Oh the Irony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Not at all. simply more evidence that your idea of this being "un-Presidential" is hollow, and waiting for you admit you have a very selective memory of history, or you're using this as a weak front to attack Obama as inappropriate.

---

Actually, Obama criticized the rhetoric that I criticized. Which is why it's all the more pathetic that you screamed racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's why bp shouldn't have a damn thing to do with containment or clean-up. They should just write checks as their best tool for that. :donkey:

---

It gets better. BP was so prepared for this spill, that in their 2009 disaster recovery plan they pegged one of the top scientists as their go to guy for how oil would damage the wildlife.

Spoiler:

Sucks he died in 2005

It sounds like they copied the Emergency Response papers from the Exxon Valdez. The Gulf Coast wildlife list included walruses. :rolleyes:

So, what's everyone think about the bp dividend brouhaha? Should they pay it or suspend it? Briton's pensioners apparently rely heavily on their Bp dividend, and it's also in American portfolios, including funds for retirees.

and about that bankruptcy possibility I mentioned---looks more favorable for a "restructuring" or being bought up as their stock keeps diving.

I fail to see why it's the government business how BP spends its money. As long as it pays its bills for the oil spill, it should spend its money however it wishes. This rhetoric of controlling private firms we don't like is very troubling.

Is it even legal for a government to make those kinds of demands of a British company? If that's not legal, but bp decided not to pay dividends for PR reasons, is that a breach of contract to its shareholders? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I fail to see why it's the government business how BP spends its money. As long as it pays its bills for the oil spill, it should spend its money however it wishes. This rhetoric of controlling private firms we don't like is very troubling.

---

I think the lion's share of it is about votes in November. Nothing more.

On the other hand, if a company were planning to declare hardship after a prolonged period of being bled by claims against their negligence, they might move their financial assets around to make it look like they have less money than they actually do. I think this is probably standard practice vis a vis profits and taxes and so on for many companies. I know small busnesses try to avoid showing any profit if possible in MI because of the way our business taxes work. It might be prudent to have BP set aside plenty of cash while they're still flush and feeling bad.

I suppose that's where the escrow account idea comes into play. Even if they go into receivership or file bankruptcy (to protect themselves from creditors) there would still be funds available for future clean-up costs.

They're self-insured, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

They're self-insured, right?

---

Yes, that is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

I think the lion's share of it is about votes in November. Nothing more.

On the other hand, if a company were planning to declare hardship after a prolonged period of being bled by claims against their negligence, they might move their financial assets around to make it look like they have less money than they actually do. I think this is probably standard practice vis a vis profits and taxes and so on for many companies. I know small busnesses try to avoid showing any profit if possible in MI because of the way our business taxes work. It might be prudent to have BP set aside plenty of cash while they're still flush and feeling bad.

---

If they do that, feel free to punish them. We don't punish people/organizations for crimes before they commit though, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

If they do that, feel free to punish them. We don't punish people/organizations for crimes before they commit though, however.

---

This isn't a criminal issue though, it's a civil one, and civil law most certainly does allow for preemptive action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

This isn't a criminal issue though, it's a civil one, and civil law most certainly does allow for preemptive action.

---

As far as I know, you must have evidence of intent before you can do anything.

What about criminal negligence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

As far as I know, you must have evidence of intent before you can do anything.

---

A reasonable likelihood to do something undesirable which it is the place of the civil system to stop. So evidence of intent, history of past behavior, or even just something being an attractive and, in other circumstances, legally unexceptional option. Like making payouts to stockholders to divest assets which other parties have a claim on.

The worst case scenario would cost BP about 5 quarters of income. The rumors of it going bust are gross exaggerations of its problems.

Incidentally, I found out an interesting tidbit on how the royalties from grants of US mineral *and related* rights works. They're based on how much is removed from the property, not how much the entity working the property is able to recover. If the Feds choose to do so, they've got perfect legal justification for demanding BP pays royalties on all the oil that has leaked.

Aren't we talking about a few million barrels of oil at most? The royalties on that wouldn't exactly be very big.

Fuzzy, that speaks more to the goal and purpose of a corporation. Point blank, their only responsibility is to their shareholders and to make the most profit. It's up to government agencies to protect the nation and her people, in general. Sometimes that means encouraging business to grow and innovate, but that also means curtailing business from its irrational exuberance and animal instincts that exploit the greater good. That's not just a legal position but a philosophical and political one.

Even if we look at bp as just a money-making machine that creates jobs and provides energy, that should still include risk management and crisis intervention. Everything so far has shown bp didn't give a crap about those things, because no one made them care by tagging their profit margin for violations. Meager fines, no big deal, standard for the industry.

But as a stock holder, I can also attest that their prospective synopses didn't really inform the shareholder about how poorly their safety performance was, or that they were drilling deeper without contingency plans, let alone preparing for a catastrophe . And no financial advisor warned me to the number of blatant violations they had. It was just about a product and service with a great dividend.

:donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The worst case scenario would cost BP about 5 quarters of income. The rumors of it going bust are gross exaggerations of its problems.

---

That's not what corporate bankruptcy is designed around, though. Filing chapter 9 is to keep creditors at bay while they restructure. It doesn't really mean "they're broke and have no future". :bored:

There's nothing to restructure. They have more than enough cash on hand and revenue flow to pay off any claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

There's nothing to restructure. They have more than enough cash on hand and revenue flow to pay off any claims.

