The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis

[TomCat84]

It isn't anti British sentiment. If anything, it's an anti corporate sentiment.

 

[sbat]

You make some very salient points, dandelion.

As someone posted after you, the UK is the US' strongest ally in Europe. But the Anglo-American alliance, like any, has been one of coinciding interests and ultimately an alliance of convenience.

In this case, Obama was pushing very hard for offshore drilling, making all sorts of assurances to the public of how safe it was, dismissing environmental concerns. BP made him look very very bad. So it is only natural that his approval-salvaging strategy should involve casting off as much blame as possible onto corporate decision-making, rather than the inherently risky nature of offshore drilling (the potential for a similar disaster...we don't actually know because the necessary research is not being funded/conducted).

Propaganda is about simplifying emotive messages. For him to fully explain the contracting process and a more realistic understanding of blame would convolute people's understanding of who is responsible and make it more difficult to reinforce his main message - Obama wasn't wrong, it's (XXX)'s fault! You can only pick one scapegoat. So you have to make it as foreign sounding as possible.

Obama's no dummy. He knows what he's doing when he says British Petroleum instead of BP. A man who talks as much, and as carefully as he does, knows the power of the words he chooses.

If I was interested enough I might have followed some of the debate which must have been going on about who is really to blame for this. BP has the contract, so the bills come back to them. However they were not carrying out the work. The name haliburton came to attention before because they were ripping off the US and ultimately Iraq for work they were plainly failing to carry out after the invasion. If that was anything to go by, this is their fault, but I dont see anyone much saying haliburton has failed to stop the leak.

Instead people seem to be concentrating on whether BP somehow cut corners. The people who died when the rig exploded were the ones who suffered most immediately. There is a limit on how far an employer could push its contractors into doing risky things, even if it was deliberately trying to do so. So I find it hard to credit BP had cut a deal which both parties believed was dangerous with transocean/Haliburton. Much more likely BP cut a tight commercial deal with willing parties, who then themselves cut whatever corners led to this mess. BP is at fault for not choosing a better contractor, but it remains to be seen exactly how much better the available alternatives might be.

But to return to the issue, I hear no calls for Haliburton not to declare a dividend, nor transocean. Lots of calls addressed to BP. Maybe this is not true in the US, but it is here. From my perspective it looks like BP will get the bill for something not directly under its control while the others who did the deed are not under the same contractual liability to the US government. The US is going after the only one it has directly on the hook.

Obama is becoming increasingly desperate because he will get the blame for this for as long as it continues. Yet there is absolutely nothing he can do about it. All he can do is threaten to get tough with the only party he can legally get at, BP. It makes no difference what he says to what BP does. I dont for 1 minute think they said 'oh dear, lets do nothing unlesss the president complains'. What they have tried might be pretty ineffective but I imagine it is the best that could be done.

BP is an important company for the UK economy. Ditto for the Us, but the US is bigger overall so the impact is less. The UK economy is flaky, at best. It does not need extra panics. Obama is creating a panic. What the British economy needs is calming words emphasising the up side for BP even if they are doomed to bancruptcy. What the president needs is to talk up the pain he will inflict on BP and how he will tear BP to pieces, even if in the end it only costs them 1 years profits. We are at a point where british national interest is in conflict with the presidents personal interest. Which is why a number of movers and shakers in Britain are starting to say it is time to tell Obama where to get off.

 

[B_starinvestor]

And there's another one lining up to whack the Obama pinata.

Maybe he could go do some bush hogging? Seriously doll, you can do soo much better.

"President Obama will make his most extensive trip to the gulf coast yet, visiting Mississippi, Alabama and Florida on Monday and Tuesday of next week, the White House announced late Tuesday.

​

He will "further assess the latest efforts to counter the BP oil spill," the White House said. The trip, his fourth trip to the region, fills a scheduling hole created when Obama canceled a trip to Indonesia."

Obama to return to the Gulf of Mexico - again​

​

his fourth trip to the region in his life? Or since he's been in office?

He hasn't been down there 4 times since the oil leak

 

[dandelion]

yes, you are right. The next most obvious thing to blame after BP is whoever gave them the contract to do the drilling and set the terms. Apart from the problem of being blamed personally, I doubt Obama has changed his mind on wanting to allow drilling, because there is no choice. So he also does not have the option of coming forward and saying it was an unfortunate accident, and accidents are inevitable. He is treading the course of blaming company X but saying company Y will do better next time.

 

[TomCat84]

his fourth trip to the region in his life? Or since he's been in office?

He hasn't been down there 4 times since the oil leak

Perhaps watch something other than Fox News for once?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

his fourth trip to the region in his life? Or since he's been in office?

He hasn't been down there 4 times since the oil leak

The fact is, he's been down to New Orleans multiple times since the Oil spill happened. In fact, trips to two other countries were cancelled so he can focus on the Gulf Oil situation. A far cry from "playing golf" as you so adamantly put it.

Do you really get off intentionally lying around here?

 

[TomCat84]

The fact is, he's been down to New Orleans multiple times since the Oil spill happened. In fact, trips to two other countries were cancelled so he can focus on the Gulf Oil situation. A far cry from "playing golf" as you so adamantly put it.

Do you really get off intentionally lying around here?

I wonder what he'll come up with. I can picture him now- frantically googling the info so he can come up with something.

 

[sbat]

yes, you are right. The next most obvious thing to blame after BP is whoever gave them the contract to do the drilling and set the terms. Apart from the problem of being blamed personally, I doubt Obama has changed his mind on wanting to allow drilling, because there is no choice. So he also does not have the option of coming forward and saying it was an unfortunate accident, and accidents are inevitable. He is treading the course of blaming company X but saying company Y will do better next time.

Yup. And judging from the comments on this board - the moralistic outbursts against BP without mention of the other American contractors is proof of this propaganda's success.

No questions about environmental standards compliance enforcement, or the rigors of compliance reviews that were conducted. The Department of Homeland Security also has a set of Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Recovery compliance standards. So at least two federal agencies dropped the ball on detecting and enforcing preparedness for potential hazards.

(Note:
The thing is, having done risk assessment for federal agencies, it really wouldn't have mattered. Companies like BP can wheel out grads from high powered schools with high powered resumes to show complicated risk measurement graphs to impress the DHS. Yes, there are a lot of government employees who work like horses to do their jobs well. My mother is one. But there are a lot that don't put the effort in their work that they ought to. And it shows. ::Looks at Gulf Coast:

Not to mention the fact that no one is stepping up research into the geology of the ocean floor - an area that we are very poor in knowledge and is required to reduce the risks of disasters from offshore drilling.

 

[798686]

If I was interested enough I might have followed some of the debate which must have been going on about who is really to blame for this. BP has the contract, so the bills come back to them. However they were not carrying out the work. The name haliburton came to attention before because they were ripping off the US and ultimately Iraq for work they were plainly failing to carry out after the invasion. If that was anything to go by, this is their fault, but I dont see anyone much saying haliburton has failed to stop the leak.

Instead people seem to be concentrating on whether BP somehow cut corners. The people who died when the rig exploded were the ones who suffered most immediately. There is a limit on how far an employer could push its contractors into doing risky things, even if it was deliberately trying to do so. So I find it hard to credit BP had cut a deal which both parties believed was dangerous with transocean/Haliburton. Much more likely BP cut a tight commercial deal with willing parties, who then themselves cut whatever corners led to this mess. BP is at fault for not choosing a better contractor, but it remains to be seen exactly how much better the available alternatives might be.

But to return to the issue, I hear no calls for Haliburton not to declare a dividend, nor transocean. Lots of calls addressed to BP. Maybe this is not true in the US, but it is here. From my perspective it looks like BP will get the bill for something not directly under its control while the others who did the deed are not under the same contractual liability to the US government. The US is going after the only one it has directly on the hook.

Obama is becoming increasingly desperate because he will get the blame for this for as long as it continues. Yet there is absolutely nothing he can do about it. All he can do is threaten to get tough with the only party he can legally get at, BP. It makes no difference what he says to what BP does. I dont for 1 minute think they said 'oh dear, lets do nothing unlesss the president complains'. What they have tried might be pretty ineffective but I imagine it is the best that could be done.

BP is an important company for the UK economy. Ditto for the Us, but the US is bigger overall so the impact is less. The UK economy is flaky, at best. It does not need extra panics. Obama is creating a panic. What the British economy needs is calming words emphasising the up side for BP even if they are doomed to bancruptcy. What the president needs is to talk up the pain he will inflict on BP and how he will tear BP to pieces, even if in the end it only costs them 1 years profits. We are at a point where british national interest is in conflict with the presidents personal interest. Which is why a number of movers and shakers in Britain are starting to say it is time to tell Obama where to get off.

Brilliant post, Dandy. Everything I wanted to say, but better put, lol.

Apparently (according to scientists), the spill - altho awful - is not as terrible as it initially seems. Since it's a natural substance (rather than refined) the chances are it will biodegrade naturally over coming months, possibly no more than 4 months after the leak is fully plugged. Also - the leak has apparently now slowed to a trickle, and the spill itself is only 1/3 of the size of the Torrey Canyon spill. Still not great - but perhaps not as permanently catastrophic as is being painted? Can't verify these claims as I'm not a scientist, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Our president is too blame for this backlash. He has done little or nothing in dealing with the oil spill, other than a photo op here and there. Its only now, 50 days after the spill he talk with BP's CEO Tony Hayward. The worst environmental disaster in American history, and he can't even pick up a telephone. In the end the American people will blame the president and not BP for the disaster. He is dangerously incompetent. The following article includes the text from Tuesday's Today Show interview of the president with Matt Lauer.

Why on Earth Hasn't Obama Spoken with BP's CEO?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/why_on_earth_hasn039t_obama_spoken_with_bp039s_ceo

 

[TomCat84]

Brilliant post, Dandy. Everything I wanted to say, but better put, lol.

Apparently (according to scientists), the spill - altho awful - is not as terrible as it initially seems. Since it's a natural substance (rather than refined) the chances are it will biodegrade naturally over coming months, possibly no more than 4 months after the leak is fully plugged. Also - the leak has apparently now slowed to a trickle, and the spill itself is only 1/3 of the size of the Torrey Canyon spill. Still not great - but perhaps not as permanently catastrophic as is being painted? Can't verify these claims as I'm not a scientist, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

From what I've read, you are partially correct. Bacterium are already starting to break down the oil in the ocean....but a byproduct of this is a massive reduction in oxygen levels in the affected water- essentially creating a dead zone. Hundreds of miles of American coastline is affected by the oil.

 

[Northland]

If I was interested enough I might have followed some of the debate which must have been going on about who is really to blame for this...

Which is precisely why I can take nothing of what you say as of importance. If you don't care enough to follow the situation in its entirety, then how can you decide that now you know what is happening? By the way, you do not. Halburton has been on the chopping block on this issue, not just BP, as has transocean and others. Then again, your assessment of best/worst scenarios mentions only fiinancial matters, never the actual issue, which is life.


http://www.lpsg.org/2788384-post1.html

"I see there is a thread about the oil leak, but it seems to be debating people rather than events. Is this leak serious or a storm in a tea cup?

Best case scenario seems to be 1billion dollar bill for cleanup. Embarassment all round.

Worst case, BP goes bankrupt. oil just goes on flowing. For years. destruction of all coastal industries in the area. Total ban on offshore drilling, resulting in worse oil shortages for the US in 10 years time. UK economy gets a good chunk of the pain since uk holdings in BP are wiped out and UK loses 40bn a year in income?

