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

[seireikhaan]

Where to start on this one...

A TV is a television, I give you that one. Well done you! I applaud your effort.

However, BP is not a short form of British Petroleum, although it was up until the year 2000.

BP became very much international, currently only 40% of shareholders are British.

As they changed the name from British Petroleum to BP they also coined a new corporate slogan, "Beyond Petroleum". Short form of that would be BP.

So, so much for your endearing claim.

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

British Petroleum = BP. 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?

As to the second part of your post, the one in bold - one might argue that legislation exist to put a leash on company's such as BP, you know, to keep them from (as a strictly theoretical example, of course) cause huge amounts of damage.

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?

Thank you for your time though, it is refreshing to hear from someone else than my intellectual friends.

Clearly.

[Incongruous]

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

British Petroleum = BP. 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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[seireikhaan]

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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. 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.

[Centurion1]

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

[seireikhaan]

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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

Yes you obviously won. Well done you!

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).

[seireikhaan]

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?

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. 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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Beskar]

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.