Printable View
I actually believe that cutting the dividend is not meant as "punishment" for BP (this would indeed be silly), but as a means to pay for the damage. Instead of distributing profits among shareholders these profits should be used to pay for the damage - sounds fair to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
This is certainly not about BP cutting the dividend instead of paying for the damage - this would not make any sense (and I am not sure what makes you think that this would be an option)
Most of the cutting dividend talk was simply that, to cut it. Which is obviously stupid and only hurts the taxpayers and investment into projects such as pensions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Now, redistributing the dividend is another thing.
Actually it was pretty clear that the purpose of cutting the dividend would be to set aside cash to pay for the damage. This is mentioned in pretty much every news report on the topc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Just one randon example
Quote:
BP directors will meet on Monday to discuss whether to suspend dividends to shareholders, the BBC has learned.
Executives will then meet US President Barack Obama on Wednesday, but no announcement on the payments is expected in the near future.
BP has been under intense pressure from the US government, which wants BP to use the money to pay for the Gulf of Mexico clean-up.
Corporate profit can be spent in two ways, corporate reinvestment or dividends. Lower the profit, and one or both of these two get reduced. The cost of the cleanup and potential lawsuits will lower the company's profit. From a political standpoint, BP will need to upgrade equipment and procedures to comply (or at least appear to comply) with regulations. The amount of money available for dividend payouts will therefore be reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
And BP shareholders have not had 40% losses on their stocks. If a shareholder held 100 shares of BP stock before the leak, they still hold 100 shares of BP stock. They only lost money if they sold their shares, in which case they are no longer shareholders and are just idiots.
So...Time to buy then?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Yes, for the longer term, most certainly. Not if you're a skittish market player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
BP is an excellent company with good infrastructure and reserves but a short term problem. At the very worst, it will soon be the subject of a bid from the Chinese. Either way, there's a very good argument for buying now or soon at the bottom of the graph.
President Obama is going to makemesome people even richer with his aggressive rhetoric directed at the American Oil Company-British Petroleum. :thumbsup:
Indeed. ~D As a whole, BP prints money and should recover from this fairly easily. 2010 Q1 profits were $6 billion. There are 2 items of concern. One, will they take a public relations hit that hurts them through boycotts? Exxon shrugged off Valdez, but the Gulf is more tangible to the general US population. I foresee another name change/rebranding in their future. Two, will they restructure/split to isolate the cleanup and litigation costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
The hottest investment strategy of the last few years has been: Buy Companies You Hate. That is, get BP while you can!
Dilbert Scott ran a very entertaining column about it in the WSJ last week, pretty much summing the mechanism up. Required reading for anybody holding any stock: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...265955016.html
It is not new. It is the curse of capitalism - the incentives are to behave badly. BP has been acting perfectly rational. Unfortunately, acting rationally in the oil market means ruining the world.
There are incentives to play for keeps and increase profit. That's often not appreciated by consumers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Look at Activision. They increased the price of PC games from $50 to $60 because they could. They charge $15 for map bundles for COD:MW2. And they make money.
Now, in terms of oil drilling having the potential for environmental damage, we need to make sure that oil companies will pay for the cleanup and damages. If they can't, hold the executives personally liable, which ought to balance risk and reward properly.
From the little I've read about the rig in the days before it exploded, BP did not consider an explosion a real possibility while justifying going against contractor recommendations for safety equipment. I don't think they were looking rationally at the danger. I consider as well the fact that BP has a history of deadly accidents at their refineries in the US in the past few years. Company wide, they don't seem to properly evaluate risk and weigh safety too lightly against costs.
Oh, and it's Adam Scott, the cartoon is Dilbert. :smug:
CRQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
CR is quoting a typical, pre-tax, USD price. You are quoting a post-VAT EUE price, yes? What's the pre-tax equivalent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Whoops. I got the two game conglomerates we're supposed to hate confused. Well, just insert Activision for EA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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
@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.
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...pt=T1&iref=BN1
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It's including 19%VAT, but the point was that Activision still charges more than most others, including EA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If he sells now. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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
For the current generation of consoles. Before 2005 or 2006 new games used to be $50.Quote:
Originally Posted by CR
Timing is everything. Earlier today would've been a great time to buy BP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
EA ain't so bad, good quality control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And BP are idiots we can clean things up for ya and it won't cost 20 billions http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/du...s-oil-disaster
I hate to invalidate your :smug: smily, but it's actually Scott Adams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Ajax
Hoist on my own petard.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
CR
How do you apologize for an apology? So much for Republican "leadership."
Eh, the pundits seem to agree with my position, essentially that the speech sucked. Noonan has the best wrapup I've seen of the disaster it was so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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:Quote:
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.
PS> Sorry for the obnoxious bolding, but it is hard to see links with this new skin.
Obama called BP - British Petroluem, would be like me calling America - "British Colony".
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?
I saw it on a tv show, I just reposted it. Thought it was funny.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
Not if Obama is using same form of xenophobia to deflect responsibility. The company is 60/40% British/American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Speaking of Obama, he hasn't suspended the protectionist 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.
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.Quote:
Obama called BP - British Petroluem, would be like me calling America - "British Colony".
CR
Outrage? No, sir. A sense of scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I just found this in the dictionary, under "tone deaf":
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.
Tony's just trying to get his life back.
BP relied on cheaper wells.
MMS signed off on this design. Those involved should be held liable too before they end up on the Nuclear Protection Agency.Quote:
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.
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...
Like no climate change and inhaling oil fumes being a health benefit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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.
BP is lobbying for a 'climate change' bill - a cap and trade scheme on carbon emissions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
CR
In other shock news, man has day off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
"Drill baby, drill" is part of the national anthem didn't you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Missed that verse. Oh well, I have really only heard the first two, who knows what Frank put in the 6th stanza....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Why not turn crisis into opportunity and re-assess policy? I know the US wont, but still..
Ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
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. If we get our numbers down that low, will that magically make our oil rigs perfect - bereft of any chance of a spill?
^ 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
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.
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
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.Quote:
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
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?Quote:
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?
Ajax
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
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:
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.Quote:
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...ss=389x8592477
i'm quite happy with the way things are, thank you very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Took me about 5 seconds of googling.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
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.
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.Quote:
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 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..
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Spoken like a true conservative. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
You'd probably appreciate it then if BP stopped trying to fix that oil spill, right? ~;)
That is an example of anti-British sentiment??Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
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?
Non sequitur.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
Lemur said it all better than I could have.
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
That much is clear, as you are way off the mark on this one.Quote:
I obviously don't have the US networks to watch this event around the clock
In the UK election thread you insist that Labour ruined the UK and that their policies must be reversed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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-...ry?id=10763042
BP is part of big oil. I have criticized BP. Now, how does that work out to me saying Big Oil is perfect? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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 for going to golf by saying:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerkwad extraordinaire
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.Quote:
Maybe its time we prevented companies from evading taxes and safety regulations through the use of offshore havens.
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
Watch out CR, you might turn into your worst nightmare at this rate. Me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Thank God the Left has so many sane balanced persons - dear Harriet anyone?
~:smoking:
To be fair... 97% of violations concerns refineries, which is quite different from violations in the oil business.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Damn you Amoco! Wait, Amoco was British, right?
Am=AmericanQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Wait one...
Never mind. Sarcasm detector low on fluid.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
whoa, partisan!Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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?
Happens to the best of us, never fear. I was hoping to tweak a Brit into responding, but no such luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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.
You don't actually believe this do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I actually said this point earlier in the thread. The problems came after the privatisation which the merger with Amoco came soon after.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Why shouldn't I? It's protectionism*, and it's foolish**. A bit redundant, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by jabarto
*From wiki:
** When countries retaliate, the final situation is worse for US exports and companies than before the tarrifs.Quote:
The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry
In reference to the Jones Act specifically (wiki again):
In other news, a federal judge has blocked the deepwater drilling ban, pointing out that the government outright lied about what the experts consulted supported:Quote:
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.
Good.Quote:
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.
CR
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit