Printable View
I don't really think there should be any cap to the liability of BP. My problem is that the legal system was shoved aside by the administration. The administration should consider itself to be subject to the law, not standing above it. If and when BP should pay out more than the proscribed $75m that should be on the basis of either settlements or court rulings. Not on the basis of the CEO of BP being summoned to the White House.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Strangely enough, we think about these issues before we let those companies do their drilling. And we tend to enforce our environmental regulations quite stringently.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Evil European Socialists (tm), still haven't learned their lessons, yada yada
I still think you're assigning too much of Bp's actions to the White House. The fact that "their meeting" only took a couple of hours suggests the escrow account and dividend suspension was on Bp's priority list in the first place. Damage control and public perception effects their stock value, which they're careful to keep from plummeting. To people who didn't like it, they could "blame the strong hand of the gummint". That's a win/win for Bp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
You're also forgetting how long and protracted court proceedings can be. Exxon Valdez took twenty fucking years. Bp has been dragging its feet on legitimate claims, while fishermen and tourist centered businesses are tanking. SBA has set up mobile units to give them cheap short term loans, just so they can pay the light bill and their vessel notes. Whatever fee or interest rate they're charged should be billed to Bp.
You know, there's a reason Jindal didn't accept federal stimulus funds. Much of the LA port industry was self-sufficient, they didn't need or want federal money, they just wanted to fish and do what they'd been doing since the 1800s....are you now going to say the gummint shouldn't have suspended fishing in contaminated waters?
:donkey:
I don't think I assign too much of BP actions to the White House.
I'm also not convinced by your argument that the meeting only took a few hours. It took the Belgian and Dutch government a couple of hours to chop up Fortis, nationalize the Dutch parts and put the Belgian parts up for sale. A deal with an uncertain price-tag attached to it, but significantly higher than the BP escrow fund. In this case the action was legal, but while the deal was done the CEO of Fortis was waiting in the corridor to be told what his orders were.
I am definately not forgetting how long it can take to get your right in court, that however is not an argument to do away with courts and go in stead with the directives of the White House. For reasons of PR BP could also have come to settlements with aggrieved parties. What we have now is a grab bag $20bn big for the US government. We can only hope that the people who actually suffered damages due to this disaster will still find something in it once Uncle Sam has removed his sticky fingers from it.
Then explain why Bp (apparently without any "shake down" from the White House) is trying to raise $50 billion. Gee, maybe it's a business decision and not coerced at all?
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10787...oil-spill.htmlQuote:
BP Raising $50 Billion to Pay for Oil Spill?
By Eric Rosenbaum 06/21/10
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- BP(BP) is planning to raise $50 billion to cover its unquantifiable liabilities in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, according to a reports. Last week, the first reports surfaced the BP would seek to tap the bond markets with a $5 billion to $10 billion debt deal. Over the weekend, London's Sunday Times reported that in addition to the debt deal, BP hopes to raise $20 billion from banks and $10 billion for asset sales over the next two years.
BP had said last week, when announcing its dividend suspension and $20 billion escrow account, that it would seek to divest as much as $10 billion in non-core assets as part of shoring up the balance sheet given the oil spill liabilities.
A BP spokesman declined to comment on the Sunday Times report. Between the $7 billion to $8 billion not being paid out in 2010 dividends, the $10 billion already announced by BP as part of planned asset sales, the $20 billion placed in the escrow account, and the reported bond deal, $50 billion related to the oil spill would already be attained without adding another $10 billion in asset sales or $20 billion in a bank facility.
BP shares were trading down in London by close to 4% on Monday.
Over the weekend, Rep. Ed Markey (D. Mass.), Capitol Hill point man on the BP oil spill, said that Congress would also be keeping a close eye on other companies linked to the oil spill, and making sure that companies including Anadarko Petroleum(APC) pay their portion of liabilities from the oil spill.
Anadarko's CEO James Hackett put out a statement after the market closed on Friday referring to BP's actions as "reckless" and seeking keep much of the blame -- and ostensibly the oil spill liability -- on the embattled British oil giant.
