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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan

Google search: British Petroleum. First hit? www.bp.com
Yahoo search? www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse
Bing? www.bp.com

British Petroleum = BP. :book: Also, you seem to have this odd fixation with the national makeup of the company. How exactly is that relevant to the oil spill? Do you actually think people would be less upset if it was an American based company who screwed up? Or have you been sleeping through the financial crisis? Forget about Enron? Or, for a more pertinent example, Exxon?

---

I believe that in Britain, it seems to have become something of a national concern, the idea that Obama and co. are happily Brit bashing is starting to take hold especially after the percieved insult he did us when returing the bust of Churchill to the British embassy. I suppose if anything it may now be simply a matter of diplomacy and statesmanship if Obama were to cease calling BP British Petroleum and stop making statements like the one in which he said he wanted to "kick ass", it comes across as infantile.
It may also be advisable if the American media stopped pandering to hysteria and perhaps shut up a bit, especially after what happened at Bhopal, looks highly ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar

I believe that in Britain, it seems to have become something of a national concern, the idea that Obama and co. are happily Brit bashing is starting to take hold especially after the percieved insult he did us when returing the bust of Churchill to the British embassy. I suppose if anything it may now be simply a matter of diplomacy and statesmanship if Obama were to cease calling BP British Petroleum and stop making statements like the one in which he said he wanted to "kick ass", it comes across as infantile.
It may also be advisable if the American media stopped pandering to hysteria and perhaps shut up a bit, especially after what happened at Bhopal, looks highly ridiculous.

---

And I would say that Britain has little to fear- I see little possibility that the two countries will cease their "special" relationship. I haven't been keeping super close tabs exactly on the number of times he's specifically said "British petroleum", but I seem to recall most of the references in fact being BP. Its fuss over nothing.

As for the media and Bhopal... well, telling the media to quiet down, regardless of how silly they might look is a fruitless endeavor. One only needs to oggle at Glenn Beck's ratings to see that the silly and preposterous is extremely profitable... somehow. Obviously this doesn't compare at all to Bhopal, but it is a disaster in its own right. That it doesn't compare to one of the worst disasters ever(if not worst) does not mean its utterly unimportant either. Plus, with 24 hour news, agencies are dying for time to fill. Its either the oil spill, or the 79th annual Clarke county frisbee competition. Blame Ted Turner, if you wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan

Google search: British Petroleum. First hit? www.bp.com
Yahoo search? www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse
Bing? www.bp.com

Thanks for linking to first hits on the internet. Now, if we could discuss Obama's rhetorical use of British Petroleum... ... ... Re-read what I said in my previous posts, and then decide if you really think "I am lucky" on Google is enough of a source to prove me wrong.

British Petroleum = BP. :book: Also, you seem to have this odd fixation with the national makeup of the company. How exactly is that relevant to the oil spill? Do you actually think people would be less upset if it was an American based company who screwed up? Or have you been sleeping through the financial crisis? Forget about Enron? Or, for a more pertinent example, Exxon?

Uh... My point was that Obama tried to blame-shift. He was the one who brought up nationality, and wrongly so I might add. I just questioned it.

So, legislation should be there to prevent a company from doing damage? So you're next leap in logic is that it is not the company's fault for doing damage?

You are right and wrong. Yes, legislations are meant to keep company's from doing damage. But nuh uh, I do believe the company should pay for causing damage. Just like the state who allowed it to happen. Just like companies should have their backs against the wall for the damage they made, the state should have their back against the wall as to how they let the company's do it, get my point?

---

my answer in bold.

What I don't deserve a response ;) I accept that as an admission of defeat :clown:

Prove you wrong? What's to prove wrong?

Obama referred to BP as British Petroleum, which they are commonly known by. You are the one assigning connotation. Now, since you seem to love proof, can you prove to me that the connotation was that the British are all at fault?

Could the government have done more? Sure, that's possible. By requiring the proper valve-thingy or whatever that safety hatch device was that BP didn't install, damage could have been lessened. However, blame first and foremost lies with the company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

What I don't deserve a response ;) I accept that as an admission of defeat :clown:

---

Yes you obviously won. Well done you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan

Prove you wrong? What's to prove wrong?

Obama referred to BP as British Petroleum, which they are commonly known by. You are the one assigning connotation. Now, since you seem to love proof, can you prove to me that the connotation was that the British are all at fault?

Could the government have done more? Sure, that's possible. By requiring the proper valve-thingy or whatever that safety hatch device was that BP didn't install, damage could have been lessened. However, blame first and foremost lies with the company.

---

Well, either my connotations were wrong, or you have a president who go by 10 year old facts. Either or would be quite scary, no?

And no, the point you should take from previous thread was not that the connotation was that the British were all at fault, rather an attempt to shift the burden from legislation to... ... (wont repeat myself, re-read my post).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Well, either my connotations were wrong, or you have a president who go by 10 year old facts. Either or would be quite scary, no?

And no, the point you should take from previous thread was not that the connotation was that the British were all at fault, rather an attempt to shift the burden from legislation to... ... (wont repeat myself, re-read my post).

---

Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Very easy to answer.

BP is known as BP. And yes indeed, they used to be named British Petroleum, but no more. BP is nowadays very "multinational", and I do believe it is more US controlled (don't have exact figures at hand, so might be wrong, anyone?).

However, by using the phrase British Petroleum instead of BP he tried to shift the burden of guilt over to jolly good old England. A jab in the nuts for the commonwealth.

Basically, cheap rhetorics to blame-shift - "Don't look at me, they did it!"

The sad thing is that many (if not most?) Americans will fall into such cheap traps, and disregard questions such as how could WE have let this happen in the first place. Please do bear in mind exactly where this happened and under what legislation, to try to blame-shift Britain seems feeble, to say the least.

---

Looks like the point was that he was shifting the blame to Britain to me. Oh, and a cheap snipe at Americans. :book: Anyways, yeah, legislation probably could have done something. But, like I said, and the point you refuse to admit to, is that BP is ultimately the ones who bear the most responsibility. Their handicraft was ultimately what failed to prevent the spill, not the laws.




Oh, and 10 year old facts? More like 10 year old name. People refer to old names all the time. Hell, my dad still calls the White Sox ballpark Comiskey, even though that concept died under corporate sponsorship long ago. So, hardly concerning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Well, either my connotations were wrong, or you have a president who go by 10 year old facts. Either or would be quite scary, no?

---

Not really. Amazingly, most Americans don't keep up with annual corporate rebranding efforts. Obama was reflecting how most Americans view BP, based on nearly 50 years of the old name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan

And I would say that Britain has little to fear- I see little possibility that the two countries will cease their "special" relationship. I haven't been keeping super close tabs exactly on the number of times he's specifically said "British petroleum", but I seem to recall most of the references in fact being BP. Its fuss over nothing.

As for the media and Bhopal... well, telling the media to quiet down, regardless of how silly they might look is a fruitless endeavor. One only needs to oggle at Glenn Beck's ratings to see that the silly and preposterous is extremely profitable... somehow. Obviously this doesn't compare at all to Bhopal, but it is a disaster in its own right. That it doesn't compare to one of the worst disasters ever(if not worst) does not mean its utterly unimportant either. Plus, with 24 hour news, agencies are dying for time to fill. Its either the oil spill, or the 79th annual Clarke county frisbee competition. Blame Ted Turner, if you wish.

---

Actually, many in Britain do have alot to fear, and many also wish for us to finally start talking to the U.S as equals, something which has not be seen to be done since Suez, I must admit that this issue of the endandgerment of the special relationship comes more from Britain than the U.S, I think many do actually wish for our PM to do what Hugh Grant did in Love Actually.
Obama's rhetoric. although helping to stem a tide of, unfair, anger directed at him, is nonethless endagering the willingness of his nation's closest ally to remain just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar

Actually, many in Britain do have alot to fear, and many also wish for us to finally start talking to the U.S as equals, something which has not be seen to be done since Suez, I must admit that this issue of the endandgerment of the special relationship comes more from Britain than the U.S, I think many do actually wish for our PM to do what Hugh Grant did in Love Actually.
Obama's rhetoric. although helping to stem a tide of, unfair, anger directed at him, is nonethless endagering the willingness of his nation's closest ally to remain just that.

---

I think, ultimately(although certainly I have no proof either way), that Obama's reference is explained by PJ. Americans don't keep up on re-branding efforts for the most part, especially when they're so vague- BP becoming... BP. Yes, a different BP, but there's really not much of a connection to "Beyond Petroleum". I really don't have much more to offer than that and to say that its not something to be looked into too much. Now, what does bear watching are the possible stock and dividend consequences. From what I've heard, a fair number of UK citizens have a vested interest in the company. My guess is that's the more immediate source of concern. Last I heard, BP stock is not taking this well. Not that I'm accusing people of the UK of being greedy- but if you've invested money, you certainly wouldn't want to see it disappear because of what could possibly be perceived as the interference of a foreign gov't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Not really. Amazingly, most Americans don't keep up with annual corporate rebranding efforts. Obama was reflecting how most Americans view BP, based on nearly 50 years of the old name.

---

Reminds me of the innocent Germans getting blamed for something before they were even born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

What is truly fascinating to me is that unlike Bush with Katrina, where the media immediately seized on a narrative of incompetence regardless of the facts, Obama went into this disaster with quite a bit of support from both the Left and the Right. Through sheer incompetence, both in actually managing the disaster and in PR, he squandered that initial good will and is suffering the worst poll numbers of his presidency. As much as I dislike the man's policies, I was prepared to give him a pass on this, but he has actually been a highly ineffectual leader. Very disconcerting, although not surprising I suppose.

---

So you think he should have made the entire national guard dive down to the leak right away? I think there is a difference between sending aid to a city and fixing a leak 1500 hands (feet?) below sea level when not even the experts have any idea or equipment to do it. What exactly can he do? Dive down himself and tell the oil that by presidential edict it has to stop coming out of the pipe? Sending helicopters to evacuate people sounds a lot easier to me. I don't even get what they criticise now about his "crisis management"? What can he manage? Should he have the BP executives and their scientists tortured until they come up with a way to stop the leak?
Seriously, what can he really do to stop the leak? Or should he have the navy collect all the oil? Does the Navy even have any means to handle oil leaks other than firing tons of explosives into it?
I mean just tell me WHAT he should do? With Katrina that was pretty clear and simple but here I seriously have no idea? :inquisitive:

And concerning the name, I also thought it was British Petroleum, and I work for Aral, which is their brand in Germany. :laugh4:

So the American leadership resorts the the usual tactic, blame someone other than yourself. The situation would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. Successive US administrations have invited oil companies to come and drill up their shore line, all for the lust of that black substance which keeps America moving. Quite frankly, it was only a matter of time till something like this happened. Let me guess, if it was Dutch Shell at the other end and not BP, would the Dutch leader be receiving a phone call? Or is it just those damn colonials which did it to undermine American interests?

But alas, Obama puts on his mean face and lashes out at "those British". If one good thing will come from the spill, hopefully its a complete collapse of the "special relationship", better known as the "you jump, we say how high relationship". Quite frankly this relationship has been pretty rotten since Suez and the only time its ever been working properly is the Maggie and Ronnie show. You might say Blair and Bush worked well if they weren't both idiots and weren't disliked by the majority of their respective electorate.

So maybe the spill might cause a rift which means we don't have to talk for a few months, you know, till your begging us for more troops in Afghanistan. Of course, will do as your say and everything will be restored in this world. All this depends on Mr Cameron having the balls to stand up to Obama, which of course, he wont. I feel I speak on the part of perhaps a majority of Britain's when I say the attempts to incriminate us are ridiculous and hopefully this will cause the rift in the relationship many desire. I personally don't want anything to do with the special relationship. I deplore it, I think we get shafted by it and quite frankly it completely undermines what little dignity we have left as a country. Funnily enough, "those Europeans" are a lot more sound than the Yanks these days. Hopefully we'll wake up and see that soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

So maybe the spill might cause a rift which means we don't have to talk for a few months, you know, till your begging us for more troops in Afghanistan. Of course, will do as your say and everything will be restored in this world. All this depends on Mr Cameron having the balls to stand up to Obama, which of course, he wont. I feel I speak on the part of perhaps a majority of Britain's when I say the attempts to incriminate us are ridiculous and hopefully this will cause the rift in the relationship many desire. I personally don't want anything to do with the special relationship. I deplore it, I think we get shafted by it and quite frankly it completely undermines what little dignity we have left as a country. Funnily enough, "those Europeans" are a lot more sound than the Yanks these days. Hopefully we'll wake up and see that soon.

---

I'm sorry, is this all in reaction to the President saying "British Petroleum," or is there more to it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm sorry, is this all in reaction to the President saying "British Petroleum," or is there more to it?

---

Another notch to add to the belt of years of being degraded as a country in the name of the "Atlantic Alliance". Tell me, how would you feel to the relationship if you were on the other side of the ocean? In all fairness to Obama however he isn't worse than the last guy. It was a complete outrage that as millions marched in London in protest to a war that easily the majority of British people didn't want, our respective leaders were snuggling up on the sofa, claiming it was in both our countries interests.

As I said, I think the relationship is completely unhealthy and should be ditched. It's almost a totally one way thing. Then again, that's just my opinion. I'm sure many will feel differently but I cant help but feel this recent attempt by Obama to blame someone shows a complete lack of disregard for what's supposedly meant to be "Americas best ally". You are aware he's ringing Cameron today to give him a talking down? What exactly does that aim to serve other than appealing to what seems to be quite a healthy anti-British sentiment by some within the US who are more than happy to see us as culpable and responsible.

Maybe Obama should do his homework. There's nothing Cameron or any other British person can do. The majority of BP share holders are, surprise, surprise, are Americans.

I wonder, would anybody hesiate to call ExxonMobil or Chevron US companies?

No matter how global BP is - it is headquartered in the UK and I think it paid 6 billion USD of corporate taxes in the UK last year.
What would the raection have been if BP had decided 1 or 2 years ago to move headquarters to the US? would there have been an outcry about a "British" company leaving the country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I wonder, would anybody hesiate to call ExxonMobil or Chevron US companies?

No matter how global BP is - it is headquartered in the UK and I think it paid 6 billion USD of corporate taxes in the UK last year.
What would the raection have been if BP had decided 1 or 2 years ago to move headquarters to the US? would there have been an outcry about a "British" company leaving the country?

---

Or maybe its to do with the fact phoning our PM to take action is futile because BP is a private country. Its irrelevant where the headquarters is, the only reason its still here is because BP could never be bothered to move it. And no, there wouldn't of been an outcry if BP did relocate to America. Over the last 20 years nearly all the major industries which were once state owned in this country have become privatised, usually being bought out by the far East. Most people don't seem to mind this and acknowledge that as companies become privatised, a burden is taken off the state and as responsibility for the company moves from the public into the hands of private investors, it means the state, as a whole, which Obama's phone call to the PM seeks to highlight, has no further responsibility for that company or its actions.

The only thing possibly connecting BP to the state is that a tiny majority of its shareholders are "ordinary people", encouraged by Mrs Thatcher to buy up shares as part of the "share-owning democracy". They account for a tiny % of the company however and most of their money has gone into pensions which will probably be hit quite heavy when the bill for BP's clean-up arrives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

The majority of BP share holders are, surprise, surprise, are Americans.

---

BP ownership structure December 31, 2009

(assuming the data is correct as BP apparently is not able to get its pie charts right...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

BP ownership structure December 31, 2009

(assuming the data is correct as BP apparently is not able to get its pie charts right...)

---

Yanno what'd be funny? The White House sends 10 Downing a bill for BP cleanup, and The Brits mail back some of their US 30-year Treasuries - of which they are the #2 holders in the world (after China).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

BP ownership structure December 31, 2009

(assuming the data is correct as BP apparently is not able to get its pie charts right...)

---

So the % difference in terms of companies/ institutions with a stake in BP is 1%.

All this still doesn't take away from my main point. What does the British Government have to do with this? Or do you believe somehow that because BP pays taxes to the UK government, the UK government some how has responsibility? When an individual pays taxes to the government does that make them responsible for the actions of the government? Or does that make the state responsible for actions of the individual as they pay taxes to the government?

The answer is no. Its privately owned and thus not our PM's responsibility. Obama needs to go find someone else to attack his fire at to help take the heat of the Gulf fishermen off his back. I heard there were some Chinese guys working on the rig when this all went off. Maybe we can blame them. Or here's a better idea. Keep to vocal criticism up on BP but leave the PM out of it. The last thing we need from the US is another b-slap to make us look even more incapable of forging our own direction as a country than we already are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Yanno what'd be funny? The White House sends 10 Downing a bill for BP cleanup, and The Brits mail back some of their US 30-year Treasuries - of which they are the #2 holders in the world (after China).

---

Hehehe, I guess the hopey-changey honeymoon is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

All this still doesn't take away from my main point. What does the British Government have to do with this? Or do you believe somehow that because BP pays taxes to the UK government, the UK government some how has responsibility? When an individual pays taxes to the government does that make them responsible for the actions of the government? Or does that make the state responsible for actions of the individual as they pay taxes to the government?.

---

OK, perhaps I am missing something here. Did Obama ask the British Government to take responsibility? From what I gathered in this thread and in the news the discussion was about Obama refferring to "British Petroleum" instead of just BP. The reaction here seemed to be that not only stopped BP referring to itself as British Petroleum but that it also actually should not be considered a British company. The latter is clearly wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

OK, perhaps I am missing something here. Did Obama ask the British Government to take responsibility? From what I gathered in this thread and in the news the discussion was about Obama refferring to "British Petroleum" instead of just BP. The reaction here seemed to be that not only stopped BP referring to itself as British Petroleum but that it also actually should not be considered a British company. The latter is clearly wrong.

---

He didn't ask them to take responsibility, but he is certainly looking to shift some of the blame onto them. What other reason does he have to phone "call me Dave"? As a general rule of thumb too, the Americans never ring us unless they want something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

He didn't ask them to take responsibility, but he is certainly looking to shift some of the blame onto them. What other reason does he have to phone "call me Dave"? As a general rule of thumb too, the Americans never ring us unless they want something.

---

I thought that call was a call that had been arranged anyway and that the BP situation would be one topic (especially as the tensions grew in the last days). Is there any source for "Obama calling Cmaeron about BP" (to shift blame to the British Government)?

There seemed to be some furor about the demand that BP should cut dividend to pay for the damage. Anything unreasonable about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I thought that call was a call that had been arranged anyway and that the BP situation would be one topic (especially as the tensions grew in the last days). Is there any source for "Obama calling Cmaeron about BP" (to shift blame to the British Government)?

There seemed to be some furor about the demand that BP should cut dividend to pay for the damage. Anything unreasonable about that?

---

It greatly affects British pensioners who are dependant on the dividend.

So you are actively punishing poor old people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It greatly affects British pensioners who are dependant on the dividend.

So you are actively punishing poor old people.

---

So it seems BP is very British after all.

Sorry, but if you are investing in a company you are not only participating in their profits, you also take the risk if the company messes things up and has to pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

So it seems BP is very British after all.

Sorry, but if you are investing in a company you are not only participating in their profits, you also take the risk if the company messes things up and has to pay for it.

---

The risk was in the privatisation, it was one of the clauses tied into it. Then I disapproved the privatisation in the first-place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The risk was in the privatisation, it was one of the clauses tied into it. Then I disapproved the privatisation in the first-place.

---

Please elaborate - how would British pensioners have fared better without the privatisation?

Meh. I really don't get the kaffuffle. There may be one or two ejits pointing fingers in this general direction, but unless I'm mistaken none of them are in office. And it's hardly surprising. Were the tables turned and a largely (if not wholely, or technically) American company behind an ecological disaster at our shores we'd probably be burning American flags and shouting anti-US slogans at every opportunity. It's a none issue, with tempers raised by the populist press and bumbling politicians.

That said, I'd be chuffed to see Anglo-American relations cool a tad, and our government pluck up the balls to break with past policy of clinging so tightly to Washington's skirts. This, however, is not a good reason to do so. A desire to pursue an independent foreign policy? A good reason. Anger at their even handedness (how dare they!) in a heated diplomatic exchange re: our territorial claims? Yeah, I'd go with that. Some important fellow in a monochrome mansion making use of an unofficial yet appropriate name? That, I'm afraid, is just pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

Meh. I really don't get the kaffuffle. There may be one or two ejits pointing fingers in this general direction, but unless I'm mistaken none of them are in office. And it's hardly surprising. Were the tables turned and a largely (if not wholely, or technically) American company behind an ecological disaster at our shores we'd probably be burning American flags and shouting anti-US slogans at every opportunity. It's a none issue, with tempers raised by the populist press and bumbling politicians.

That said, I'd be chuffed to see Anglo-American relations cool a tad, and our government pluck up the balls to break with past policy of clinging so tightly to Washington's skirts. This, however, is not a good reason to do so. A desire to pursue an independent foreign policy? A good reason. Anger at their even handedness (how dare they!) in a heated diplomatic exchange re: our territorial claims? Yeah, I'd go with that. Some important fellow in a monochrome mansion making use of an unofficial yet appropriate name? That, I'm afraid, is just pathetic.

---

BP is a largely American company, especially since the merger with Amoco. With over 2/3rds of the company and board of directors being American.

Quote:

---

Please elaborate - how would British pensioners have fared better without the privatisation?

---

Because all the incidents happened after the privatisation, thus, it wouldn't have occured in the first place. Even more amusing, all the incidents on BP's record occured after the merger with Amoco.