The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis

[sbat]

As I mentioned, I was out of the country for much of that (1994 - 2004) and lacked an adequate source of information.

I'm still registered as a Republican but it's been many years since I've been able to vote Republican. I've even donated money to the Democrats. Barry Goldwater, the staunch Republican conservative, would be ashamed of the way the Republican party is currently behaving; he might even change parties himself.

I believe he publically disassociated himself with the current Republican party - there's a famous quote I can't recall in which he does so.

 

[Jason]

The only way that regulators could have prevented BP officials from doing what they did was if they were on the platform doing the work themselves.

The regulations in place would have worked, if BP wouldn't have lied to regulators and breached their own contract to do work according to US regulations.

When a company's behavior is so bad that they can't be trusted to do what they are contractually obligated to do, then that company shouldn't be permitted to do business with the government.

Given the seriousness of the problem if something goes wrong then certainly the regulators should have been on the platform. In the North Sea I'm not clear whether regulators are always on platforms or just very often on platforms, but the idea is pretty much that the regulator is physically out there enforcing rules. There is no sense of "we trust the company". We don't!

Of course BP lied. Is anyone surprised at this? All big companies lie. The regulators should not be naive. How many big companies really can be trusted to do what they are contractually obligated to do if they think they can get away with not doing it? I suggest zero. BP has got caught out. But if we look at the hundred biggest international companies (or UK companies, or US companies) and find a way of checking up on whether they are lying my expectation would be that all 100 would be found to be lying.

Yes there is blame to BP and to its subcontractors. But there is also blame to the US government that had an inadequate regulatory enforcement regime. This should really be a matter that the US government sorts out, but when the president seems to want to talk the company into liquidation and pursue it beyond the legal limit of its debts then a very dangerous phase has been entered. Any company which gets it wrong should pay the RIGHT price for its error - not too little and not too much. The price is set by the courts, not the president.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Of course BP lied. Is anyone surprised at this? All big companies lie.

Then clearly, these liars need to be punished to the fullest extent of US law, and be held 100% accountable for all damages that their lying has caused.

Which is exactly what our president is doing.

Yes there is blame to BP and to its subcontractors. But there is also blame to the US government that had an inadequate regulatory enforcement regime.

It would only be inadequate if the guilty party in fact gets away with it, and is not punished to the fullest extent of the law. The American society is freer, in that individuals and businesses are trusted to do the right thing, until they themselves prove that they will not, at which time they are punished rather severely... This concept can be seen in action over and over throughout our society... It stems from a major concept in our society we refer to as 'innocent until proven guilty'... We tend to be more trusting, but we also punish more harshly those who breach that trust.

Any company which gets it wrong should pay the RIGHT price for its error - not too little and not too much. The price is set by the courts, not the president.

Indeed you are right... And a jury of American citizens will soon be deciding what that price is for certain aspects of this case (other major aspects are dictated by regulatory law and are not open to interpretation or judgment)... And I can promise you that said jury will agree with current wisdom which says the 'right price' is for BP and its contractors to pay for every cent of damage they have caused. Then, if punitive damages are assessed, as they often are in US courts, that amount will be roughly triple whatever the cost of damage was. That's how US courts work.

 

[Jason]

Then clearly, these liars need to be punished to the fullest extent of US law, and be held 100% accountable for all damages that their lying has caused.
.

Then you won't have a single (big) company left in the USA.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^There is no evidence of that, it is merely your opinion.

 

[Jason]

And I can promise you that said jury will agree with current wisdom which says the 'right price' is for BP and its contractors to pay for every cent of damage they have caused.

Ouch! We don't want a jury anywhere, ever that agrees with "current wisdom". We want a jury of people who have taken no prior interest in the story and can assess the evidence from scratch.

There are political issues about whipping up popular hatred of a company. If this is indeed a factor in the outcome of a trial and the level of compensation then it is possible that a whipped up public frenzy will have caused the liquidation of a company.

I'm thinking we need our legal brains to find a way of de-merging British Petroleum and Amoco and dumping the costs/liabilities on Amoco. If the US wants to destroy what is in effect Amoco and stop it working in the USA that is a decision for the USA. The USA has every right to kick its own economy and its own pensioners, but its right to kick the UK economy and UK pensioners is dubious.

 

[Bbucko]

I believe he publically disassociated himself with the current Republican party - there's a famous quote I can't recall in which he does so.

His Wikipedia page is full of great quotes, most of which are about his rejection of Christianist influence in the Republican party. This included his strong support of gays serving openly in the military.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Ouch! We don't want a jury anywhere, ever that agrees with "current wisdom". We want a jury of people who have taken no prior interest in the story and can assess the evidence from scratch.

Don't be a prat and play word games. You know what I meant. "an impartial jury", which is of course agreed upon by both sides before the trial begins.

I'm thinking we need our legal brains to find a way of de-merging British Petroleum and Amoco and dumping the costs/liabilities on Amoco. If the US wants to destroy what is in effect Amoco and stop it working in the USA that is a decision for the USA. The USA has every right to kick its own economy and its own pensioners, but its right to kick the UK economy and UK pensioners is dubious.

Good luck with that sort of move ex post facto. US regulators would never allow it.

IF BP didn't want to be face punishment, then they shouldn't have made it copany policy to defy regulations... And if shareholders in BP didn't want to risk losing their investments, then they shouldn't have invested in a company that makes a habit out of breaking the law, and brazenly risking such disaster.

 

[FRE]

Then you won't have a single (big) company left in the USA.

Not true.

There are a number of big companies which have been punished for various violations, and they still exist.

 

[FRE]

His Wikipedia page is full of great quotes, most of which are about his rejection of Christianist influence in the Republican party. This included his strong support of gays serving openly in the military.

Thanks for the link. I was aware of only a small portion of that material.

 

[FRE]

Ouch! We don't want a jury anywhere, ever that agrees with "current wisdom". We want a jury of people who have taken no prior interest in the story and can assess the evidence from scratch.

There are political issues about whipping up popular hatred of a company. If this is indeed a factor in the outcome of a trial and the level of compensation then it is possible that a whipped up public frenzy will have caused the liquidation of a company.

I'm thinking we need our legal brains to find a way of de-merging British Petroleum and Amoco and dumping the costs/liabilities on Amoco. If the US wants to destroy what is in effect Amoco and stop it working in the USA that is a decision for the USA. The USA has every right to kick its own economy and its own pensioners, but its right to kick the UK economy and UK pensioners is dubious.

Here in the U.S., juries are generally chosen very carefully. Extreme pains are taken to ensure that jurors do not have strongly held opinions on matters involved in the case. I know; I've been on two juries and rejected for a third jury.

In the case at hand, prospective jurors would be questioned as a group to determine if any own stock in BP or have any other obvious conflicts of interest. Those left would eventually be questioned individually to ascertain their attitudes on various matters which could affect their vote. In the case of BP, probably at least 100 prospective jurors would be questioned to select a jury of 12, with a few alternates in case a few have to be released during the trial or during deliberations.

Our court system is not perfect; it has never been claimed to be perfect. But in general, it does work well.

 

[Drifterwood]

Bhopal has been mentioned a few times. For those who may not know, 20,000 died and at least another 40,000 have been left with severe medical problems. Union Carbide has never admitted responsibility even though the inquiry found them culpable. They paid $470 million in compensation.

Re the OP, some US politicians are showboating - what a surprise.

 

[FuzzyKen]

Related and yet at the same time unrelated is the latest disaster. In the State of Utah within the United States borders a massive oil spill took place which has potential to find it's way to the environmentally very sensitive area of the Great Salt Lake in that State.

The combination of the "multi-corporational" disaster in the Gulf when combined with the most recent disaster in Utah is going to have the Utah problem spilling over and adding fire to the sentiments of many at this point in time.

This time it appears that the company in charge was 100% Chevron Oil.

If a couple more problems with "Big-oil" happen this year I do not think it will be a very good time to be a shareholder in any oil company stock. I also see federal regulators taking a well deserved "microscoping look" at "Big-Oil" in general from the drilling to their marketing practices at the pump.

It will not take too much more to cause this kind of reaction.

By the way the "Big-Oil" dollars spent over at You Tube are really amazing.

They are supposed to be spending their money where?

 

[FRE]

Related and yet at the same time unrelated is the latest disaster. In the State of Utah within the United States borders a massive oil spill took place which has potential to find it's way to the environmentally very sensitive area of the Great Salt Lake in that State.

The combination of the "multi-corporational" disaster in the Gulf when combined with the most recent disaster in Utah is going to have the Utah problem spilling over and adding fire to the sentiments of many at this point in time.

This time it appears that the company in charge was 100% Chevron Oil.

If a couple more problems with "Big-oil" happen this year I do not think it will be a very good time to be a shareholder in any oil company stock. I also see federal regulators taking a well deserved "microscoping look" at "Big-Oil" in general from the drilling to their marketing practices at the pump.

It will not take too much more to cause this kind of reaction.

By the way the "Big-Oil" dollars spent over at You Tube are really amazing.

They are supposed to be spending their money where?

It is not unusual for companies to attempt to circumvent their legal and financial obligations. They have a number or ways to do so. Among them are advertising (which sometimes consists of green washing), lobbying, bribing, and delaying. We really should not be surprised or amazed when they do this; it is a perfectly standard practice.

 

[superbot]

Don't be a prat and play word games. You know what I meant. "an impartial jury", which is of course agreed upon by both sides before the trial begins.


Good luck with that sort of move ex post facto. US regulators would never allow it.

IF BP didn't want to be face punishment, then they shouldn't have made it copany policy to defy regulations... And if shareholders in BP didn't want to risk losing their investments, then they shouldn't have invested in a company that makes a habit out of breaking the law, and brazenly risking such disaster.

....or using lousy American contractors and obviously equally lousy American equipment DON'T FORGET!!

 

[dandelion]

Yes there is blame to BP and to its subcontractors. But there is also blame to the US government that had an inadequate regulatory enforcement regime.

It would only be inadequate if the guilty party in fact gets away with it, and is not punished to the fullest extent of the law.

So you are happy with a system where contractors are free to be as careless as they like and spill as much oil as they please, just so long as they get punished afterwards? Suely much better to have a system which tries to stop the spills before they happen.

The American society is freer, in that individuals and businesses are trusted to do the right thing, until they themselves prove that they will not, at which time they are punished rather severely...

well, its a big country. Lots of room for pollution to go unnoticed. Just holiday somewhere else. When the day comes that it is generally admitted energy consumption has caused major climate change with consequential harm for every citizen, will the US sue the pants off every company in the country and put them all out of business?will that help?

.. It stems from a major concept in our society we refer to as 'innocent until proven guilty'... We tend to be more trusting, but we also punish more harshly those who breach that trust.

Rough justice? from what I hear the US legal system has a terrible reputation for justice. A good lawyer and money you get off, a bad one and you go to jail.

says the 'right price' is for BP and its contractors to pay for every cent of damage they have caused. Then, if punitive damages are assessed, as they often are in US courts, that amount will be roughly triple whatever the cost of damage was. That's how US courts work.

So given the scale of the bill, that could be a nice little windfall for someone if they can whip up enough public feeling against BP. Making BP appear evil could be very profitable. Doesnt exactly sound either impartial or disintereted. More like a cop who smashes your light and then fines you.

Good luck with that sort of move ex post facto. US regulators would never allow it.

You mean the sort of ex post facto moves congress and president seem to be trying to make to change the rules after the fact?

 

[maxcok]

How was it a blatant misrepresentation? You know, you could have just written a post demonstrating how it was . . .

I did. Twice.

. . . and created an engaging, entertaining debate.

Yeah, I'll get back to my thoughts on 'entertaining' you and 'debating' you.

You just said my post was full of hyperbole and blatant misrepresentation without specifically identifying anything that I said. You expect me to take your word on it?

I specifically identified your misrepresentation and countered it in my first post to you. I specifically quoted the same misrepresentation in my second post to you, after you purposely ignored my counter and disingenously pretended not to know what I was talking about. It's now completely obvious, you are not only deflecting but flat out lying.

I don't want you to ignore. I'm more interested in debating. Not the kind of debating that we're doing now. But the kind where we actually discuss the points at hand and try to actually convince each other of our own points. Not the kind where you completely ignore the actual argument and dismiss without supporting statements what the other person has to say.

Kinda exactly like what you're doing here and have been doing all along? Great tactic. Accuse your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of. Classic deflection. I've seen this movie before, Charly.

I don't necessarily share my own full personal opinions on this board, and I often play devil's advocate because it's boring for the world for one to spout what they believe all the time.

Oh, so in other words, you want to stir up debate by arguing positions you don't even believe in? The opposite of what you believe? Because you're bored?? How is one to know if you're lying then? Oh right, that doesn't matter, does it. Wow, you must really like to argue and really like the attention. And you have the nerve to call me combative? Thanks for spelling that out. Got it now.

I'm more interested in debating.

Guess what, I'm not interested in debating you. You are a deflector, a dissembler and a liar. You strike me as a very needy person who likes to stir up shit because you crave attention. I have better things to do with my time.

I don't want you to ignore.

Welcome to ignore.

p.s. If you ever expect me to respond to you again, which is highly unlikely, you will not put your responses in the body of a quote as you have repeatedly been doing, and as I have done here to demonstrate. It makes it exceedingly difficult to respond without deconstructing the entire text and reassembling it, as you will see if you try to respond to the points above. But perhaps that is your intention. It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[798686]

It seems the US Administration rebuffed a British offer, days after the accident, to airlift half our stockpile of badly-needed dispersants for use in the crisis. Apparently our paperwork wasn't up to scratch (denied by the UK gov), altho a similar offer was accepted from the Saudis. Hmmm.

 

[vince]

....or using lousy American contractors and obviously equally lousy American equipment DON'T FORGET!!

Links for this?

So you are happy with a system where contractors are free to be as careless as they like and spill as much oil as they please, just so long as they get punished afterwards? Suely much better to have a system which tries to stop the spills before they happen.

Do you have proof to back up the statement that the Americans have "a system where contractors are free to be as careless as they like and spill as much oil as they please"?

In 2008 there were 141 deepwater rigs operating off the Louisiana coastline. There is only one that is spewing oil in to the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore someone must be doing something right.

So given the scale of the bill, that could be a nice little windfall for someone if they can whip up enough public feeling against BP. Making BP appear evil could be very profitable. Doesnt exactly sound either impartial or disintereted. More like a cop who smashes your light and then fines you.

If there is any "whipping up" being done, it's happening in the British press. Oh, and by that live feed from 5000 ft beneath the surface, showing all that crude oil boiling out of BP's failed well. BP doesn't need any help appearing to be evil. They are doing a very good job of it themselves.

 

[Jason]

It seems the US Administration rebuffed a British offer, days after the accident, to airlift half our stockpile of badly-needed dispersants for use in the crisis. Apparently our paperwork wasn't up to scratch (denied by the UK gov), altho a similar offer was accepted from the Saudis. Hmmm.

This story appears well sourced and in a nutshell true. It also makes no easy sense - why should the USA act in this way, a way which seems pretty certain to have increased the extent of the damage? For that matter the UK's talking up of the tensions caused by Obama's comments also makes very little sense. For all the extensive media coverage I have a sense that we are missing key parts of this story.

There are very, very quiet whispers about a possible demerger. The old British Petroleum and old Amocco parts of BP are still largely separate - the big benefit for them of merging was in the global BP brand. In terms of unpicking the practical business I think it looks possible. The problems are around a legal framework. As BP is registered in London this would be done under English law. The complexities are such that rather than leave it to the courts to slug it out over a decade or more (and probably take both demerged companies with them in the process) it would probably need a special BP Act through parliament. In extremis this could even be tagged on to the UK budget (which would have the effect of fast tracking it) or in ultimate extremis done by Order (though we haven't gone down that route since 1983).

The information that Obama turned down British help to clean up the problem lends weight to the idea that Obama is playing this primarily as a PR issue, and not with a view to finding the best solution, either ecological or economic. In as much as this is a matter within the US environment (both natural and economic) this is a US issue. But when it overspills into damage to the British economy it becomes a British issue. If the UK and the US cannot agree on how BP should be handled then maybe we have to look at other solutions.