After the comments made by Anadarko, there were reports over the weekend that BP might pursue a lawsuit against its partner in the Macondo well. Anadarko owns 25% of the BP well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Its as if you aren't even paying attention to what is actually happening. You still haven't acknowledged that BP agreed to compenstation before the government got involved, and we're still waiting for some sort of source of these illegitimate claims or dissappearing funds you keep bitching about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Payouts thus far
Hazir, the US doesn't operate like that. You want to see us act like Euros, with a formality and procedure attributed to your government and judiciary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Is that why you think the White House was wrong, because your Euro business ethics are tied more toward government telling them what to do than ours....and a business making the same choice (but can't be attributed to government manipulation) is a foreign concept.....?
:confused:
:(
I don't really understand the disconnect here. People are bitching about the heavy hand of the gummint, or going outside the "legal system". This isn't like Toyota with some bad brakes, it's not like a tainted food or medicine that can be recalled, even though there are injured parties there. This isn't even like a dysfunctional financial system that can take down global trade but also be corrected.
This is about the ongoing contamination of a whole coastline, an entire ocean body, ecosystems and food chains, and a part of our country! It's almost too amazing that the repercussions haven't really hit people yet, and they just say to themselves, "They'll stop the gusher and clean it up eventually, write a bunch of checks. It's no big deal really, people should stop being emotional."
??? WTF ???
I could have put this in the other thread about oil, but Oh the Irony was just too much. I just heard about this on the news.....
Quote:
NASA boss investigated for possible conflict of interest on biofuel project
Charlie Bolden asked Marathon Oil for its opinion on Project OMEGA — but he has financial interest in Marathon, which has a competing project
June 20, 2010|By Robert Block and Mark K. Matthews, Orlando Sentinel
While millions of barrels of spilled oil choke the Gulf of Mexico, NASA is working on an ocean-based biofuels venture that could revolutionize clean-energy production at sea and treat wastewater at the same time.
The scientist running the $10 million experiment, called Project OMEGA, uses words such as groundbreaking and exciting to describe his baby. But there's a hitch.
NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden doesn't believe in OMEGA — and has sought to slow it down.
The reason: He was advised against it by Marathon Oil — the Texas-based company on whose board Bolden sat until he was named NASA administrator last year. The former astronaut and Marine Corps general also still holds as much as $1 million worth of Marathon stock.
So far, the project is proceeding without any signs of obvious interference, according to scientists and officials. But Bolden's decision to vet OMEGA with a company in which he has a significant financial interest — and that also has invested in a competing biofuels proposal — has prompted an investigation by the NASA inspector general.
Bolden says he did nothing wrong, and his lawyers at NASA agree.
But government ethics watchdogs say Bolden should have steered clear of involvement with the project because of his ties to the industry and financial holdings.
"It definitely does not pass the smell test," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, who called Bolden's conversation "wholly inappropriate."
Bolden's action has infuriated the director of NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif., where the project is based. In an e-mail obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, Pete Worden, a former astronomy professor and retired Air Force general, angrily demanded an explanation.
"I think my folks are entitled to know who talked to Charlie and the basis of their criticism so we can respond. This is frankly the worst of NASA, and I don't like it. It is 'good ole boy' networks at its worst and not worthy of NASA and this administration," he wrote.
The controversy comes amid a time of unprecedented turmoil surrounding the agency, with the space shuttle retiring soon and the future of the human-spaceflight program caught in a tug of war between Congress and the administration. Privately, White House and congressional officials have expressed growing doubts about Bolden's judgment.
If BP is really so happy about coughing up an undetermined amount of dollars; why the heavy handed approach by the Obama administration. If they were planning this all along why not simply a press statement of the White House telling us they had all trust in BP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
What I see now is a prime opportunity for the administration to grab as it wants out of that compensation. It wouldn't be the first time.
Oh, I didn't know that rule of law was something only we 'euros' believed in. Thanks for setting me right.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You should really try reading the thread first before you continue this trend of asking questions we already covered. You are only making yourself look like a moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
The White House displayed public trust in BP handling the mess and cleanup up until at least the end of May, long after BP already began paying out. In fact, BP was in its 2nd wave of claims before the white house stepped up due to public critizism on how slow and untrustworthy BP is and has become.
We already covered the PR aspect of that, but nice attempt in trying to spin this into some sort of "heavy handed" approach :up:.
Again with the baseless attacks at the adminstation. Now you are accusing them of stealing compensation funds? Really?
I don't know whats "undetermined" about $20 Billion, but thats not unexpected coming from you, a poster who can't figure out which payouts he has issue with.
:haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Could you be more specific? :rolleyes: You have yet to show it's a power grab the administration, let alone anything illegal.Quote:
What I see now is a prime opportunity for the administration to grab as it wants out of that compensation. It wouldn't be the first time.
Oh, I didn't know that rule of law was something only we 'euros' believed in. Thanks for setting me right.
Read up on the escrow fund and how it's really a pool of money for insurance-type claims. It's meant to speed up the process for the victims, following state laws. We can "follow the rule of law" without it being some federal edict, which is what you (seem to) suggest.
God, you didn't even understand that what I said was exactly that BP was not trusted and therefore got the hosedown at the White House?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
What would have taken it for you to understand that BP did not part voluntarily with the power of spending $20bn of its money? A picture of Obama holding an actual gun to the CEO's head?
What I have issue with is that the pay-outs will be not attributed through a legal process but through a process on which the US administration has great influence. This type of 'settlement' almost never benefits the victims and makes money wind up in the oddest places.
And no, I can't be more specific about how the Obama administration will abuse its ability to misappropriate these funds in the future. I would much prefer a situation in which they couldn't get their fingers on money that isn't their's in the first place.
As has your posting been in this thread for the past several days. Incoherent rantings on "what ifs" and "almosts."Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Now when you're able to take that stick out of your ass, you can try conversing with the actual facts, about what is actually happening. Such as noting how the original payout system (as was controlled by BP) was in any way more (or less if you wish) legal than the escrow account that no longer is influenced by the culprit on how the victim should be compensated. Instead of using these deadend and sourceless claims of payouts to nobodies and the government stealing compensation from BP's victims.
These aren't settlement checks yet. Recieving a payment from the escrow account does not remove one's ability to sue BP. Please stop using terms you do not understand.
Quote:
Feinberg, who was appointed last week as the independent administrator fund, said that recipients of emergency relief funds, which are being paid out in real time do not sign away their right to sue BP for damages.
Now, you being the stupid fuck you are; my point is that the administration should keep its filthy fingers from the entire process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I do not have some god complex and therefore do not feel I have to keep an eye on the day to day attribution of funds. The principle of the government getting involved is wrong; it is a violation of the rule of law and nobody's money is ever safe in the hands of the government.
http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post34993
^that was for Hazir, but I posted it in the wrong thread. :noob:
You keep saying it's a violation of the rule of law, but not backing that up with anything....
So this post, by you, that we keep asking you to source, is complete bullshit. Pulled out of your ass, to further your baseless claim that: government "manhandled" escrow = bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
If your ranting had any basis in reality, besides your severely screwed up opinion of how our laws work, and what role our government plays, all this apparent theft and bogus claim filing could have at least been sourced back to 9/11 when the government pegged Feinburg to run a similiar program for the airlines. That 97% of the victim families took part in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Bla bla bla.. and more blah... meaning that OG won't take my word for it untill I can show him some sources for the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Thats what your defense boils down to?
Predicting how people will be compensated based of your fortune telling? With nothing to provide a rhyme or reason for arriving at such predictions. Even when past events contradict your claims.
Well shit, lets hear some lotto numbers!
It's interesting, isn't it. The moratorium was only on new, exploratory rigs in 500 feet or more, a total of 33 rigs. The rest were still operating.
MMS better get its act together and inspect all the rigs out there, especially the Atlantis (bigger, and deeper, with pending law suits from engineers claiming the construction drawings were never reviewed or approved.....:eek: )
It's a tough call, but until safety checks are ramped up, I'd rather protect the Gulf Coast than the jobs.
BP has extremely high asset liquidity and those assets need to be monitored. $20 billion is not going to cover the damages and they damn well know that.
It was only a matter of time...
Next up, hurricane!
Nice comic. Too bad it isn't funny. How about that oil spill, eh? Fuck.
Drill baby drill?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/24rig.html?hp
:cry:
Holding managers personally responsible for their decisions is good way to increase safety.
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010...g.timebomb.cnn
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin
BP fucks up again, and according to their own documents, we are looking at a week of up to 100,000 barrels a day spillage until they fix this. :down:Quote:
An undersea accident has forced BP to shut down a key system collecting oil from its blown-out Gulf of Mexico well, unleashing a torrent of oil, the top US oil spill official said.