---

You don't know that, no one knows that. Not yet. That's why it's almost dumbfounding that Bp wouldn't have EVERY clean-up worker and EVERY fisherman wearing a respirator and chemical gloves and boots. Those flimsy paper white gowns are a joke. After the millions of gallons of Corexit were used (at the volcano eruption 5,000 feet below sea level + surface distribution + aerial spraying from planes) their chemical experts and health evaluators should have raised huge red flags.

Perhaps they did but were ignored. (p'shaw, dispersants, we use 'em all the damn time, stop worrying.) The damages from chemicals like DDT and Agent Orange were pooh-poohed once, too.

Obama's speach tonight sounded a lot like Carter in '73. I doubt we'll see the metric system any time soon. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Obama's speach tonight sounded a lot like Carter in '73. I doubt we'll see the metric system any time soon. :(

---

I called my kids in to watch, but only the older one showed up. He listened a while and said, "It's all fucking bullshit. We'll still drive our cars to the gas station, to drive on the asphalt roads, to ring up assholes who order too much pizza and want a plastic clam-shell to take the shit home in a plastic bag."

When I mentioned I'd heard this stuff decades ago from Carter, he just looked at me with his big brown eyes and said, "Sorry mom, but your generation sucks. So does pawpaw. All you old people suck, you're sucking us dry."

:cry:

:cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

I'm surprised none of this has come up here yet. It's so rich and delectable...

I'm not going to link to anything because I'm assuming this is all common knowledge to you elitists. And if its not, then you ought to pull your head from your arse. Or something.

A few weeks ago the Obama Administration removed the 30 odd year old ban against off-shore drilling in most areas of the East and West coasts of the US. They also removed it for some areas off the cost of Alaska. This is significant because Democrats are traditionally opposed to off shore drilling because of the environmental risks and its a significant change. You might call it a definite bi-partisan olive branch (likely intended to woo some independants back to the Democrat camp).

Then not a week or so later, a giant off shore platform in the Gulf of Mexico, some 40 miles from the coast of Louisianna, explodes, burns and sinks. And BP's fail safe automated well-head capper fails utterly and now 45k gallons of oil are being added per day to a gigantic oil slick right next to an extremely important fishery and ecologicially fragile shore line. And poor BP is fresh out of ideas. Well, out of ideas that won't take a month to implement. Oops.

So here we are with the worst case scenario the ban had been intended to prevent. Could there *be* a more ironic timing on this? If they were evil, like Cain, I'd be tempted to think the Obama Administration blew that platform up to make a point or something. WTF. :shifty: or :crazyeyes: or :evil:?

---

Going back in time for context.

*OP was started April 28th*


Some internal bp emails have been published, and it's been referred to as an evil, uncontrollable well, by the rig workers. Months later, with the vein still bleeding, making environmental dead zones and killing jobs and local economies (not to mention jeopardizing an entire American coast) our President addresses the nation. He mentions faith, destiny, and prayer.

While I understand he's trying to calm the public, and give us Hope....and I believe in God and prayer....FFS! Can this mean any more than "we don't really know what to do now, no one does, so grab your ass and pray we figure it out before you die".

:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I called my kids in to watch, but only the older one showed up. He listened a while and said, "It's all fucking bullshit. We'll still drive our cars to the gas station, to drive on the asphalt roads, to ring up assholes who order too much pizza and want a plastic clam-shell to take the shit home in a plastic bag."

When I mentioned I'd heard this stuff decades ago from Carter, he just looked at me with his big brown eyes and said, "Sorry mom, but your generation sucks. So does pawpaw. All you old people suck, you're sucking us dry."

:cry:

:cry:

---

Spent too much time reading Chuck Palahniuk has he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Aren't we talking about a few million barrels of oil at most?

---

Sure. per day

Quote:

---

Scientists provided a new estimate for the amount of oil gushing from the ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday that indicates it could be leaking up to 2.52 million gallons of crude a day.

A government panel of scientists said that the ruptured well is leaking between 1.47 million and 2.52 million gallons of oil daily. The figures move the government's worst-case estimates more in line with what an independent team had previously thought was the maximum size of the spill.

---

Exxon Valdez every 5 days since April 20th. :eek: :(

That's about 10 Exxon Valdezes so far.

What's happening with BP's carbon footprint? Watsefully burning all that oil at sea? Where's cap-and-trade when it'd actually be good for something? Where's Kevin Costner centrifuges? If BP had to pay a tax on all the CO2 they're putting in the atmosphere because of the spill, I bet they'd have no problem with buying a few thousand of those from Costner.

Also, don't hurricanes follow the warmest path through the Gulf?

Erm, a barrel is 42 gallons, which means 2.5 million gallons is about 60k barrels a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Erm, a barrel is 42 gallons, which means 2.5 million gallons is about 60k barrels a day.

---

Seems like a lot though. :o

That be my bad, saw barrels, read gallons, this is why I don't post before work :p
Still means that after 2 months thats over 3 million barrels, in the gulf, killing everything from the wildlife to the tourism.

I wonder if there's a criminal trial to be had here for destroying protected wildlife through negligence. :noob: