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

[Ser Clegane]

thus, it wouldn't have occured in the first place.

Pure conjecture. Is there anything tangible to back up this claim? I think there are are plenty of examples that companies with a significant shares held by the government mess up as well

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow.

Has the worm turned at last? As the oil continues to gush in the Gulf of Mexico, angry rhetoric has gushed from President Barack Obama's lips. His rabid denunciations of BP have damaged the interests not only of that company but of most British people, in a way that must make us wonder whether he leads a friendly country.

Vince Cable, the new Business Secretary, calls Obama's rhetoric 'extreme and unhelpful'; London mayor Boris Johnson says it's 'anti-British', adding that 'BP is paying a very, very heavy price indeed'.
Bemusingly, David Cameron says only that he understands the U.S. administration's 'frustration', although he promises to take up the matter with Obama, after the Prime Minister returns from Afghanistan - where British troops are fighting and dying on behalf of the United States, it may be recalled.

'Extreme and unhelpful' is no exaggeration. Obama has played to the gallery by saying that he would like to sack Tony Hayward, head of BP; the president talks in a cheap way about 'kicking ass'. Whether or not the American president can kick our asses, he can certainly hurt our wallets and purses.

As BP's share price has plummeted, it has lost £55billion of its market value, and the company's entire outlook is very bleak, which affects most of us. Every British insurance company, building society and pension fund has large holdings of BP shares in its portfolio.
If you have a pension, at present or in prospect, your income falls with every sour word Obama speaks. It's a fine way for a friend to behave, if indeed we should regard the president as a friend.
His rhetoric is repellently hypocritical as well as demagogic. Quite apart from the fact that Hayward and his colleagues have every interest in plugging the spill, for years past BP has filled Washington's coffers with tax revenue, and fed the American people's unquenchable thirst for cheap petrol.

When Obama continually refers to BP as 'British Petroleum', which is no longer its formal name, he is saying something revealing about himself, and his Anglophobic spite will come as no surprise to those who have followed his career, and read his memoir Dreams From my Father.

He seems to have made up the part about his father being tortured by the British in Kenya, but there's no question that Obama nurses a disdain for and even dislike of this country.

All this because President Obama referred to a company that operated in America for 56 years as British Petroleum as.... British Petroleum? Such outrage might be valid if they had changed their name to something completely different, but what exactly is BP supposed to reference? Does FedEx not mean Federal Express anymore?

And if Obama had set out to malign Britain over some deep seeded hatred, according to the shareholder percentages by nationality, he is hurting Americans just as much.

There are plenty of substantive issues with the way the Obama administration is handling this. Read the article Lemur posted and I unthinkingly reposted. This, however, is not one of them - and such attacks against Obama are asinine and hopefully not supported by the majority.

[Myrddraal]

Couldn't agree more. I'm surprised that so many brits are getting worked up about this. BP must accept responsibility for the oil spill, but what's that got to do with the responsibility of the British people?

[Beskar]

Wow.



All this because President Obama referred to a company that operated in America for 56 years as British Petroleum as.... British Petroleum? Such outrage might be valid if they had changed their name to something completely different, but what exactly is BP supposed to reference? Does FedEx not mean Federal Express anymore?

And if Obama had set out to malign Britain over some deep seeded hatred, according to the shareholder percentages by nationality, he is hurting Americans just as much.

There are plenty of substantive issues with the way the Obama administration is handling this. Read the article Lemur posted and I unthinkingly reposted. This, however, is not one of them - and such attacks against Obama are asinine and hopefully not supported by the majority.

You are linking the Daily Mail again , everyone who is British on this forum depises it. It is a hate mongering paper. It is the British version of fox news and should be flushed down the toliet.

BBC news, Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, kin, there are new sources out there which are respectable opposed to tabloid trash.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Obama, Cameron discuss BP. Me thinks there's some hysterical politics being played in the UK and US. It's all about the pr. Many US pension funds also stand to lose a bundle. BP can generate huge amounts of revenue and is worth far more alive than dead. Let's see, create fear in BP's ability to survive this disaster and drive down the price. Government then eases up on the rhetoric just after the Titans of Industry & Finance snap up those cheap shares and shazam.

[KukriKhan]

Government then eases up on the rhetoric just after the Titans of Industry & Finance snap up those cheap shares and shazam.

By George, I think 'e's got it.

So: lesson learnt, eh? Money will always out.

One-one tie in the WC for US V UK. Sportsman's result or Political ploy? You be teh judge.





Cynicism aside. Really. Thanks for all you Laddies have given. Your Grampas' lives, your heritage, your money, your tendency toward shucking it all and starting anew. We picked those up and ran with them, like a schoolboy with the newly-found ball (a bit uncertain in which way to run... but running for Hell nevertheless!).

[Beskar]

Let's see, create fear in BP's ability to survive this disaster and drive down the price. Government then eases up on the rhetoric just after the Titans of Industry & Finance snap up those cheap shares and shazam.

Glad I am not the only one who thinks this/

[Xiahou]

After delays, U.S. begins to tap foreign aid for gulf oil spill

Four weeks after the nation's worst environmental disaster, the Obama administration saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills.

I've heard a lot of talk about foreign help being turned down- glad to see they finally ended that stupidity.

[Furunculus]

assumption of guilt/liability coloured by political views?

interesting article:

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/artic...rty_lines.html

[Beskar]

assumption of guilt/liability coloured by political views?

interesting article:

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/artic...rty_lines.html

The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil, greasing up on the ol' backhanded funnelling of money.

[Vladimir]

The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil, greasing up on the ol' backhanded funnelling of money.

And what are you sucking on?

[Ser Clegane]

The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil

Just like the poor old pensioners, huh?

[Furunculus]

The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil, greasing up on the ol' backhanded funnelling of money.

when BP pays pensions pensions privately which the gov't cannot afford to pay publicly, and when they pay tax that allows our wonderful social security system to function, i damn well expect them suck HARD on that teat, even if it's the hindmost one!

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil, greasing up on the ol' backhanded funnelling of money.

Could you detail how the average conservative poll respondent is getting greased up on money funnelled from big oil?

I don't know if the poll responses are so much colored by political views as a person's base values that form their political beliefs also form their responses to stuff like this. Of course the option that BP is not at fault - that this could have happened to anyone - is incorrect. Such incidents of late have only happened to them because of how they operate.

In related news, I was much amused by the 'deadline' for BP to come up with a new plan to contain the oil. As though they were just lollygagging before and a government official saying there's a deadline will make them suddenly work harder.

Also, one city gets fed up with the unified command buearacracy in responding to the oil spill:

Curry said what the commissioners did Monday was “send a loud and clear message” to the Coast Guard, the state Department of Environmental Protection and others that Okaloosa County’s permit requests should be acted on immediately.

The commission met in an emergency meeting alongside the Destin City Council. The two governing bodies confronted a full room of obviously frustrated people, many of whom advocated filling in the entrance of the pass to close it down completely.

It was agreed that filling in the pass was a bad idea that could have serious environmental impacts.

Jay Prothro, BP’s representative for Okaloosa County, and two representatives of the Coast Guard were also present.

While Martha LaGuardia, a commander with the Coast Guard, argued that moving ideas and plans through the chain of command was the proper way to do things, Harris made it known the County Commission was tired of the often tedious and sometimes unproductive bureaucracy.

“We’ve played the game. We’re done playing the game,” he said.

CR

[Beskar]

Could you detail how the average conservative poll respondent is getting greased up on money funnelled from big oil?

Are you suggesting they give such responses without having to be bribed? It is a crime! these poor conservatives choosing the stupid incorrect choices without having be paid.

Just like the poor old pensioners, huh?

when BP pays pensions pensions privately which the gov't cannot afford to pay publicly, and when they pay tax that allows our wonderful social security system to function, i damn well expect them suck HARD on that teat, even if it's the hindmost one!

Both irrelevant points. Pension has nothing to do with the poll responses, which even as CR said:
"Of course the option that BP is not at fault - that this could have happened to anyone - is incorrect."

So the fact conservative respondants are putting that down as their answer? It isn't pensions, and accusing them of being bribed is me being nice, because the alternative is that they must be....

Feel free to finish off that sentence.

[PanzerJaeger]

And the president politicizes the disaster in the Gulf to push cap and tax... Unbelievable.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And the president politicizes the disaster in the Gulf to push cap and tax... Unbelievable.

Not at all, it is an intelligent political move. He IS rather adroit at Chicago-school politics, PJ, and this is one example of maximizing the political gain from a situation. What do you think his career is, anyway?

Remember, Obama is part of the camp that believes government control is as good or better than private control of resources in many ways -- notably equitable distribution; that only government mandate can initiate change in time to avert a crisis as the free market is responsive and not proactive; and, that only a strong central government is positioned to make the necessary changes and therefore needs to acquire the power necessary to fulfill its responsibilities.

From that rubric, how could he NOT leverage this issue to achieve the end state he and his peers believe to be in the best interests of the USA?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thomas Friedman disagrees.


Come to think of it, I too disagree. Yet again free enterprise shows itself willing to have America's children wallow in polluted filth, like some nine-year old Indian girls recycling batteries, or Niger delta dwellers.
But shame on the government for interfering with it. Such power-grabbing. What nerve to protect the health, safety and environment of American citizens.

Poor HoreTore thought I was having a stab at Norway in that other thread, whereas I was really being quite complimentary: the difference between Venezuela or Nigeria and Norway is a strong state, ran by and for its citizens, instead of operating for big oil, letting itself be exploited for the benefit of private interest. America, I am not so sure. Not quite sure where on the line running from Nigeria to Norway it sits.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Thomas Friedman disagrees.


Come to think of it, I too disagree. Yet again free enterprise shows itself willing to have America's children wallow in polluted filth, like some nine-year old Indian girls recycling batteries, or Niger delta dwellers.
But shame on the government for interfering with it. Such power-grabbing. What nerve to protect the health, safety and environment of American citizens.

It was the government that capped certain damages at $75 million, not the free market.

And aside from the hyperbole, that's why we have the legal system and class action lawsuits.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

Not at all, it is an intelligent political move. He IS rather adroit at Chicago-school politics, PJ, and this is one example of maximizing the political gain from a situation. What do you think his career is, anyway?

Remember, Obama is part of the camp that believes government control is as good or better than private control of resources in many ways -- notably equitable distribution; that only government mandate can initiate change in time to avert a crisis as the free market is responsive and not proactive; and, that only a strong central government is positioned to make the necessary changes and therefore needs to acquire the power necessary to fulfill its responsibilities.

To the contrary, I think this was a clumsy, highly transparent move, and very obviously political. I don't see it changing any mind either. He didn't adequately connect the oil spill to cap and tax (which would bend logic more than even his impressive rhetorical skills could manage). And on a completely different level, it takes quite a bit of gall, while the oil is still pouring into the Gulf, to seize on these people's misfortune to pimp stillborn legislation that can only be tangentially linked to the disaster.

If I was a resident of the area, I would be pretty pissed off if the president used what had to be between a third and a half of his time that was billed as an update on the oil spill situation to push legislation with a primary focus on taxing coal.

I guess it doesn't matter though, they're already beyond angry at Obama's response.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@CR: except that it assumes everyone involved has sufficient financial backbone to see through a 10 year legal battle against BP? Not to mention that there is damage which is not quite as easily repaired by a big, fat stash of greasy banknotes or the equivalent of a class action lawsuit victory settlement.
With a bit of bad luck 50 years from now the local inhabitants will still be dealing with the environmental (and by extension financial) backlash.

[Ser Clegane]

Both irrelevant points. Pension has nothing to do with the poll responses

It is not relevant to the poll results - it is a response to your post which was not at all relevant to the poll either but rather seemd to be a cheap shot without any facts behind it.
You are implying that the conservative responses were driven by benefits they receive from "big oil", while before you were lamenting that it would be poor pensioners who would suffer if BP would be forced to cut the dividend.

So what is your view on BP's responsibility? I think I made clear that I believe that they are very much responsible for the current mess and that they should pay for it.
What is your view? Should they pay or should they not (to protect the interests of British pensioners). It is somewhat difficult to eat the cake and keep it.

[Idaho]

I completely agree with the principle and practice of seizing corporate assets of companies who screw up big time. However I wonder if this is going to be an 'exceptional case' because it's a British sounding company doing something bad near/in the US.

Will the same principle be applied if, for example, Namibia wanted to seize US company assets if they caused an ecological disaster? I very, very, very much doubt it.

[Ser Clegane]

Will the same principle be applied if, for example, Namibia wanted to seize US company assets if they caused an ecological disaster? I very, very, very much doubt it.

Hah - of course not. One of my colleagues in India was actually quite puzzled to see how the very existance of BP seems to be jeopardized (considering e.g., the reactions on the stock market) while Union Carbide got away with a rather "mild" settlement of 470 mUSD 5 years (!) after Bhopal

[gaelic cowboy]

Hah - of course not. One of my colleagues in India was actually quite puzzled to see how the very existance of BP seems to be jeopardized (considering e.g., the reactions on the stock market) while Union Carbide got away with a rather "mild" settlement of 470 mUSD 5 years (!) after Bhopal

The Bhopal disaster was complicated by the ownership structure of the site if I remember correctly but I could be wrong.

[Idaho]

The Bhopal disaster was complicated by the ownership structure of the site if I remember correctly but I could be wrong.

Deliberately obfuscated, rather than complicated I would say.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And aside from the hyperbole, that's why we have the legal system and class action lawsuits.

CR

Hyperbole? What hyperbole? I was being perfectly nuanced and rational.


The problems with litigation management of risk instead of solid regulation are twofold:

Enterprise becomes a casino. Environmental and safety measures are costly. Thus, by necessity, a corporation must operate at the limit of what is legally allowed, lest a cheaper competitor moves in. Operating in this manner, odds are greatly enhanced that something will go wrong. In which case disaster ensues, and the corporation is sued into oblivion. This does not create a functioning market, it creates a casino.
(Government is not anti-market. A government creates a market, decides the kind of market. In resource and oil, roughly: strong refulation, strictly enforced, creates a market in which corporations compete on innovation and efficiency (Nordic market). Weak regulation, strictly enforced, creates a casino (US market). Weak regulation, wantonly enforced, creates exploitation and corruption (Nigeria market).)


Litigation happens after the fact. The idea is not to find compensation for damages, the point is to prevent damages. Environenmental and health disasters have effects that can not be undone, regardless of the size of financial compensation.

[Beskar]

You are implying that the conservative responses were driven by benefits they receive from "big oil", while before you were lamenting that it would be poor pensioners who would suffer if BP would be forced to cut the dividend.

They don't need to cut the dividend in order to exact a punishment on BP, since BP doesn't get hurt by dividends anyway, and shareholders who would benefit from dividends already experienced a over 40% loss on their stocks. There is no need to punish pensioners of both British and Americans nations on-top and contribute to the governments of both nations deficiet, as the government will have to get the money from elsewhere to account for it.

So in reality, do you actually want to pay money instead of BP actually paying it? Tell me, I want to know. Do you want a larger deficit, bigger budget, for a cheap shot which only punishes the tax-payers more?

So what is your view on BP's responsibility? I think I made clear that I believe that they are very much responsible for the current mess and that they should pay for it.

What is your view? Should they pay or should they not (to protect the interests of British pensioners). It is somewhat difficult to eat the cake and keep it.

There are other ways to pay, just simply cutting the dividend payout means we get getting nothing from it, and end up just experiencing budget crisis elsewhere. You should extract additional payment or longterm deals for BP to deal with the mess.

[Beskar]

The problems with litigation management of risk instead of solid regulation are twofold:

Enterprise becomes a casino. Environmental and safety measures are costly. Thus, by necessity, a corporation must operate at the limit of what is legally allowed, lest a cheaper competitor moves in. Operating in this manner, odds are greatly enhanced that something will go wrong. In which case disaster ensues, and the corporation is sued into oblivion. This does not create a functioning market, it creates a casino.
(Government is not anti-market. A government creates a market, decides the kind of market. In resource and oil, roughly: strong refulation, strictly enforced, creates a market in which corporations compete on innovation and efficiency (Nordic market). Weak regulation, strictly enforced, creates a casino (US market). Weak regulation, wantonly enforced, creates exploitation and corruption (Nigeria market).)


Litigation happens after the fact. The idea is not to find compensation for damages, the point is to prevent damages. Environenmental and health disasters have effects that can not be undone, regardless of the size of financial compensation.

Agreed, Enterprising cowboys who want to do everything as cheap and nasty as possible. What is even worse, when they relocate public sector duties to the private because it is cheaper, which makes me always wonder "Why are they cheaper? How can it actually be cheaper to pay someone to do something yourself?". It is because the private sector does a terrible job at it, and can get away with the taking blame as they get a pocketful compared to a public sector body which would affect polls, etc.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To the contrary, I think this was a clumsy, highly transparent move, and very obviously political. I don't see it changing any mind either. He didn't adequately connect the oil spill to cap and tax (which would bend logic more than even his impressive rhetorical skills could manage). And on a completely different level, it takes quite a bit of gall, while the oil is still pouring into the Gulf, to seize on these people's misfortune to pimp stillborn legislation that can only be tangentially linked to the disaster.

If I was a resident of the area, I would be pretty pissed off if the president used what had to be between a third and a half of his time that was billed as an update on the oil spill situation to push legislation with a primary focus on taxing coal.

I guess it doesn't matter though, they're already beyond angry at Obama's response.

PJ:

Most politics is not subtle, despite our romanticized view of the process. At its core it boils down to: "help my supporters who got me this gig" and/or "now that I have the power, I'm gonna do what's right (definition almost always subjective on this last)." Chicago school politics is even more bluntly in this category. Incumbents brag about the pork they've brought home and, when opposition rears its head, they squelch it by whatever means available. THAT is where President Obama learned his business. The folderol over Blagovich's apparent retailing of the Senate Seat makes me laugh -- people are reacting as though that WASN'T S-O-P for the area. It was really more of the same-old, same-old and I suspect none of the parties truly thought that it was particularly unethical. Same with the "jobs to stay out of the primary" thing -- that's the way the game is played.

I thought the speech fell short because he didn't take full advantage of the opportunity to hammer the "Make BP pay" theme. THAT is what his supporters and many of those affected want to hear most. He did some of that, but many folks want to hear that BP will be taxed/fined to cover all of the cost of recovery as well as providing subsistence payments to all those impacted by the spill. In addition, the more ardent lefties WANT "cap-and-trade" as a first step to dramatically reducing our carbon output and shifting towards wind, solar, and geo-thermal energy sources (and some of them want that to segway even further into a shift in energy consumption that puts us more in line with other developed nations on a per capita basis).

Obama's goal was to say enough to placate those on his side of the aisle regarding these issues, while not being so overtly anti-corporate as to antagonize the mugwumps and the semi-involved/semi-ignorant who are the mass of the US voting pool. They want the problem to be dealt with decisively (mostly unaware as to what that entails), so he wants to appear decisive on this issue, while still focusing on the leadership goals with which he began his presidency.

All-in-all, he really wasn't speaking to me. After Axelrod's comments on Sunday, I knew they were doing what the government could do: insisting on two relief wells as added safety, providing an ideas group, keeping the pressure on the BP team, and bringing in (however late) others with needed resources. It's not like the government has the tools to do more, the rest is just political agendaneering -- which is what I expected to hear and what I heard last night. Again, I'm a voter but I vote for candidates in the other half of the economic/conservatism end of the scale, so he really has written me off already.


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