So where are we on this scale?"

Not one mention of dead animals- land and sea, dead plants- again, land and sea, all about money.




Back to the OP. There is blame everywhere, the BP people, the Haliburton folks, the people at LOSCO- visit their websiite: LOSCO and the leaders of both the U.S.A. and Great Britain. It's an automatic regurgitative kind of reflex to asign blame to others while scrambling about to figure out what to do. In the end, there will be no real winners.


For those who babble about the oil being natural and therefore disolving, tell that to the birds, the shrimp, the other sea life and to the families now without an income and soon without homes or hope, What of the creatures which subsist on the marine life which has been destroyed? Just a few days ago, it was noted, dolphins were swimming through the muck, sucking in water and contaminated food product and that many will soon be calving (others already are and have). How many will not live? How many other sea creatures and birds will be lost in this fight and yet people keep singing idiotic tunes about how 'oil is natural and will disolve'. Really? That harmless? Try swimming in a tank of oil and get back to me. Some of this creatures will be wiped out, they won't be back.

 

[dreamer20]

Our president is too blame for this backlash. He has done little or nothing in dealing with the oil spill, other than a photo op here and there.<snip>

Why on Earth Hasn't Obama Spoken with BP's CEO?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpol...ith_bp039s_ceo

Obama, like Nixon in 1969 and G.H.Bush in 1989, happened to be POTUS when an oil disaster occurred. Your cited yahoo article is laughable, rubbish as the prior men in their eras or Obama talking to oil industry CEOs, such as BP's, wouldn't stop the oil spill, as Tom Bevan, the author of the article, well knows. Obama isn't responsible for stopping the oil leak. That responsibility, by contract, lies with BP and not the federal government. BP has to stop the oil leak, pay for any environmental damage from the disaster and the oil clean up. Obama has aided BP by having the Coast Guard coordinate the federal government's efforts to clean up oil and protect areas of the Gulf coast from oil slicks. Unfortunately, after repeated attempts and promises of success, BP has yet to stop the oil leak.

 

[sbat]

Obama, like Nixon in 1969 and G.H.Bush in 1989, happened to be POTUS when an oil disaster occurred. Your cited yahoo article is laughable, rubbish as the prior men in their eras or Obama talking to oil industry CEOs, such as BP's, wouldn't stop the oil spill, as Tom Bevan, the author of the article, well knows. Obama isn't responsible for stopping the oil leak. That responsibility, by contract, lies with BP and not the federal government. BP has to stop the oil leak, pay for any environmental damage from the disaster and the oil clean up. Obama has aided BP by having the Coast Guard coordinate the federal government's efforts to clean up oil and protect areas of the Gulf coast from oil slicks. Unfortunately, after repeated attempts and promises of success, BP has yet to stop the oil leak.

The president is ultimately the person the most responsible for coordinating the welfare of the nation, not some company that is contractually obligated. He is responsible for making sure BP doesn't drag their feet, present incorrect figures related to damage extent, or make any other effort to cover their asses at the expense of an expedient clean up effort - of which there is evidence that they are.

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

The fact is, he's been down to New Orleans multiple times since the Oil spill happened. In fact, trips to two other countries were cancelled so he can focus on the Gulf Oil situation. A far cry from "playing golf" as you so adamantly put it.

Do you really get off intentionally lying around here?

Whats multiple? 3? only twice in 39 days. By the ways he goine golfing 32 times since he took office He certainly had no problem getting his photo ops in with the Duke Blue Devils and the US world cup soccer players not to mention Paul McCartney. I whish that old prune would shrivel up and die already.

 

[dong20]

It's rather sad, yet predictable.

The 'UK' is (in part) playing the victim; using this 'furore' as a useful diversionary salve for other pain soon to come and, n part, lining up the US as potential scapeoat for any re financial fallout should BP fail

A culture of Corporate avoidance (in many domains) is endemic in the oil industry, wherever it does business, but responsibilty for any end game surely falls primarily on BP's shoulders, although some must also fall on [some of] those who peddle and [some of] those who use the end products.

Perhaps also a little can be blamed on 'divine intervention' and sheer bad luck!

Besides, whiney folk will always find something to whine about, and if they can't then they'll fabricate it.

More or less, IMO.

 

[Northland]

Whats multiple? 3? only twice in 39 days. By the ways he goine golfing 32 times since he took office He certainly had no problem getting his photo ops in with the Duke Blue Devils and the US world cup soccer players not to mention Paul McCartney. I whish that old prune would shrivel up and die already.

You are aware, one would hope, that President Obama does have other matters to attend to. You hopefully are also aware that he is being continually updated on the situation. Additionally, he has spoken in front of the media several times, apart from his inspections of the gulf. What would you like him to do, put up a tent down in Louisiana? But wait! Then he'd miss the spill as it approached Alabama, so a tent there! But wait! The waves and currents are shifting ithe oil towards Galveston Bay, better get a tent over there. But wait! Hurricane season as savagely spurred the oil up the east coast and the crabs are in danger up by Chesapeake Bay- quick get a tent there too!

He is the President, dealing with a mess. Could more be done? Probably; but not all by him alone. Would I appreciate him spending more real time on the issue of death of wildlife? Yes. I understand there's the financial impact which must be addressed; but, to be honest, money pales in comparison to life- sea, air and land, plants included. No amount of money in the world will do a damned thing when the last shrimp is dead, when the last dolphin is choked from a tar ball, when the last reed is smothered by a noxious goo.

President Obama is tending to the gulf as best he can, with several advisors as well. That said, he still has to address the Nation's other issues- the economy, the education (which has suffered as the economy has been wounded), health and human welfare along with dozens of other things, and all while people complain and pepper him with rants about how they would do things.

Think you can do better Big_E? Then get your ass in there and do it.

 

[Jason]

This one is going to rumble over the weekend. If it doesn't blow up.

This morning (Fri) two large-circulation UK newspapers - The Mail and The Express - had Obama's (supposed) anti-British and anti-BP rhetoric as headline stories. These are both tabloids and both supported Cameron in the election. They are a reasonable barometer for the sentiment of many middle-classed, pro-Conservative, British people. The Mail specifically urged Cameron to stand up to America. Their tone is that Obama is bullying Britain.

I heard a commentator on BBC Radio 4 this afternoon (I was in the car, missed the beginning) who reckons that the fate of BP now depends almost entirely on the tone Obama adopts. If it goes under or faces a hostile takeover we have a case where the power of the US president has been used to talk into failure a fundamentally sound company. He feels that the indications from Obama that he will support the efforts of everyone and his wife to recover money from BP is an abuse of the office of president.

A really whacky idea that's out there is that if BP faces liquidation or a hostile takeover it should be bought by the UK government (ie nationalised) in order to safeguard UK national economic needs, including the needs of our pensioners. I have no idea how this pans out legally or economically, but politically the idea of the UK paying many billions to save a company talked to death by the US president is ... well, dynamite.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

You Brits are setting yourselves up for a heaping helping of disappointment because no American is 'bashing Britain' over this, and hence the US President isn't going to do squat to allay phony concerns manufactured by your media looking to cash in on this disaster. If anything, you folks should be pissed that your nation's media executives think so lowly of their fellow countrymen, that they believe they can profit from you by lying to you.

 

[dreamer20]

The president is ...responsible for making sure BP doesn't drag their feet, present incorrect figures related to damage extent, or make any other effort to cover their asses at the expense of an expedient clean up effort - of which there is evidence that they are.

^^Bearing in mind the case of Enron on G.W.Bush's watch and your above statement, the only president that might achieve those things would be the ethical president of an efficient and ethical BP company.