your problem with this whole thing is rooted in the 24-hour news cycle ushered in by Ted Turner and company. There is a CONSTANT -- in the literal, not figurative sense -- pressure on news outlets to provide news that is compelling (and gets butts in the seats so that they can claim larger advertising fees). "Compelling," once you've deconstructed the newsies use of this term, almost always boils down to "centered on conflict." In short, they are ALWAYS looking for villains and heros because it makes good copy.

Public figures -- and Hayward became one only a very few days into this incident -- no longer have any meaningful privacy and must EXPECT any and all actions to be scrutinized and evaluated under the "hermeneutics of suspicion" that so much of the media prides itself upon. Is it reasonable to expect someone to be working on one crisis issue 18 hours a day, 7 days a week to the exclusion of all other activities? Of course not. Such a degree of strain becomes rapidly counter-productive in point of fact. Performance at such a level can be maintained only for a short period of time before the body/brain virtually demands something else. Unfortunately, the newsies work in shifts, get plenty of rest, but ALWAYS have someone on duty to keep after public figures associated with a particular crisis. One US radio host was lambasting Obama for daring to play golf for 4 hours during this crisis -- much less doing a lap of the Isle of Wight. Again, I agree that this is unreasonable and idiotic -- but I assure you that Hayward and BP are being attacked no more and no less vociferously than would a US firm in similar circumstances. I suspect our media is secretly longing for the investigation to prove that it was a Haliburton component that negligently failed -- though if that occurs, the "petit mort" the media collectively undergoes will probably drive up tobacco sales.

In addition, between cell phones, tweets, blogs, scanners and the like, virtually everything a public figure does, says, implies, or can visually be associated with because she happened to stroll in front of the venue in question while heading from point a to point b can and will be added as grist to the mill. The level of intrusiveness ushered in is preposterous by the standards of access considered appropriate 25 years ago.

[Beskar]

We do have the issue of government oversight and regulation though.

But CR is a free market, he thinks Big Oil are perfect and wouldn't willing commit any wrongs, even moral ones. He single targets BP instead of targetting the issue.

[PanzerJaeger]

But CR is a free market, he thinks Big Oil are perfect and wouldn't willing commit any wrongs, even moral ones. He single targets BP instead of targetting the issue.


According to what I've read, BP's 760 safety violations make up 97% of OSHA violations in the oil business. More here: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042

[Crazed Rabbit]

But CR is a free market, he thinks Big Oil are perfect and wouldn't willing commit any wrongs, even moral ones. He single targets BP instead of targetting the issue.

BP is part of big oil. I have criticized BP. Now, how does that work out to me saying Big Oil is perfect? :laugh4:

In regards to Mr. Hayward's yachting - I don't mind, though it certainly is a gaffe. What I find offensive is when he said "I just want my life back" a bit back. Well poor multimillionaire and not exploded in the middle of the ocean you.

What I find amusing, in a cynical way at the hypocritical rhetoric, is how Obama's spokesman attacks Hayward for yachting with his family but then excuses the president (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hfQ62qTEIbRH__q_rUMpzykNDtkQ) for going to golf by saying:

"I think that a little time to himself on Father's Day weekend probably does us all good as American citizens,"

Wow, how very kind of Obama to do good for America by playing golf. What a kind soul and generous spirit to put the people first and help them by playing golf.


Maybe its time we prevented companies from evading taxes and safety regulations through the use of offshore havens.

Yeah! We could forbid foreign vessels from even entering international waters near our shores. Of course, we'll have to inspect them to make sure they're in compliance. Maybe even land some officers on with helicopters.

Or, we could stop this foolish protectionism and realize we live in a global economy and the best way to not drive away companies is to lower our very high corporate income tax.

CR

[Beskar]

In regards to Mr. Hayward's yachting - I don't mind, though it certainly is a gaffe. What I find offensive is when he said "I just want my life back" a bit back. Well poor multimillionaire and not exploded in the middle of the ocean you.

Watch out CR, you might turn into your worst nightmare at this rate. Me.

[Idaho]

In the UK election thread you insist that Labour ruined the UK and that their policies must be reversed.

Yet whenever there is any criticism about some British policy, you insist that Britain is perfectly to your liking as it is.

Is it your position then that Labour has ran a proper economic policy the past thirteen years, ran corporate taxation and regulation policies to your liking?

He's a Tory. He has a list of knee-jerks. Top of which is foreigners telling us what to do, second is the rabble getting upperty. He would defend the upperty rabble against foreigners every day of the week :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Thank God the Left has so many sane balanced persons - dear Harriet anyone?

~:smoking:

[Sigurd]

According to what I've read, BP's 760 safety violations make up 97% of OSHA violations in the oil business. More here: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042
To be fair... 97% of violations concerns refineries, which is quite different from violations in the oil business.
BP was a quality sentric company prior to fusioning with Amoco. BP is operating in the North Sea both on British and Norwegian shelf on 45 fields and I can't find any serious incidents besides the capsizing in 1965.
However, the incidents started in other parts of the world after the merger with Amoco.

[Vladimir]

To be fair... 97% of violations concerns refineries, which is quite different from violations in the oil business.
BP was a quality sentric company prior to fusioning with Amoco. BP is operating in the North Sea both on British and Norwegian shelf on 45 fields and I can't find any serious incidents besides the capsizing in 1965.
However, the incidents started in other parts of the world after the merger with Amoco.

Whoops. So I guess it's our fault. :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Damn you Amoco! Wait, Amoco was British, right?

[Vladimir]

Damn you Amoco! Wait, Amoco was British, right?

Am=American

Wait one...

Never mind. Sarcasm detector low on fluid.

[Furunculus]

In the UK election thread you insist that Labour ruined the UK and that their policies must be reversed.

Yet whenever there is any criticism about some British policy, you insist that Britain is perfectly to your liking as it is.




Is it your position then that Labour has ran a proper economic policy the past thirteen years, ran corporate taxation and regulation policies to your liking?

maybe its just that i distrust the EU opinion of what is a properly taxed and regulated financial services industry, i have after all heard enough diatribes from you against the piratical ways of free-wheeling anglo-saxon capitalism.

[Furunculus]

He's a Tory. He has a list of knee-jerks.

Top of which is foreigners telling us what to do,

second is the rabble getting upperty.

He would defend the upperty rabble against foreigners every day of the week :laugh4:
whoa, partisan!

yes, and I'll defend that attitude against anyone who doesn't understand what representative democracy means.

wherever did you get that idea?

what does that mean, are you branding me a xenophobe?

[Lemur]

Never mind. Sarcasm detector low on fluid.
Happens to the best of us, never fear. I was hoping to tweak a Brit into responding, but no such luck.

[Slyspy]

The British invented the sarcasm detector, but as with so many old fashioned technologies it is proving difficult to modify so as to be fit for today's digital world.

[jabarto]

foolish protectionism

You don't actually believe this do you?

[Beskar]

To be fair... 97% of violations concerns refineries, which is quite different from violations in the oil business.
BP was a quality sentric company prior to fusioning with Amoco. BP is operating in the North Sea both on British and Norwegian shelf on 45 fields and I can't find any serious incidents besides the capsizing in 1965.
However, the incidents started in other parts of the world after the merger with Amoco.

I actually said this point earlier in the thread. The problems came after the privatisation which the merger with Amoco came soon after.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You don't actually believe this do you?

Why shouldn't I? It's protectionism*, and it's foolish**. A bit redundant, though.

*From wiki:

The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry

** When countries retaliate, the final situation is worse for US exports and companies than before the tarrifs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act)

In reference to the Jones Act specifically (wiki again):

A 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce study indicates that U.S. shipyards built only 1 percent of the world's large commercial ships. Ships are virtually never ordered in U.S. shipyards unless they are for use in U.S. Shipping. The report concluded that the lack of United States competitiveness stemmed from foreign subsidies, unfair trade practices, and lack of U.S. productivity.

In other news, a federal judge has blocked the deepwater drilling ban (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/22/judge-halts-obamas-oil-drilling-ban/), pointing out that the government outright lied about what the experts consulted supported:

A federal judge in New Orleans halted President Obama's deepwater drilling moratorium on Tuesday, saying the government never justified the ban and appeared to mislead the public in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Judge Martin L.C. Feldman issued an injunction, saying that the moratorium will hurt drilling-rig operators and suppliers and that the government has not proved an outright ban is needed, rather than a more limited moratorium.

He also said the Interior Department also misstated the opinion of the experts it consulted. Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don't support the blanket ban.

"Much to the government's discomfort and this Court's uneasiness, the summary also states that 'the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading," Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling.

Good.

CR

[jabarto]

Why shouldn't I? It's protectionism*, and it's foolish**. A bit redundant, though.

Protecting the everloving hell out of manufacturing industries is what gave rise to the Asian Tigers and Japan. Do you really think the fact that Japan kicked Ford out and kept high tariffs until Japanese auto manufacturers were self-sufficient had nothing to do with their rise to prominence?

[Centurion1]

Except jabarto American companies are prominent. Because of the over the top corporate income business growth is fostered and jobs are created which mommy and daddy get to pay for your material goods, the manufactures of whom you disdain but you still want their product.


Your all a bunch of damn Communist foreigners trying to take over the good old us of a

[Husar]

Am=American

Wait one...

Never mind. Sarcasm detector low on fluid.

American oil company?

[jabarto]

Your all a bunch of damn Communist foreigners trying to take over the good old us of a

Only partially correct; I'm not a foreigner.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm not a communist.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Protecting the everloving hell out of manufacturing industries is what gave rise to the Asian Tigers and Japan. Do you really think the fact that Japan kicked Ford out and kept high tariffs until Japanese auto manufacturers were self-sufficient had nothing to do with their rise to prominence?

How exactly has the Jones Act worked out for the ship construction industry? Oh, right, only 1 percent of large commercial ships are built in the US. This was no infant industry protection. It was a handout, a crutch never to be withheld. The shipping construction industry likely doesn't even try to be globally competitive, and they know they'll never have to compete at home.

Also, I very much doubt that ship building was an infant industry in the US when this was passed (1920s).

CR

[Myrddraal]

The number crunching column of private eye has some fascinating stats at times. I quote:

11 People killed in an accident on oil rig leased by British company BP, resulting in four presidential visits, a $1.6 bn clean-up and the establishment of $20bn compensation fund in two months.

15,000+ People killed in accident at Bhopal plant owned by American company Union Carbide, resulting in 0 presidential visits, no clean-up and $470m compensation in 25 years.

Note I realise that BP has a large American ownership and nor am I claiming that two wrongs make a right, like I said, I'm just quoting an interesting statistic.

[drone]

15,000+ People killed in accident at Bhopal plant owned by American company Union Carbide, resulting in 0 presidential visits, no clean-up and $470m compensation in 25 years.
Technically, the Bhopal plant was owned by Union Carbide India Limited, an Indian subsidiary. A vital legality that saved Union Carbide's hide somewhat, even if the then-CEO still has an extradition warrant pending. Union Carbide owned 51% of UCIL, the rest owned by Indian investors and the Indian government. If UC had been smarter, the subsidiary would have been named something completely unrelated to Union Carbide, like maybe Eveready Industries. Maybe BP should have left the Amoco name on US operations.

Regarding cleanup, the Indian government took over the site after the leak, and UCIL worked to clean up the site, both before and after Union Carbide sold off it's interest in UCIL to McLeod-Russell. So there has been at least an appearance of a cleanup, but it will probably be a long time before the area is safe. Three big differences between the disasters: at Bhopal the leak was stopped within 12 hours, and the value of the expelled methyl isocyanate gas pales in comparison to the oil that BP is currently misplacing, and BP will still be able to (and wants to) operate in the spill zone.

The compensation Union Carbide offered was $350 million, the Indian government wanted 10 times that. For some reason, the government settled for the $350 million, plus interest. Why the government agreed, I have no idea, but they clearly failed at haggling class. There are several other instances where the Indian government or courts let Union Carbide and/or UCIL off the hook financially. I suspect we will see much the same with the Gulf spill.

Hopefully we get a song out of the Gulf spill that is the equal of RevCo's Union Carbide (either Bhopal or West Virginia mix). :yes:

[Tellos Athenaios]

And perhaps another major difference is that while crude oil is bad, at least it can be cleaned up efficiently and quickly (even if the USA doesn't want it, apparently: I refer to the earlier post of Fragony here); whereas methylisocyanate is rather different kettle of dead and thoroughly decontaminated fish.

[Myrddraal]

Two wrongs make a wrong, two rights make a right, but maybe a wrong and a right makes hypocrisy. I'm not pretending that BP shouldn't pay for it's responsibility, but the US government should be asking quietly, before anyone starts remembering past behaviour.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Happens to the best of us, never fear. I was hoping to tweak a Brit into responding, but no such luck.

So.... you wanted to use sarcasm to snare a Brit.

Severe tactical error there, what?

[Beskar]

So.... you wanted to use sarcasm to snare a Brit.

Severe tactical error there, what?

He is American, over there, they cannot comprehend it. So Lemur giggles to himself at their expense. Also the concept of Irony is lost on them.

[Vladimir]

He is American, over there, they cannot comprehend it. So Lemur giggles to himself at their expense. Also the concept of Irony is lost on them.

This American, in particular, comprehends and appreciates your tasteful and erudite comments.

[Centurion1]

This American, in particular, comprehends and appreciates your tasteful and erudite comments.

wot wot.

I daresay this whole oil crisis is a bit of a bother tisn't it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

UK backing loans for 'risky' offshore oil drilling in Brazil
Documents show the UK government ignored risks in subsidising oil extraction from nearly 2,000m deep in Atlantic waters

The British government is subsidising one of the world's largest and riskiest oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/oil)-drilling projects in the Atlantic Ocean and would be liable for tens of millions of pounds if a major accident took place.
Documents seen by the Guardian show that UK trade ministers underwrote loans taken out by the Brazilian state-run energy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy) company Petrobras in 2005 in order that Rolls Royce and other companies could contribute to the building of the giant P-52 platform.

The platform is now operating 125km off the coast of Brazil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/brazil) in 1,798 metres (5,900 feet) of water - deeper than BP's Deepwater rig that exploded in April and led to the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
But the 14-page environment report prepared by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department (http://www.ecgd.gov.uk/) (ECGD) and obtained under freedom of information rules by watchdog group Corner House (http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/), makes no mention of blowouts or the equipment needed to prevent them. Ministers have edited out all ECDG's comments assessing the risks involved in deep-sea drilling in the Atlantic.

The oil and gas reservoirs of the Campos basin are considered some of the most hazardous in the world to access, pushing offshore technology to the limit. The P-52 rig replaced one that exploded and sank due to human error in 2001, killing 11 people.
Environmental groups today accused the government of forcing British taxpayers to underwrite a project that could lead to a disaster similar to the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/30/uk-loans-brazil-offshore-drillingAre the Bitish taxpayers giving the right incentives to their companies? That's a lot of subsidies for dangerous drilling. This time, the British taxpayer appears liable for damages too.



Also, what level of governmental involvement! Creating an excellent opportunity for a semi-random rant:
Free market? What free market? Oil exploitation is all about intense government involvement. It is all about subsidies, regulations, concessions, and a society geared in general towards oil consumption. Free market is only ever invoked when regulation gets in the way.
Free market is what they have in the Angola diamond industry, bit still only free in the sense that there is no discernable first world-like government, only rudimentary governmental tasks performed by (semi)private warlords.
'Free' market is an activist word. Used deceptively. It means 'government geared towards immediate private interest'. Give me an 'unfree' market, because it is this well regulated market that creates a functioning open market, advanced economic exchance, and a first world country
/statist rant

[Beskar]

Americans are praising BP -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10481558.stm

[CountArach]

Everyone is missing the most important news item to come out about this:

Vuvuzela assault planned on BP Hq (http://bigpondnews.com/articles/OddSpot/2010/07/02/Vuvuzela_assault_planned_on_BP_Hq_479723.html)

Look out BP, the vuvuzelas are coming.

A US video producer is raising money to have 100 people play the horns, which have provided the World Cup soundtrack, outside BP's headquarters in London to protest the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Adam Quirk, of Brooklyn, New York, has appealed for funds for his 'Vuvuzelas for BP' scheme on Kickstarter.com, a website which accepts donations from the public for a variety of projects.

As of mid-day Thursday, Quirk had already surpassed his goal of raising $US1000 ($A1188) for the vuvuzela concert and $US1000 for the Gulf Disaster Fund.

A total of 316 people had donated $US3388 ($A4025) for his quirky plan.

The page featuring Quirk's appeal for donations features a picture of a smiling BP chief executive Tony Hayward surrounded by vuvuzelas.

'BP is not feeling the pain they are causing in the Gulf,' Quirk wrote in his fund-raising call. 'BP is spending millions on PR.

'In order to put a bit of public pressure on them, we plan to buy 100 vuvuzelas and hire 100 vuvuzela players off Craigslist to play in front of BP's International Headquarters in London for a one-day flash mob,' he said.

Quirk said the money will go to buying 100 vuvuzelas at $US6.50 each and hiring some people for crowd control.

He also put out an appeal for volunteer vuvuzela players - 'no special skills required'.

'Hopefully (and likely) we can find people to play for free (plus they get a free vuvuzela),' he said.

'I know this isn't going to change anything, but it will draw attention back to BP after the inevitable 24hr news cycle finds some celebrity sex scandal to distract us with,' Quirk said.

[Furunculus]

The Red Adair of relief well drilling is on the case, hooray:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7883286/BP-oil-spill-the-Red-Adair-of-relief-well-drilling-says-no-doubt-about-successful-outcome.html

[Hax]

Your all a bunch of damn Communist foreigners trying to take over the good old us of a

No, we just here so we can make great benefit for glorious country of the Netherholes.

[Lemur]

Three cheers for rectal bleeding (http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0710/toxicologist-shrimpers-exposed-oilcorexit-mix-suffered-bleeding-rectum/)!


Toxicologist: Oil/Corexit mix caused heart trouble, organ damage, rectal bleeding. Shrimpers who were exposed to a mixture of oil and Corexit dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico suffered severe symptoms such as muscle spasms, heart palpitations, headaches that last for weeks and bleeding from the rectum, according to a marine toxicologist who issued the warning Friday on a cable news network.

Dr. Susan Shaw, founder and director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, said during a CNN broadcast that after personally diving the oil spill in late May, a "very fiery sore throat" plagued her from inhaling fumes coming off the water. Because she was covered from head to toe in a protective suit, Dr. Shaw was spared direct exposure.

Shrimpers who had bare-skin contact with the mixture of oil and Corexit, she said, were not so lucky.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah well, nevermind 2012, killer meteorites, solar storms or global warming or even octosquids of doom. The end of life as we know it: :end: (http://www.helium.com/items/1882339-doomsday-how-bp-gulf-disaster-may-have-triggered-a-world-killing-event). (Article found via: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/12/methane_bubble_of_doom/)

Or as we say in Dutch: “BP bedankt!”.

[Lemur]

If this bears out, it's huge news. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10654584)


BP says it has temporarily stopped oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico from its leaking well.

It is the first time the flow has stopped since an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig on 20 April.

The well has been sealed with a cap as part of a test of its integrity that could last up to 48 hours.

[rory_20_uk]

Good to hear. Fingers crossed it holds.

No longer...

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/demotivators_2111_187198

Lessons learnt? I hope so. Fingers crossed that this helps increase the attractiveness of other forms of energy. OK, they might be expensive to start up but the risks are much smaller...

~:smoking:

[Myrddraal]

Today's headlines:

US President Barack Obama warns BP oil leak crisis will not end until BP is in the hands of American share holders.

[Lemur]

US President Barack Obama warns BP oil leak crisis will not end until BP is in the hands of American share holders.
Source? Google is failing me.

[Incongruous]

Source? Google is failing me.

He's taking the piss, after news came out that the White House is supporting an American bid on BP http://countusout.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/obama-oks-exxon-bid-for-bp-government-washes-its-hands-of-bp-takeover/ and playing on the British suspicion that this was Obama's plan since the pipe blew.

[Vladimir]

Hope and change?

[Myrddraal]

BP was never in any real danger of going bankrupt because of this crisis. Quite simply because BP is worth much more to the American People as a functioning company which employs many Americans and provides profits to a significant American share ownership. The only current serious threat to BP is how much money the US government extracts from them, and the US government knows all to well the consequences would be bad for them if they pushed just a little too hard and pushed BP over the brink. Because of this, the very loud and open (and perhaps even hypocritical, see Bhopal number crunching above) criticism of the company from the US administration, which has certainly contributed to the fall in the share price of BP, seem counter intuitive.

That is, until you realise that just as the denouncing of BP reaches fever pitch, and share prices reach rock bottom, American investors seem to fully understand the true value of BP, and are more than happy to snap up this government sponsored special offer on BP shares. One could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.

[Lemur]

One could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.
Wow, could one? Could one really?

If one cannot make a case, one can say most anything as long as one attributes it to a numinous third-person singular.

Wouldn't one agree? Or would one care to quibble with one's assertions?

[Myrddraal]

Jeeze, if someone using 'one' offends you that much, you might want to consider anger management courses.

I can rephrase it into any tense you care to mention, I could even rewrite it in French if it floats your boat. I presented my thoughts, make of them what you will. I admitted that it's pure speculation, but that doesn't make it invalid. Next time try addressing the content of my posts rather than the delivery.

Edit:

Here, take your pick:

I could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.

You could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.

Someone could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.

[Lemur]

One would suggest that the subject of a sentence is not the tense, but perhaps that would be pedantic of one.

One's thoughts may wander off into the paranoid speculation of massive national conspiracies, but so long as one feels no need to provide source, links or backup data of any sort, one can make such allegations as one wills.

One can talk about "the content of [one's] posts," but so long as one's posts are both fat- and content-free, consisting of one's fevered speculations with zero back-up of any sort, one must accept the response one is likely to generate.

One could speculate, for example, that the one calling itself Myrddraal is actually an octosquid agent sent to sow confusion amongst us "four-limbed freaks." Since one is not obligated to provide any evidence or backing data of any sort, this speculation is exactly as valid as one's speculation about how the government of the United States is engaged in a massive securities fraud. Wouldn't one agree?

[Myrddraal]

Sure, I agree. Thanks for your help, thanks to you I understand that since you are ridiculing this idea, it must be ridiculous! I'm indebted to you.

It's been in the news here that apparently the US government has told ExxonMobil that they "will not stop" (or something like that) a takeover bid for BP, despite the consequences for monopoly and competition. BP have been meeting 'friendly' investors in the hope that they will also increase their share holdings to prevent a takeover by ExxonMobil. I am suggesting that the US government's tireless attacks on BP seem to go against US interests, unless you consider the possibility that they may support the American take over of a very profitable company.

Is that enough for you to chew on, or are you going to continue with empty posts mocking my grammatical style?

[Lemur]

It's been in the news here that apparently [...]
This phrase contains everything I find offensive. Something about the mixture of the passive voice with unsourced assertions ...


Is that enough for you to chew on, or are you going to continue with empty posts mocking my grammatical style?
Is what enough to chew on? Source! Please, Myrddraal, provide a source! Otherwise debating your points is like boxing a cloud.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

People should use "one" and the like much more often. To do otherwise is arrogance when talking about very complicated subjects like politics and economics where certainty would require years of study, and where we are usually going of the word of various journalists (or bloggers :p ).

"The government did this because..." makes an almost omniscient claim. In most cases it's use is not justified. "I think the government did this because..."--well, at least they aren't making an outright claim, but why do they think it if they aren't justified in doing so? "It seems to me" or "I guess" are appropriately weaker. Although I have no objection to "I think" because it's just a handy way of speaking.

So "one could speculate" and "some people say" allow us to honestly talk about a subject as best we can, without acting like we have insider knowledge.

(Not that any of us really do this, I usually don't. But it some cases it is prudent, and thus admirable).

But lemur you usually approach these debates in a different way, so you object to someone "hiding" behind weak language. Sarcasm is the same kind of "hiding" though :beam: It doesn't require you to zero in on what's wrong about a persons post, it just exaggerates.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Thanks for your help, thanks to you I understand that since you are ridiculing this idea, it must be ridiculous!

Exactly! :beam:

Lemur is doing exactly what he criticized you for.

Except not even. While "one could speculate that the US government was manipulated by investors" is a more modest statement than "the us government was manipulated by investors", being sarcastic about an idea makes the claim that it is so obviously false as to be ridicule worthy. Sometimes this is the case. But mostly not, which is why those who use it frequently tend to see politics as the grown up version of a food fight (no offense lemur).

[Myrddraal]

If you feel incapable of discussing possibilities which you haven't read about in the newspapers, I fully understand why you resort to ridicule, and you have my sympathies. If, on the other hand, you are capable of more constructive debate, perhaps you could explain to me why the idea is ridiculous? Who knows, perhaps if you'd started out with this approach, I wouldn't be feeling so hostile to your opinions, and you might even have persuaded me without testing my humility.

[Myrddraal]

Here, take this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/bp-faces-exxonmobil-takeover-bid-speculation) and it might loosen your tongue:


BP was at the centre of fresh takeover speculation after weekend reports suggested the Obama administration has told ExxonMobil – the world's largest oil firm – that it would not stand in the way of a takeover bid for the stricken British rival.

Before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill BP was Britain's biggest company with a stock market value of £121bn. Since then more than £50bn has been wiped off its share value and a number of potential bidders are rumoured to be circling to take advantage of its weakened state.

Oil industry sources were quoted as saying that ExxonMobil had been given a green light by the US government to "take a look" at BP. A merger would create a group with a stock market value of $400bn (£265bn). Both firms refused to comment on the speculation.

BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, is well aware of the threat of a hostile bid and last week held a series of meetings with potential "friendly" investors including the Kuwait Investment Office. A big strategic investor would make it harder for the likes of ExxonMobil or China's National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) to win control in a hostile takeover bid.

The Kuwaitis already have a 1.75% stake, but BP would like it to increase that to as much as 10%. Hayward is also understood to have met with another sovereign wealth fund, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA).

The cost of the spill to BP has already past $3.1bn (£2bn), and the company has pledged some of its assets as security to the US government while it builds up a promised $20bn compensation fund. Analysts at Goldman Sachs estimate the final bill for the disaster caused by the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig, which killed 11 workers, could run to $70bn.

BP has already began talks with rivals about selling off assets to help bolster its financial position. CNOOC is interested in buying the Argentinian gas businesses partly owned by BP. The UK oil firm's joint Russian venture TNK-BP has also opened talks about buying assets outside Russia.

Today Apache Corporation, the US's largest independent oil group, was named as being in exclusive talks to buy investments worth $12bn from BP, including the stake in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in North America.

Neither BP nor Apache would comment. "We've said we're going to be divesting about $10bn over the next 12 months as a result of the spill, but we have no comment on specific deals," said a BP spokesman.

BP is hoping to have some firm sales to announce before 27 July when it must release its first-half financial results and give a strategic update about the scale of liabilities faced in America.

The oil spill – and BP's handling of it – has made the firm public enemy number one in the US, with Barack Obama leading the call for blood. Such is the level of vitriol, that business groups claim American protectionism is on the rise and it is affecting other British firms. Foreign companies have already been restricted from access to US government bailout money and some important federal contracts.

This week the Washington-based Organisation for International Investment will meet a handful of British business groups including the CBI, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and Business International to discuss the rise in anti-British rhetoric and how to counter it.

[Lemur]

If you feel incapable of discussing possibilities which you haven't read about in the newspapers, I fully understand why you resort to ridicule, and you have my sympathies.
In fairness, I asked you for some sort of source (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?128339-The-Dead-Zone-(or-BP-and-the-Oil-Well-That-Keeps-on-Giving)&p=2524183&viewfull=1#post2524183) when you first asserted that the US government was engaged in a conspiracy to absorb BP, and got bupkiss for a response. A source need not be a newspaper. Any sort of analysis, reportage or original material would give us a basis for discussion.


If, on the other hand, you are capable of more constructive debate, perhaps you could explain to me why the idea is ridiculous?
I'd argue that the more outlandish the assertion, the stronger the evidence ought to be. You have asserted not once but twice that the US Government is attempting to destroy BP for a very specific motivation. I object to the fact that you have provided nothing to back this up. I'm sorry if my jokes offend, and I certainly don't mean to give you personal grief. My message is unchanged: Source, please.

Sasaki, as per usual, engages in meta-conversation rather than conversation. Note the post-modernism and indirection of his discourse; not only does he not address your points, he doesn't address mine either, instead engaging on a purely semiotic level.

-edit-

Ah, sorry, I was typing while you posted. I'll read and comment in a bit. Thank you!

-edit of the edit-

Okay, had a chance to read the entire article. Thoughts:

There is no indication that the US Government is involved in anything to do with ExxonMobil's takeover considerations, beyond indicating that they prolly wouldn't oppose it. This means EM is most likely talking to some investment banks about the possibility of making a hostile bid.

A couple of points: (1) I don't know that it's legitimate to call BP a British company any more than it's accurate to call a monster conglomerate like EM an American company. Large multinational firms generally act in their own interest, not in any particular nationality's. (2) Big firms mull takeover/merger bids all the danged time. And when they're not mulling it over, the investment banks are mulling it over for them, drawing up proposals more or less constantly. I would hesitate to put a lot of weight on anything less than a formal bid to shareholders.

The last paragraph that you highlight, the one about the "level of vitriol," is a bit of saber-rattling, to be honest. And I'm deeply confused by the sentence about "Foreign companies have already been restricted from access to US government bailout money and some important federal contracts." Is the author suggesting that US bailout money should have been made available to more foreign firms? That the lack of bailout money for foreign firms is a sign of American protectionism? That there has been a measurable shift in federal contract restrictions? There's nothing of substance in that paragraph, and yet it is crucial to understanding the situation as a conspiracy to absorb BP.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Prosimian & Eyeless:

Either of you could do a turn in the Senate...such genteel yet cutting parsiflage......

[Lemur]

I have so much parsiflage I need a cream or ointment of some sort.

Re-reading my earlier posts, I think I indulged in grammar mockery a little too hard. Please accept my apologies, Myrddraal, and I hope you can accept when I say I did not mean to make you feel personally attacked. In my clumsy way I was attempting to debate your assertion, not your person.

[drone]

In fairness, I asked you for some sort of source when you first asserted that the US government was engaged in a conspiracy to absorb BP, and got bupkiss for a response. A source need not be a newspaper. Any sort of analysis, reportage or original material would give us a basis for discussion.
I don't think Myddraal was saying the US government was trying to take over BP, but that the US government was being used by those who want to take over BP.

That is, until you realise that just as the denouncing of BP reaches fever pitch, and share prices reach rock bottom, American investors seem to fully understand the true value of BP, and are more than happy to snap up this government sponsored special offer on BP shares. One could even speculate that the US government was encouraged down the merry path of preaching the end of BP by these well connected and certainly very wealthy investors, but that would be pure speculation.
I stated some time back in this thread that BP would be an excellent investment option at the moment. I stand by that statement. But you probably want to get in before the relief well is finished and the complete seal is in place.

[Myrddraal]

I wasn't really that offended, or my persiflage wouldn't have been at all genteel. Apology accepted in any case :bow:.

OT:

I'm not trying to suggest that the cheap purchase of BPs shares by American investors is the sole motivation for the ongoing PR campaign against BP, however I am suggesting that there is more to this than righteous fury. As you note yourself, BP is largely American owned already, with 39% of its shares held in the US. Whatever the motivation for it, the loud noises emanating from Washington have contributed in a significant manner to the plummet in BP share prices, 52% in 50 days. Let's not forget that BP also employs a very large number of Americans. Why would the US government damage the interests of its own citizens?

There are several reasons, not least that building the oil spill into a national crisis might be thought to be good for the polls, but I don't think it's so far fetched to suggest that the economic benefits of full American ownership of BP are hard to ignore, especially when you've got a powerful lobby group reminding you of the fact. BP is a hugely profitable company, previously paying out $10.5 billion dollars per year in dividends. 39% of that currently goes to US investors, and a slightly bigger share of that pie wouldn't do any harm to the US economy.

EDIT:


I don't think Myddraal was saying the US government was trying to take over BP, but that the US government was being used by those who want to take over BP.
Indeed. I'm not suggesting that President Obama has sat down in the oval office and spelt out this strategy for the take over of BP, but given the economic arguments in favour of a fully American BP, how hard would it be to persuade a few government advisers that stepping up the pressure on BP is the sound and just thing to do.

Note that I'm also not trying to defend BP. The payments they will make, and the suspension of dividends are justified and fair. The witch hunt which is being performed by American politicians on both sides of the political divide, which has resulted in an excessive drop in BP's share price, is not justified or fair (one could say).

[tibilicus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10691609

So would anyone care to point out what authority the US Senate has in the affairs of another sovereign nation state? Try and deny this has gone beyond a leaking oil well now. It appears there are those within the US who wish to see the witch hunt of BP continue and would also like to see it extended to the scrutiny of how another country conducts its foreign affairs. Actually, make that two countries, if you count the fact the release of the Lockerbie bomber was authorised by Scottish authorities..

[ajaxfetish]

It's been in the news here that apparently [...]This phrase contains everything I find offensive. Something about the mixture of the passive voice with unsourced assertions ...


One would suggest that there is no use of passive voice in the quoted material*, but perhaps that would be pedantic of one . . . :study:

Sorry to take it back to the grammar, but I couldn't resist.

Ajax

*or anywhere in the post, for that matter

[Hosakawa Tito]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10691609

So would anyone care to point out what authority the US Senate has in the affairs of another sovereign nation state? Try and deny this has gone beyond a leaking oil well now. It appears there are those within the US who wish to see the witch hunt of BP continue and would also like to see it extended to the scrutiny of how another country conducts its foreign affairs. Actually, make that two countries, if you count the fact the release of the Lockerbie bomber was authorised by Scottish authorities..

You are aware that there are mid-term elections this November with control of the House & Senate at stake? There's windmills to tilt at, mud to sling, patriotic penis contests, and miles to go before they sleep. And the worst part, no adults in charge.

[tibilicus]

You are aware that there are mid-term elections this November with control of the House & Senate at stake? There's windmills to tilt at, mud to sling, patriotic penis contests, and miles to go before they sleep. And the worst part, no adults in charge.

And still, mid-terms or no mid-terms, I would advise these Senators (I gather they are Democrats right?) to keep things subdued, less they forget the UK is one of the biggest contributors to the War in Afghanistan and we sacrificed a great deal to be involved in that other war.

Or is oil truly thicker than blood?

[Vladimir]

In the short-term, the UK has very little choice but to continue its close relationship with the U.S. Congressional politics focus on short-term objectives; namely, to get reelected.

[drone]

And still, mid-terms or no mid-terms, I would advise these Senators (I gather they are Democrats right?) to keep things subdued, less they forget the UK is one of the biggest contributors to the War in Afghanistan and we sacrificed a great deal to be involved in that other war.

Or is oil truly thicker than blood?
I wouldn't worry about it. In case you haven't been paying attention, the Senate can't do anything. ~D All talk and theatre.

[Vladimir]

Has anyone posted this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38313409/ns/politics/


U.K. PM comes to talk Mideast, economy, war, anything but BP
Newly elected Cameron makes first official visit to White House

WASHINGTON — On the way to Washington, British Prime Minister David Cameron said he wants to talk about Afghanistan, Middle East peace prospects and the global economy.

Everyone else wants to talk about BP...

Just noticed this:

"Cameron's first trip to Washington as prime minister begins Tuesday and is being overshadowed by anger in the United States over BP's spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the British oil giant's alleged involvement in the decision to free Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from jail last year and send him home to Libya."


*clears throat*

:grin:

[Myrddraal]

Perhaps because Afghanistan, Middle East peace prospects and the global economy are important issues which face our national government, but critically sticky and difficult subjects with no easy answers, whereas BP is a nice easy target which doesn't have very much to do with the UK government (if anything). :brood:

If the senators want to score political points, they could do well to score them against each other. No individual senator will benefit greatly from a race to see who can criticise BP, or the British government, but it does have a nasty diplomatic effect.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Perhaps because Afghanistan, Middle East peace prospects and the global economy are important issues which face our national government, but critically sticky and difficult subjects with no easy answers, whereas BP is a nice easy target which doesn't have very much to do with the UK government (if anything). :brood:

If the senators want to score political points, they could do well to score them against each other. No individual senator will benefit greatly from a race to see who can criticise BP, or the British government, but it does have a nasty diplomatic effect.


Hehehe, when it comes to re-election or having to actually work for a living *I hear Wall Street is always looking for a few good weasels* rest assured many politicians of any stripe would throw their grandmother under the bus to serve another term. These are anti-incumbency times, and all the low hanging fruit shall be harvested. Sound and fury signifying nothing, played out before a TV camera, kinda like the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees. Don't let your media coverage upset you too much, it's just business, the dirty business of politics.

[Incongruous]

In the short-term, the UK has very little choice but to continue its close relationship with the U.S. Congressional politics focus on short-term objectives; namely, to get reelected.

Bollocks. The UK could tell the U.S to take a hike and leave it alone in the Middle East, and start using its security council vote to join with Russia and China in pissing on America's attempts to do anything at every turn, the UK could decide to become European again. The "special" relationship is just a massive piss take and the joke is on us.

[Beskar]

Bollocks. The UK could tell the U.S to take a hike and leave it alone in the Middle East, and start using its security council vote to join with Russia and China in pissing on America's attempts to do anything at every turn, the UK could decide to become European again. The "special" relationship is just a massive piss take and the joke is on us.

The "Special-Relationship" is so one sided anyway. We have to bend over for American interests, while they roger our own. Also, by working with Europe, will can work together with common nations such as France and Germany and shape a new destiny.

[Vladimir]

Bollocks. The UK could tell the U.S to take a hike and leave it alone in the Middle East, and start using its security council vote to join with Russia and China in pissing on America's attempts to do anything at every turn, the UK could decide to become European again. The "special" relationship is just a massive piss take and the joke is on us.

:laugh4:

What would the UK gain from joining Russia and China? The Russians already violated British sovereignty by killing a defector in Britain while he was under British protection. What does China care about some cold, wet islands other than to get them out of the way? The UK has done it's best to separate itself from Europe; without the U.S. on their side, they're little better than Spain.


The "Special-Relationship" is so one sided anyway. We have to bend over for American interests, while they roger our own. Also, by working with Europe, will can work together with common nations such as France and Germany and shape a new destiny.

It's clear you have no idea how much we give the UK. I'm just talking about intelligence and defense assistance but we open up areas of the world your country can barely influence any more. For example: Without our support, the Falklands would be the Maldives.

[Beskar]

It's clear you have no idea how much we give the UK. I'm just talking about intelligence and defense assistance but we open up areas of the world your country can barely influence any more. For example: Without our support, the Falklands would be the Maldives.

Erm, nope, you are wrong. America doesn't support us at all in that matter.

[Myrddraal]

They did during the Falklands war, although they remained officially neutral. In the more recent diplomatic disputes the US has been sweet talking the Argentines, whilst trying at the same time to appear neutral. Not the best behaviour you might expect from an ally, though not the worst either...

[Vladimir]

Erm, nope, you are wrong. America doesn't support us at all in that matter.

Wow. You really don't know, do you?

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Vladimir: don't overdo it. It is certainly true that the UK can do little more than throw a few hissy fits when the USA decides to ignore the UK (again). But then again, the exact same applies in reverse -- neither party can make a solid case why the other is little more than ungrateful dead weight in an increasingly awkward relationship. As for the Falklands: the British have more of an army there than Saddam had in the entire Iraq, and I need hardly remind you that within the Near East Iraq was something of a military power to be reckoned with which Argentina is definitely not (in South America, that is).

[Vladimir]

@Vladimir: don't overdo it. It is certainly true that the UK can do little more than throw a few hissy fits when the USA decides to ignore the UK (again). But then again, the exact same applies in reverse -- neither party can make a solid case why the other is little more than ungrateful dead weight in an increasingly awkward relationship. As for the Falklands: the British have more of an army there than Saddam had in the entire Iraq, and I need hardly remind you that within the Near East Iraq was something of a military power to be reckoned with which Argentina is definitely not (in South America, that is).

I apologize if I made anyone feel bad. Some time the nationalists, especially the anti-U.S. ones, need a reminder of how much we need each other. I swell with pride when thinking of our British friends and would gladly serve along side their armed forces.

[Beskar]

Wow. You really don't know, do you?

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110526
Plus the recent trip by Hiliary Clinton on the matter, etc.


I swell with pride when thinking of our British friends and would gladly serve along side their armed forces.

Ours aren't so cheery, they know an American will shoot them in a friendly fire incident.

[Myrddraal]

Note: Beskar (hereafter referred to as "the above poster") does not represent the views or opinions of the British government, British Armed Services, or the British people. I wish to distance myself from the position of the above poster. American soldiers and British soldiers have successfully worked together in many fields and the unfortunate incidents of friendly fire are much more rare than the media makes them out to be.

Having said all that, there is a strong feeling over here that the US is somewhat abusing the "special relationship". Lets just look at the recent extradition case as an example. Compare and contrast the process for extradition from the UK to the US with the process for extradition from the US to the UK and you'll see quite an imbalance. The US appears to favour strong links which benefit them, but want to give a minimum in return, and know they have the muscle to get away with it.

[tibilicus]

It's clear you have no idea how much we give the UK. I'm just talking about intelligence and defense assistance but we open up areas of the world your country can barely influence any more. For example: Without our support, the Falklands would be the Maldives.

You are aware the Americans initially denied us access to our own sovereign air base on Ascension Island? Yes, because we let you share the airfield, you initially wouldn't allow our own planes to take off from a dependency of the UK. Besides, you only helped us because Ronnie and Maggie got along. I wouldn't bet on the same outcome happening if such an incident was to happen again. In fact, the nation backing us strongly during the Falklands conflict was France I believe. I'm pretty certain they sent some jets over here so our jets could practice dog fighting with their jets in the highlands.

Also, the way in which the US uses UK bases is also unfair when you consider the extensive, none-restricted use of our air bases in comparison to the little use we get of US bases. Beskar also raises a valuable point, the way in which foreign relations work within Europe is much more communal than our relationship with the US and I believe we could benefit from it. I think it's much more desirable that we ditch the coattails of the US and instead work with Europe to build a common European foreign policy, distinct from that of the US. We would probably actually have more leverage in such an arrangement. It isn't even about being pro or anti-European. I have my reservations about an integrated Europe, but that doesn't mean I oppose further cooperation in the foreign policy area. Unfortunately, some Euro-sceptics have a fear of anything Europe and would much rather see the lackey relationship continue, at the expense of our national dignity.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the US as a country, I just think the special relationship is redundant. The world is a very different place from when the "special" relationship was first struck. I think we should change with the times and not hold onto the past. Inevitability, as Britain's position in the world has declined, so has our position in the relationship. In particular, recent events have smeared our national dignity, at least in my opinion.

[tibilicus]

Double post..

[Furunculus]

In the short-term, the UK has very little choice but to continue its close relationship with the U.S. Congressional politics focus on short-term objectives; namely, to get reelected.

wrong, is america family or not?

if their politicking leads to the distrucxtion to BP and consequently the knackering of British pension funds then we are entitled to say the US is not treating us as family, so the return will be reciprocal.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Having said all that, there is a strong feeling over here that the US is somewhat abusing the "special relationship". Lets just look at the recent extradition case as an example. Compare and contrast the process for extradition from the UK to the US with the process for extradition from the US to the UK and you'll see quite an imbalance. The US appears to favour strong links which benefit them, but want to give a minimum in return, and know they have the muscle to get away with it.

My impression is that most countries do that if they can. How does england treat other countries besides the US?

[Incongruous]

:laugh4:

What would the UK gain from joining Russia and China? The Russians already violated British sovereignty by killing a defector in Britain while he was under British protection. What does China care about some cold, wet islands other than to get them out of the way? The UK has done it's best to separate itself from Europe; without the U.S. on their side, they're little better than Spain.


Joining with Russia and China? I said joining in with them by also voting down anything the U.S proposes, I expect France could be persuaded to do the same if it would increase the chances of EU intergration, don't be so god damned arrogant.
I don't care what China thinks of us, that's not the issue. If the U.S lost the support of the UK, what major allies would it have left? The EU suffers from absurd amounts of hubris alot of the time and I expect it would love to supprt the U.K in giving the middle finger to America, kicking you off our collective military bases and such. Ace! Then we can all leave NATO and leave you guys nice and isolated in the Middle East and wherever else you touch down with boots. Oh! Then we can start backing the Palestinians and gain precious diplomatic relations with our Middle Eastern neighbours.

We would be better off without this "special" relationship.

[Tellos Athenaios]

My impression is that most countries do that if they can. How does england treat other countries besides the US?

Well exactly the same. The UK isn't a shining light of tireless and selfless work of benevolence towards all humankind, peace upon the world and happiness for all, so on and so forth. I don't think that is quite the problem they (the British posters commenting in this thread) are pointing out. I think the real problem that they see, is not unlike something that is (now less due to domestic preoccupations) seen in the Netherlands as well: public isn't quite so convinced that we need the USA that bad. Not bad enough to put up with the semi-regular embarrassments that come our way from having the relationship, that is.

[Myrddraal]

My impression is that most countries do that if they can. How does england treat other countries besides the US?

Well for starters our extradition treaties with other countries are a little more... fair? But that's besides the point, I thought this was supposed to be a 'special' relationship, with both President and Prime Minister saying "We do thinks together". More often than not, you could rephrase that as "We do things for America".

This topic is straying from BP, but this is all relevant. What you are seeing is the expression of a growing sentiment in the UK that the US will piss all over us at the drop of a hat, and that the political attacks on BP, which have definitely gone beyond reasonable, are just another sign of that attitude in the US. If senators think that making accusations of our government and Prime Minister is fair game for political capital, then it betrays a certain arrogance with regards to the special relationship.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well for starters our extradition treaties with other countries are a little more... fair? But that's besides the point, I thought this was supposed to be a 'special' relationship, with both President and Prime Minister saying "We do thinks together". More often than not, you could rephrase that as "We do things for America".

This topic is straying from BP, but this is all relevant. What you are seeing is the expression of a growing sentiment in the UK that the US will piss all over us at the drop of a hat, and that the political attacks on BP, which have definitely gone beyond reasonable, are just another sign of that attitude in the US. If senators think that making accusations of our government and Prime Minister is fair game for political capital, then it betrays a certain arrogance with regards to the special relationship.

Well, I don't follow international relations much, but I can't think of a foreign country that I would expect to help us out. Sometimes we have mutual interests, sometimes our beliefs coincide.

I've only ever heard british people talk about the "special relationship". To me it sounds like "america is violating the special relationship" is your politicians equivalent of "britain to blame for bp" i.e. it's something they say to gain political capital in a "we britons won't be bossed around by arrogant americans" sort of way.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Dear oh dear.

Once again, they show themselves to be most unreliable friends. You've treated them so well for all this time, spilled blood for them, and then they give you this, nothing but scorn, in return? When they need you, they are full of talk about being family and blood brothers, but whenever push comes to shove they put their own interests first. As has often been noted before, in the end they simply only care about their own interest, their own wallet.

Most ungrateful, very deplorable behaviour.

Know though, that France supports your side, and that our support is with you, with our good overseas friends.

[Brenus]

"Know though, that France supports your side, and that our support is with you, with our good overseas friends."
Well said, watever the sea...
Louis, do you think about becoming a politician?

[Vladimir]

"Know though, that France supports your side, and that our support is with you, with our good overseas friends."
Well said, watever the sea...
Louis, do you think about becoming a politician?

Louis is actually a DGSE committee who's mission is to expand French influence through internet-based information operations.

And it's working! :france:

[Beskar]

I've only ever heard british people talk about the "special relationship". To me it sounds like "america is violating the special relationship" is your politicians equivalent of "britain to blame for bp" i.e. it's something they say to gain political capital in a "we britons won't be bossed around by arrogant americans" sort of way.

Completely the opposite. David Cameron is dropping his pants as we speak. The politicans suck up to America as if it was the breast of the Virgin Mary herself. It is just the populace is fed-up of them doing it, and thus attack it, saying "If our relationship is so special, how come it is only one-way?", etc.

What is even more amusing, your post pretty much hits it on the head. You don't even recognise there is a special-relationship and just some political mumbo-jumbo and you wonder why British posters might derail a 'special relationship' where America screws everyone over for its own interests, with zero interest in any of ours, then we get repeatedly told "protect the special relationship! protect the special relationship!". They can stick the special relationship where it doesn't shine, as it costs us far more than it is worth.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Completely the opposite. David Cameron is dropping his pants as we speak. The politicans suck up to America as if it was the breast of the Virgin Mary herself. It is just the populace is fed-up of them doing it, and thus attack it, saying "If our relationship is so special, how come it is only one-way?", etc.

That's not how it was in "love actually" beskar.



What is even more amusing, your post pretty much hits it on the head. You don't even recognise there is a special-relationship and just some political mumbo-jumbo and you wonder why British posters might derail a 'special relationship' where America screws everyone over for its own interests, with zero interest in any of ours, then we get repeatedly told "protect the special relationship! protect the special relationship!". They can stick the special relationship where it doesn't shine, as it costs us far more than it is worth.


Yeah, but we aren't telling you "protect the special relationship". That's just the excuse your politicians have for why they go along with our plans and stuff. And that's just regular diplomacy, countries look out for their own interests.

[Vladimir]

Another example of the lesser role the UK plays in the "special relationship", the evils of lend-lease, and the Marshal plan: http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/season-15-ep4-outtake-jamess-motorhome-guided-tour-

No doubt Beskar's furious.

[rory_20_uk]

Completely the opposite. David Cameron is dropping his pants as we speak. The politicans suck up to America as if it was the breast of the Virgin Mary herself. It is just the populace is fed-up of them doing it, and thus attack it, saying "If our relationship is so special, how come it is only one-way?", etc.

What is even more amusing, your post pretty much hits it on the head. You don't even recognise there is a special-relationship and just some political mumbo-jumbo and you wonder why British posters might derail a 'special relationship' where America screws everyone over for its own interests, with zero interest in any of ours, then we get repeatedly told "protect the special relationship! protect the special relationship!". They can stick the special relationship where it doesn't shine, as it costs us far more than it is worth.

But those who do insert themselves far enough up the Presidential rectum can then join the American Lecture Circuit a la Blair and rake in a vast fortune, when they aren't off on an expenses-paid jaunt elsewhere.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

But those who do insert themselves far enough up the Presidential rectum can then join the American Lecture Circuit a la Blair and rake in a vast fortune, when they aren't off on an expenses-paid jaunt elsewhere.

~:smoking:

Indeed, unfortunately.

[Furunculus]

Joining with Russia and China? I said joining in with them by also voting down anything the U.S proposes, I expect France could be persuaded to do the same if it would increase the chances of EU intergration, don't be so god damned arrogant.
I don't care what China thinks of us, that's not the issue. If the U.S lost the support of the UK, what major allies would it have left? The EU suffers from absurd amounts of hubris alot of the time and I expect it would love to supprt the U.K in giving the middle finger to America, kicking you off our collective military bases and such. Ace! Then we can all leave NATO and leave you guys nice and isolated in the Middle East and wherever else you touch down with boots. Oh! Then we can start backing the Palestinians and gain precious diplomatic relations with our Middle Eastern neighbours.

We would be better off without this "special" relationship.

that might be a position you would support, but it certainly doesn't get my vote.

[rvg]

I don't get it. Britain is more than just an ally, Britain is our friend, and we do respect it and back it up regardless of who happens to be running the show at the 10, Downing St . Why throw away such a good relationship?

[Vladimir]

I don't get it. Britain is more than just an ally, Britain is our friend, and we do respect it and back it up regardless of who happens to be running the show at the 10, Downing St . Why throw away such a good relationship?

You've stumbled into his argument: The relationship is only good for the U.S.

[Incongruous]

that might be a position you would support, but it certainly doesn't get my vote.

Yes I expect you would vomit if that showed up in the news, fair enough, however it does highlight that we are not without other options.


I don't get it. Britain is more than just an ally, Britain is our friend, and we do respect it and back it up regardless of who happens to be running the show at the 10, Downing St . Why throw away such a good relationship?

Im afraid old boy that you are rather behind on your history.

[rvg]

Im afraid old boy that you are rather behind on your history.

As far as I remember, we've had a good relationship ever since Queen Victoria's death.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is not that we in the USA do not value Britain's friendship. We do, we have, and we will continue to do so. Unfortunately, when a relationship lasts for a time it tends to fall into predictable patterns and it is far to easy for one or both partners to take the other for granted. I think it's pretty clear that some of that has been going on.

[Hosakawa Tito]

It is not that we in the USA do not value Britain's friendship. We do, we have, and we will continue to do so. Unfortunately, when a relationship lasts for a time it tends to fall into predictable patterns and it is far to easy for one or both partners to take the other for granted. I think it's pretty clear that some of that has been going on.

It's been like this ever since Monty Python went off the air.~;)

[Incongruous]

As far as I remember, we've had a good relationship ever since Queen Victoria's death.

I expect you mean as far as you have read, and if that really is the case then you must have pushed certain historical facts to the back of your mind.
I don't place the U.S' treatment of Britain and the other old European powers onto a pedestal of complete evil as some may, but simply as the acts of a great power attemptimng to give itself hegemony over them. Mass media and sentiment and denial have allowed some to construct the nice warm fantasy of the "special" relationship. But it is just that, fantasy, the ones to blame here are not the Americans, who act like any other hegemonic nation, but we the British who have become so stupid and slow that we actually imbue PR stunt (i.e the special relationship) with some kind of real value.

For a start, we love Churchill, the man who invented the "special" relationship, who also happened to be the man who was a military incompetent and who as prime minister lead us into an unecessary war which we were not ready for. Then, due to his inhereted fascination with America, we had to nod politely when Roosevelt stupidly took Stalin for good guy.

If the relationship was special, the U.S would have demanded that the great titans of German industry who had helped fuel the Nazi war machine, were torn apart and distributed amongst the Western Allies, they would have scrapped the debt we owed them and they would have suppoerted us in the Suez crisis. None of this happened, fair enough as I can understand the reality of the relationship.

It is time we stopped this nonsense.

[Beskar]

If the relationship was special, the U.S would have demanded that the great titans of German industry who had helped fuel the Nazi war machine, were torn apart and distributed amongst the Western Allies, they would have scrapped the debt we owed them and they would have suppoerted us in the Suez crisis. None of this happened, fair enough as I can understand the reality of the relationship.

Indeed, they built up Germany and Japan and left us to rot.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Indeed, they built up Germany and Japan and left us to rot.

The UK got a quarter of the marshall plan money, according to wiki.

[Incongruous]

Indeed, they built up Germany and Japan and left us to rot.

No, they did not, we got alot of money which meant unfortunately that the Labour government got alot of money. You may see how this was a bad thing.
To be sure the Americans have often acted to ensure their own economic well being even if it meant the end of ours, I seem to remeber some jet planes...
But that, for me at least, is to be expected.

The problem I have, is with us and our government, who keep applying the face paint long after the play has eneded. Germany and France have grown up, we should too.

[Furunculus]

all this bombast and synthetic outrage rather misses the point, nations have interests and the special relationship never meant the the US/UK had only one set of interests, today it is a reflection of the truly titanic amount of data-sharing in the spheres of defence/technology/intelligence, a sharing that only happens because both partners trust the other.

there is nothing immature about this sharing, and claiming that france and germany have grown up rather ignores the fact that they never had this trust, and thus never had the sharing.

[Husar]

there is nothing immature about this sharing, and claiming that france and germany have grown up rather ignores the fact that they never had this trust, and thus never had the sharing.

I don't know about data sharing because I don't work in law enforcement or intelligence but we even allow police cars to cross the (unsecured) borders in pursuit of criminals. I hear you guys even quarantine harmless pets because you don't trust them. :no:
France and Germany have a long history of trust toward eachother, we were the same country for several periods of history as well, your shameless propaganda won't change that.
I'd like to know more about this sharing though, what data is it that they share except the presidential outlook calendars? AFAIK most of the western world shares data about terrorists and big criminals anyway, I can't think of anything outstanding in terms of military hardware that Britain has put out because of information sharing with the USA, but then I'm not a military expert and hardly have any insight into such things. So please enlighten me about that special information sharing, what's it all about?

[Furunculus]

I don't know about data sharing because I don't work in law enforcement or intelligence but we even allow police cars to cross the (unsecured) borders in pursuit of criminals. I hear you guys even quarantine harmless pets because you don't trust them. :no:
France and Germany have a long history of trust toward eachother, we were the same country for several periods of history as well, your shameless propaganda won't change that.
my point was that france and germany never had this relationship with the US, but it may not have been clear. as to your point about sharing between france and germany............ lovely, but how does that compare with america which spends ~£40 billion on intelligence gathering when France and Germany each spend about £1-2 billion, the former is obviously the more useful partner.


I'd like to know more about this sharing though, what data is it that they share except the presidential outlook calendars? AFAIK most of the western world shares data about terrorists and big criminals anyway, I can't think of anything outstanding in terms of military hardware that Britain has put out because of information sharing with the USA, but then I'm not a military expert and hardly have any insight into such things. So please enlighten me about that special information sharing, what's it all about?

try here:
http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/cerwp4.pdf

and here:
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1462

oh, and here too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship

and here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4514938/Intelligence-sharing-between-Britain-and-the-United-States-dates-back-to-First-World-War.html

here too:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7661

oops, and here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/baker.html

let me know if you need some more........................?

[Beskar]

From Wikipedia article posted:

Friendly fire

More British servicemen were killed in the 1991 Gulf War by US fire than by Iraqi soldiers.[210] A public controversy arose after US military authorities refused to allow USAF pilots to give evidence at a 1992 British inquest into the deaths of nine British soldiers killed in a US air strike, saying they had already supplied all the relevant information.[211] The inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Families of those killed accused the United States of 'double standards' after three US military officers were reprimanded for negligence after a separate incident involving the similar death of a US soldier. Tammy Groves, solicitor for the families, said: 'We have been denied any inquiry in the US; there have been no reprimands; and the pilots have not been named. The contrast could not be greater.'[212] Anne Leech, whose son was one of the British soldiers killed, said: 'They are supposed to be a friendly country, but it shows it only goes as far as they want it to ... Unless people are made accountable for what they do in these situations it will continue to happen.'[213]

President George H. W. Bush responded: 'My heart goes out to their families. But I see no reason in going beyond what we've already done to fully account for this terrible tragedy of war.'[211] Peter Atkinson, whose son was also killed, said: 'We met George Bush. He was trying to slide out of meeting us so I ran after him, collared him and told him what I thought. He said to me "You want the facts? ... Right, you'll get them." Months later they sent us a report. It was rubbish. All the relevant details had been censored out.'[214]

Further friendly fire incidents in the 2003 Iraq War brought assurances from officers and politicians that they would not hurt the close alliance: 'A situation like this does not mean anything of harm to the coalition, but in many ways it brings us closer together,' said RAF Group Captain Jon Fynes.[215] However the US government again refused to co-operate with the coroner’s investigations. This culminated in the United States attempting to prevent the release of cockpit videos—later leaked to The Sun—showing events leading to the death of Lance-Corporal Matty Hull of the Household Cavalry, and threatening newspapers that published them with prosecution.[216] The coroner slammed US 'intransigence', and the British press accused the Pentagon of operating 'in a no-fault zone', with the Daily Telegraph commenting: 'This will reaffirm the view of many in the British military that while the US has the best kit, it does not necessarily have the best training ... Uninhibited by the risk of any sanction, is it any wonder that they go about their lethal business with such apparent insouciance?'[217] The Spectator described the British forbearance towards American evasiveness as "a bleak parable of the flaws at the heart of the U.S.-U.K. 'special relationship'."[218]

[Furunculus]

is this relevant............?:inquisitive:

[Lemur]

I'm thinking this thread should be locked, and a new one about the British/U.S.A. alliance started in its stead. We haven't been talking about the spill in the gulf for a few pages now ...

[Banquo's Ghost]

I tend to agree.

However, one last push to get back on track.

Tony Hayward is to stand down as CEO of BP (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10757751) (with a £10m pension, poor baby) in favour of an American. Will an accent really make all that difference?

[rory_20_uk]

I imagine it will. Any American will be better, but a WASP will not be as good as having one of the inbreds from the Bush family heading it (a good ol' Southern Gent).

People trust those with similar accents / cultures as they have and are less likely to beat them up than a perceived foreigner.

The last person got closer to £40 million to leave. This one was a snip...

~:smoking:

[drone]

I imagine it will. Any American will be better, but a WASP will not be as good as having one of the inbreds from the Bush family heading it (a good ol' Southern Gent).
Sooooo much wrong with this statement... :no:

[Hosakawa Tito]

I tend to agree.

However, one last push to get back on track.

Tony Hayward is to stand down as CEO of BP (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10757751) (with a £10m pension, poor baby) in favour of an American. Will an accent really make all that difference?

Appearances and perceptions do matter, but to what degree...who knows? I would think that what matters to the public now is the success of the relief well and the speed and effectiveness of the payment of damages to the affected locals.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it takes an average of 13 dead Americans to bring down a BP CEO. With a golden parachute, of course.

At least they finally stopped the gushing oil.

CR

[Tellos Athenaios]

So you're saying what exactly? Any ideas of how many dead Nigerians it would take to get a Shell CEO? Or how many dead Americans it takes to put pressure on Halliburton? How many Americans would have to be evicted from their homes before Deutsche Bank will be stopped from fore-closing every single mortgage in their American properties?

If you are finally coming to see that large faceless companies are not the works of good and charity and that they will generally speaking do nothing if it does not benefit them and certainly not take their responsibility if they can get away without: why, are you actually surprised?

[Beskar]

If you are finally coming to see that large faceless companies are not the works of good and charity and that they will generally speaking do nothing if it does not benefit them and certainly not take their responsibility if they can get away without: why, are you actually surprised?

I have to admit, I am surprised at Crazed Rabbit. It seems that he is forgetting that is speaking about his beloved Free Market. Talking about tying down corporations to regulation, accountability and restrictions. How can such a corporation be free to exploit, if it wasn't for that pesky red-tape and that thing called human rights? Bah humbug. Where is the praise of how the CEO of BP must an awesome individual because he gets a massive pay check (which should be tax-free, because it is well earned) and anyone who says otherwise is just a jealous, lazy, simpleton.

[tibilicus]

Is the fact that 16 Americans died more significant in comparison to to other industrial disasters. Tell me, did those responsible for Bhopal or anyone outside India care about the thousands which died and the thousands which still continue to die as a consequence? We should all be so lucky that we don't live in the third world, then people wouldn't even care if the death toll was being continuously counted. I mean no disrespect to those people who died on the rig, but lets be quite clear here, Tony Haywood wasn't directly responsible for their deaths. Untied Carbine India on the other hand, that old American company however probably does have blood on its hands.


You should feel glad the Louisiana fishermen will get a pay out, do you think those affected by Bhopal will see anything from the pathetic sum paid out to them. If memory serves me correct, its a minuscule fraction of the BP pay out. But hey, you do it because you can. Ahhhh, the American hypocrisy. So long as it effects us, may the whole world look on at our rage. If it affects anyone else, possibly designate some media coverage.

[Lemur]

tibilicus, you seem to be offended that Americans pay more attention to things that happen to them than things that happen to other people. It sounds as though you think this is a special awfulness that afflicts Americans, rather than, you know, a constant of the human condition.

Let's try on a hypothetical for fun: Would you pay more attention to a fire you read about in Sri Lanka, or a fire that starts in your living room? Would you be a "hypocrite" for paying greater attention to the fire that burned your home?

I swear, sometimes it seems as though folks get worked up about how Americans aren't a special race of super-empathetic Zen saints who defy human nature to beam justice and perfection to every corner of the globe.

Yes, we're paying greater attention to the Gulf spill than we paid to Bhopal, although that also made massive headlines in its day. We're also paying more attention the to Gulf spill than we paid to the Belgian genocide in the Congo. Go figure.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is the fact that 16 Americans died more significant in comparison to to other industrial disasters. Tell me, did those responsible for Bhopal or anyone outside India care about the thousands which died and the thousands which still continue to die as a consequence? We should all be so lucky that we don't live in the third world, then people wouldn't even care if the death toll was being continuously counted. I mean no disrespect to those people who died on the rig, but lets be quite clear here, Tony Haywood wasn't directly responsible for their deaths. Untied Carbine India on the other hand, that old American company however probably does have blood on its hands.

You should feel glad the Louisiana fishermen will get a pay out, do you think those affected by Bhopal will see anything from the pathetic sum paid out to them. If memory serves me correct, its a minuscule fraction of the BP pay out. But hey, you do it because you can. Ahhhh, the American hypocrisy. So long as it effects us, may the whole world look on at our rage. If it affects anyone else, possibly designate some media coverage.

What the **** man? Am I some sort of jerk for not mentioning every other disaster in the world when I mention something that's happened to Americans? And blame the Indian government for settling for such a small sum.


If you are finally coming to see that large faceless companies are not the works of good and charity

I never said they were, and never believed they were.


I have to admit, I am surprised at Crazed Rabbit.

Of course you are. You don't comprehend my positions at all. You don't use strawman arguments just for debate; you seem to believe other people are embodied by such strawman characterizations.

CR

[drone]

Is the fact that 16 Americans died more significant in comparison to to other industrial disasters. Tell me, did those responsible for Bhopal or anyone outside India care about the thousands which died and the thousands which still continue to die as a consequence? We should all be so lucky that we don't live in the third world, then people wouldn't even care if the death toll was being continuously counted. I mean no disrespect to those people who died on the rig, but lets be quite clear here, Tony Haywood wasn't directly responsible for their deaths. Untied Carbine India on the other hand, that old American company however probably does have blood on its hands.
Union Carbide India Limited was 49.1% owned by the Indian government and investors, 50.9% owned by Union Carbide. Has the US issued an arrest warrant for Haywood yet? Do we know that his corporate leadership and policies were responsible for Deepwater Horizon, any more than Warren Anderson's were for Bhopal? The Bhopal plant had a bad safety history, BP has a bad safety history.

You should feel glad the Louisiana fishermen will get a pay out, do you think those affected by Bhopal will see anything from the pathetic sum paid out to them. If memory serves me correct, its a minuscule fraction of the BP pay out. But hey, you do it because you can. Ahhhh, the American hypocrisy. So long as it effects us, may the whole world look on at our rage. If it affects anyone else, possibly designate some media coverage.
$470 million, paid in full in 1989. Adjust for inflation as necessary. The Indian government asked for more originally (~10x), but settled instead. Maybe they didn't want to sue themselves. :shrug:

[tibilicus]

Your missing the point. What I was trying to illustrate that in terms of "disasters", this disaster isn't as significant as the press would have everyone believed. That the saga has dragged on so long is fuelled by a political issue, not an environmental one. On one of the news programmes here, one Louisiana environmentalist (don't have the source right now but I'm sure I could find it if some one requests it) even went so far as to add that the spill is not greatly worse than the Exxon Valdez oil spill, in terms of potential long term effects at least. You can disagree with this point if you like but the point is this isn't an environmental issue any more, its a political one. The current US administration is using to save its own hide and the mid-term elections mean its an easy issue for any US Congressmen to focus on to hide their own failings.

Oh, and in regards to Bhopal, do you think the Indian government really wanted to settle for a small sum, or do you think external pressure "persuaded" them? Does BP also deserve no credit for what has been an unprecedented clean up effort, never before seen?

[Furunculus]

I have to admit, I am surprised at Crazed Rabbit. It seems that he is forgetting that is speaking about his beloved Free Market. Talking about tying down corporations to regulation, accountability and restrictions. How can such a corporation be free to exploit, if it wasn't for that pesky red-tape and that thing called human rights? Bah humbug. Where is the praise of how the CEO of BP must an awesome individual because he gets a massive pay check (which should be tax-free, because it is well earned) and anyone who says otherwise is just a jealous, lazy, simpleton.
whole string of straw men there, but just so we're clear, i as a free-market enthusiast am absolutely in favour in rich people paying tax, just not a dispproportionate proportion more than any other tax-payer.

[drone]

Your missing the point. What I was trying to illustrate that in terms of "disasters", this disaster isn't as significant as the press would have everyone believed. That the saga has dragged on so long is fuelled by a political issue, not an environmental one.
The saga has drug on so long because, until July 15th, oil was continuing to pour into the Gulf. With Bhopal and Valdez, the spillage was stopped fairly quickly, DH had been spewing for almost 3 months. We have short attention spans, now that the well is capped I'm sure it will drop from the front pages soon. I hear Miss Lohan's fellow inmates don't like her, if she gets shivved we'll never see the underwater cams and tarballs on TV again. By the way, BP are expected to post a cool $4 billion in profit this quarter. :2thumbsup:

Oh, and in regards to Bhopal, do you think the Indian government really wanted to settle for a small sum, or do you think external pressure "persuaded" them?
The Indian government passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Act, which meant they were responsible for legal action against Union Carbide and UCIL. No private lawsuits or settlements could be brought. A US District court (backed by the Appeals Court) gave Indian courts jurisdiction over the case. UC/UCIL offered $370 million, India took it (with interest) after hemming and hawing about $3.3 billion. You would think the final result would be somewhere in the middle, that is what bargaining is all about. The Indian government failed it's people. What external pressure persuaded them otherwise?

[Husar]

I swear, sometimes it seems as though folks get worked up about how Americans aren't a special race of super-empathetic Zen saints who defy human nature to beam justice and perfection to every corner of the globe.

B...But Hollywood told me that's exactly what you are!?! :dizzy2:

[Incongruous]

tibilicus, you seem to be offended that Americans pay more attention to things that happen to them than things that happen to other people. It sounds as though you think this is a special awfulness that afflicts Americans, rather than, you know, a constant of the human condition.

Let's try on a hypothetical for fun: Would you pay more attention to a fire you read about in Sri Lanka, or a fire that starts in your living room? Would you be a "hypocrite" for paying greater attention to the fire that burned your home?

I swear, sometimes it seems as though folks get worked up about how Americans aren't a special race of super-empathetic Zen saints who defy human nature to beam justice and perfection to every corner of the globe.

Yes, we're paying greater attention to the Gulf spill than we paid to Bhopal, although that also made massive headlines in its day. We're also paying more attention the to Gulf spill than we paid to the Belgian genocide in the Congo. Go figure.

When your nation's leader is declared leader of the free world and you pump out propaganda about how you wisah to bring freedom, justice and the American way to the world YOU ARE SETTING YOURSELF UP.

[Vladimir]

When your nation's leader is declared leader of the free world and you pump out propaganda about how you wisah to bring freedom, justice and the American way to the world YOU ARE SETTING YOURSELF UP.

We are the leader of the free world. The problem is with one's perception of what exactly that means.

Criticism is welcome but it's up to the individual to manage their own expectations.

[Husar]

When your nation's leader is declared leader of the free world and you pump out propaganda about how you wisah to bring freedom, justice and the American way to the world YOU ARE SETTING YOURSELF UP.

Isn't that rape by deception? :dizzy2:

[rory_20_uk]

We are the leader of the free world. The problem is with one's perception of what exactly that means.

Criticism is welcome but it's up to the individual to manage their own expectations.

So, you're saying that as long as "leader of the free world" can mean anything, what's the point of bothering with the epithet if anyone can use it?

If a more usual description of "leader of the free world" is used then as bopa the Magyar states, one is setting up their actions to be reviewed in this light.

"Happily" America tends to view their wants and needs the same as the world's and so whatever they do is by definition the right thing and anyone who says otherwise / provides evidence otherwise is, to put it mildly, wrong.

~:smoking:

[rvg]

"Happily" America tends to view their wants and needs the same as the world's and so whatever they do is by definition the right thing and anyone who says otherwise / provides evidence otherwise is, to put it mildly, wrong.

Do you have a particular grievance with the U.S. that you would like to discuss?

[Incongruous]

We are the leader of the free world. The problem is with one's perception of what exactly that means.

Criticism is welcome but it's up to the individual to manage their own expectations.

There you go.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The saga has drug on so long because, until July 15th, oil was continuing to pour into the Gulf. With Bhopal and Valdez, the spillage was stopped fairly quickly, DH had been spewing for almost 3 months. We have short attention spans, now that the well is capped I'm sure it will drop from the front pages soon. I hear Miss Lohan's fellow inmates don't like her, if she gets shivved we'll never see the underwater cams and tarballs on TV again. By the way, BP are expected to post a cool $4 billion in profit this quarter. :2thumbsup:...

Drone:

$4B represents a more or less normal quarterly profit for BP. GOOD quarters exceed $5B and Great quarters can slip past $6B. By contrast, they LOST $17B in the 2nd quarter of 2010. While their long-term financial prognosis is excellent, they have taken it on the teeth recently. Moroever, the USG is not done extracting its "pound of flesh" and will not be until sometime in 2011. This will sap their profitability by some margin for a while yet. As a stock, it would be a pretty good buy and hold choice right now.

[Beskar]

So, you're saying that as long as "leader of the free world" can mean anything, what's the point of bothering with the epithet if anyone can use it?

I like self-appointed titles, I am going to appoint myself "Lord Master of the Universe, Slayer of the Crazed Rabbits, Befriender of the Lous VI the Fat"

[drone]

$4B represents a more or less normal quarterly profit for BP. GOOD quarters exceed $5B and Great quarters can slip past $6B. By contrast, they LOST $17B in the 2nd quarter of 2010. While their long-term financial prognosis is excellent, they have taken it on the teeth recently. Moroever, the USG is not done extracting its "pound of flesh" and will not be until sometime in 2011. This will sap their profitability by some margin for a while yet. As a stock, it would be a pretty good buy and hold choice right now.
I wasn't sure how they would apply the penalty in the accounting when I posted. I see now that they made $5 billion profit excluding the $32 billion charge, which was up from last year. I see they took the $32billion pre-tax, sticking it to the man!

[Vladimir]

I like self-appointed titles, I am going to appoint myself "Lord Master of the Universe, Slayer of the Crazed Rabbits, Befriender of the Lous VI the Fat"

I prefer the title "Emperor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

[Husar]

We are the leader of the free world. The problem is with one's perception of what exactly that means.

Criticism is welcome but it's up to the individual to manage their own expectations.

You're not going to scare me, ever since Russia saved you from annihilation in WW2 you've just been jealous of their might.
It's only a matter of time until you succumb and import cheap military hardware from China which will be downgraded of course since you don't have a "special relationship".
Only a matter of time until Deutsche Bank has foreclosed enough houses to make NYC look like Rio de Janeiro as well.
And you call yourselves leaders of the free world? Pfah! Illusions!

[Myrddraal]

BP's Record-Breaking Loss (http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/27/bp-posts-record-loss-marketnewsvideo.html)


Troubled oil giant BP announced second-quarter earnings and at first glance, the numbers were not pretty. The company reported a loss of $17 billion for the second quarter after recording a charge of $32.2 billion related to costs related to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Digging a little deeper into the earnings report, however, we found that revenues were strong in the second quarter, climbing 34%.


BP reports record loss of $17.1 billion (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bp-oxy-20100728,0,4811435.story)


As it posted a record $17.1-billion loss stemming from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, British giant BP moved quickly to change management, propose the sale of up to $30 billion in assets and refocus the company on its core businesses.

[drone]

I see they took the $32billion pre-tax, sticking it to the man!
Senator demands probe of BP tax break (http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/29/news/companies/bp_to_take_tax_cut_for_spill/index.htm?hpt=T2)

Two days after BP said it will write off the cost of the oil spill cleanup against its income taxes, a U.S. senator is calling for a Congressional probe into the company's tax plans.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. sent a letter to the Senate Finance Committee Thursday, requesting a series of hearings on the matter and calling BP's plans to take a tax write-off "unacceptable."

On Tuesday, BP said it took a $32 billion charge in the second quarter for clean-up costs, resulting in tax savings of about $10 billion.

That's half the value of the $20 billion fund that BP set up to aid Gulf coast victims, Nelson pointed out.

BP announced the charge along with its second quarter earnings, saying the cleanup costs were the main reason for its $17 billion loss during the quarter.

BP spokesman Daren Beaudo, in an email to CNN, said the company is following U.S. tax code in taking the charge.

"Taxes are paid on profits and the Gulf of Mexico spill response costs have reduced BP's US profits -- so it follows that our tax obligations will be lower as well," he said.

In admonishing the oil giant for its tax plans, Nelson also pointed out that Goldman Sachs has said it will forgo any tax deduction for the $535 million it will pay in penalties in its settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

:laugh4:

[Vladimir]

Revived, just for this bit of humor:


In the 193-page report, the British company describes the incident as an accident that arose from a complex and interlinked series of mechanical failures, human judgments, engineering design, operational implementation and team interfaces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39046088/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001

Or is is humour?

[Lemur]

We should just go back to calling them the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. That would irritate everybody.

[Beskar]

We should just go back to calling them the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. That would irritate everybody.

It would make the American news broadcasters say it was a British and Iranian terrorist plot against America. :yes: