The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis

[sbat]

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.

So it goes to reason that there may be ulterior motives in the Mail and whoever slanting the situation in that way. Either that, or its an opportunity to grab more ratings and readership through sensationalist journalism.

 

[sbat]

^^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.

^^Truth

Might as well throw up our hands and say "fuck it." Either that, or do it our damn selves and not wait for either the government or BP to bumble through it to an unsatisfying conclusion.

 

[rbkwp]

My take on it?
As mentioned in a previous post a few days ago...
>>>>
Was for the first time dissapointed with BBC World News a few weeks back continually reporting
that the Cost' for the clean up was 130Mil/280Mil/540Mil/760Mil..etc whateverr, Almost as tho
the lousy Billion $ mark was going to be a Major Problem for BP
CRAP,
from the outset i have been wishing and hoping it rises to 20/30 Billion and beyond, the assholes
have to Pay out
-ongoing and in perpetuity would not be enuf?
enz
>>>>
I think think that British Guy is just Barack bashing himself, is he trying to save $, does he have to pay out for BP?
Does anyone know if the 'insurers' of BP are footing the Bill, and not BP itself ??
(suppose i should google, but dont get overly in-depth into things?
Why would Napier intefere open his mouth talk shit designed to inflame disguised as British
Bashing by the American President ..absolute bullshit .. if BP are OK with it all what the hell is his
real beef?
If the business and political minds in the UK are acting as such dare i say New Admin trying to
establish themselves using this tragedy for there own gains.
I Doubt the British people will ever believe such .. they are to sensible and loyal to the American
citizens ifigure.
Boris Johnson well you would expect such from him (i like his actions usually? ha- Cameron
remaining non commital is sensible stuff..Politicaly for him?? ha
As for the Obama administration i hope the American people get behind and continue to back and
support him .. be Patriotic as you are so good at towards your elected President, give the guy a fair
go' even from down here i applaud each and every positive move he has made to put the pressure on
BP.. all sensible speak and adds to what the BP CEO himself has promised..to see thru/pay for all
to the end..(unfortunately i feel they WILl eventually say enuf is enuf..and stop the flow of $ to
those affected/clean up.to be expected i geuss?)
also SOME of those in the US. how on earth can you vote NO to EVERYTHING surely thats not
Democracy? .. blatant Stupidity and Ignorance if you ask me
has the undertones of the ole American Racism as well?
enz

 

[sbat]

My take on it?
As mentioned in a previous post a few days ago...
>>>>
Was for the first time dissapointed with BBC World News a few weeks back continually reporting
that the Cost' for the clean up was 130Mil/280Mil/540Mil/760Mil..etc whateverr, Almost as tho
the lousy Billion $ mark was going to be a Major Problem for BP
CRAP,
from the outset i have been wishing and hoping it rises to 20/30 Billion and beyond, the assholes
have to Pay out
-ongoing and in perpetuity would not be enuf?
enz
>>>>
I think think that British Guy is just Barack bashing himself, is he trying to save $, does he have to pay out for BP?
Does anyone know if the 'insurers' of BP are footing the Bill, and not BP itself ??
(suppose i should google, but dont get overly in-depth into things?
Why would Napier intefere open his mouth talk shit designed to inflame disguised as British
Bashing by the American President ..absolute bullshit .. if BP are OK with it all what the hell is his
real beef?
If the business and political minds in the UK are acting as such dare i say New Admin trying to
establish themselves using this tragedy for there own gains.
I Doubt the British people will ever believe such .. they are to sensible and loyal to the American
citizens ifigure.
Boris Johnson well you would expect such from him (i like his actions usually? ha- Cameron
remaining non commital is sensible stuff..Politicaly for him?? ha
As for the Obama administration i hope the American people get behind and continue to back and
support him .. be Patriotic as you are so good at towards your elected President, give the guy a fair
go' even from down here i applaud each and every positive move he has made to put the pressure on
BP.. all sensible speak and adds to what the BP CEO himself has promised..to see thru/pay for all
to the end..(unfortunately i feel they WILl eventually say enuf is enuf..and stop the flow of $ to
those affected/clean up.to be expected i geuss?)
also SOME of those in the US. how on earth can you vote NO to EVERYTHING surely thats not
Democracy? .. blatant Stupidity and Ignorance if you ask me
has the undertones of the ole American Racism as well?
enz

If I'm not mistaken, insurance payouts are capped for precisely this reason. If anyone does a thorough and accurate-as-possible risk assessment, it will be the insurer.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

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 federal government is in charge of the clean up, as the president says. So yes he is responsible and so is BP. His lack of action will destroy our economy and have a devastating effect on England's economy. There is a growing anger in our country and around the world over his '' I'm going to kick some ass approach". His words not mine. His refusal to talk to the the CEO of BP is disturbing. He did however have time for 5 hours of golf, Paul McCartney, the N.B.A champs. That was the day he held his first press conference in a very long time. He then went on vacation. I can only be frank and say he cares not about how many jobs or pensions are lost. England will be hit hard by this already having problems. Perhaps his involvement with The Weather Underground and his mentor William Ayers is the cause for his destroy everything mentality.

 

[maxcok]

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.

And since you haven't, the rest of your ill-informed post is irrelevant speculation.

Instead people seem to be concentrating on whether BP somehow cut corners.

BP has an appalling record of cutting corners, ignoring safety concerns and putting profit ahead of people and the environment. For proof from their own internal documents among other sources look here.

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.

Newsflash: Though the U.S. regards Britain as it's most important ally, our president works for and is accountable to the American people, not the British people or the British government.

It is increasingly, abundantly clear that your only concern in this disaster are the possible ramifications on the British economy and the possible hit on your own pension fund, as further evidenced by our exchange in another thread starting here.

 

[mitchymo]

I've not heard of any anti-british sentiment being expressed and if there are americans taking such an attitude or british claiming such is being said then they're all just dicks.
The issue should be simple, cleaning up after the accident to the best of ability and then learning how it happened to prevent repetition. Those directly responsible should be made to pay and not just those who 'have' to take responsibility. What point after all is there in ruining one company and letting the others involved off the hook free to do it again some day.

 

[TomCat84]

The federal government is in charge of the clean up, as the president says. So yes he is responsible and so is BP. His lack of action will destroy our economy and have a devastating effect on England's economy. There is a growing anger in our country and around the world over his '' I'm going to kick some ass approach". His words not mine. His refusal to talk to the the CEO of BP is disturbing. He did however have time for 5 hours of golf, Paul McCartney, the N.B.A champs. That was the day he held his first press conference in a very long time. He then went on vacation. I can only be frank and say he cares not about how many jobs or pensions are lost. England will be hit hard by this already having problems. Perhaps his involvement with The Weather Underground and his mentor William Ayers is the cause for his destroy everything mentality.

Oh for fuck sake. You can't have it both ways. Before he made his kick ass comment, you Republi-bots were bitching and moaning that he wasn't being harsh enough, that he was being too much the professorial Preisdnet, and fact finding and the like. Now that he shows anger, you bitch and moan about that too. You guys cant help it- you either hate that there's a black president, or you hate that there's a Democratic president (or both), but for some reason, whatever the fuck he does, you jump on him. There is no "rally round the Preisdent" mentality, like there was after 9/11....you would be quite incapable of it. On the one hand, you want government to stay out of the way of business, and for government not to guarantee health care- but on the other hand, you complain about Obama not doing enough. I think he's had the right mix of anger and behind the scenes action. But what the fuck do you want him to do? Congress hauled the companies in question in front of a committee, and they all pointed their fingers at each other. An offshore oil rig EXPLODED, KILLING 11 MEN. It then set off one of the worst environmental disasters in the history of the US, and you're mad at him for not talking to the CEO of BP? For fuck sakes, you'd thunder against him talking to the CEO if he did, saying he was too close to business.

 

[TomCat84]

Is he responsible for the federal government fucking up? ABSOLUTELY. He took responsibility on himself, because after all- the buck stops with him. When was the last time Bush ever took responsibility for anything bad that happened under his watch? I, for one, am happy we have a President who has the balls to admit something is his fault- even when it probably isn't.

 

[Jason]

Tomorrow's The Times is out (10.45pm):
BP to start fightback as Cameron calls Obama - Times Online

Towards the end of this article a British government spokesman says it is "contemptible and arguably illegal" to bully British savers out of their savings interest. No its not Cameron saying this. Cameron is not saying that Obama is contemptible, a bully and his actions arguably illegal - but Cameron's government is saying this.

I wonder if Obama and many in the US media have mistaken PR for substance. The rhetoric of "pay no dividend while the oil gushes" sounds reassuring and may well be good PR but it is also pointless - BP (if not talked into liquidation) has funds both for the cleanup and the dividend.

 

[TomCat84]

Tomorrow's The Times is out (10.45pm):
BP to start fightback as Cameron calls Obama - Times Online

Towards the end of this article a British government spokesman says it is "contemptible and arguably illegal" to bully British savers out of their savings interest. No its not Cameron saying this. Cameron is not saying that Obama is contemptible, a bully and his actions arguably illegal - but Cameron's government is saying this.

I wonder if Obama and many in the US media have mistaken PR for substance. The rhetoric of "pay no dividend while the oil gushes" sounds reassuring and may well be good PR but it is also pointless - BP (if not talked into liquidation) has funds both for the cleanup and the dividend.

The worst thing that BP could do is start to publicly fight back. Even the Republicans are going to stick with the anti-BP line, even when they could use the "Why is Obama needlessly pissing off an ally?" line.

 

[maxcok]

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.

What scientists?? Where the hell are you getting this information? U.S. government scientists estimate the spill at 50,000 barrels per day, and that's with the diversion pipe. As of today it's already 4 times the amount of the Exxon Valdez disaster, so hardly a "trickle". Not to mention the massive amounts of dispersant pumped into the water, hardly a "natural substance". No one knows the deleterious effects of the dispersants, or even what's in them, as they were deemed "propietary" trade secrets by previous administrations. However, most scientist agree the effects of the dispersants are probably as bad, perhaps worse than the oil itself. Their use is largely cosmetic, keeping the oil from washing up on beaches, out of sight, out of mind.

Seriously, this smacks of BP CEO Tony Hayward's brilliant comment:

“The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.”

 

[TomCat84]

What scientists?? Where the hell are you getting this information? U.S. government scientists estimate the spill at 50,000 barrels per day, and that's with the diversion pipe. As of today it's already 4 times the amount of the Exxon Valdez disaster, so hardly a "trickle". Not to mention the massive amounts of dispersant pumped into the water, hardly a "natural substance". No one knows the deleterious effects of the dispersants, or even what's in them, as they were deemed "propietary" trade secrets by previous administrations. However, most scientist agree the effects of the dispersants are probably as bad, perhaps worse than the oil itself. Their use is largely cosmetic, keeping the oil from washing up on beaches, out of sight, out of mind.

Seriously, this smacks of BP CEO Tony Hayward's brilliant comment:

Agreed. BP has brought the ire on itself with its piss poor PR management.

 

[Jason]

The worst thing that BP could do is start to publicly fight back. Even the Republicans are going to stick with the anti-BP line, even when they could use the "Why is Obama needlessly pissing off an ally?" line.

I tend to agree.

The UK government has not acted in the last 24 hours to calm down the situation. The action this evening might seem inflamatory. It is in theory possible that we are seeing posturing - the UK government wants to demonstrate that the UK is not the poodle of the USA (which was how the cartoonists saw Blair and Brown). But I don't think Cameron would have chosen this issue to make that point.

Cameron has twice demonstrated a surprising ability to think fast and bold. Shortly after he became Conservative leader and Brown threatened a snap election (which Brown would have won) he cooked up some inheritance tax scheme which for all of 5 minutes was super popular with the voters and made Brown decide not to call an elaction (and the Conservatives have ditched the inheritance tax idea anyway). Then after the election he managed to stitch together the most unlikely coalition. I'm inclined to think he is acting on a plan. The rumour I've heard is that the UK government is interested in buying BP. I have no idea of the practicalities or otherwise of this. Nor can I quite work out why the UK would want BP. Buy cheap, put UK government clout into the legal battles, sell at a profit? Seems unlikely to me. I don't get it, but I think Cameron has a plan.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

As of today it's already 4 times the amount of the Exxon Valdez disaster, so hardly a "trickle".

Actually, the new median govt estimate (53-64mil gallons) presently makes it about 5-6 times larger than the Exxon spill, with the higher range of the new govt estimate pegging it at about 9 times larger than the Exxon spill, and only 3 weeks short of eclipsing the epic Ixtoc I spill back in 1979.

 

[dandelion]

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?

Someone was on the radio yesterday who works on oil spills. Said he was getting great results adding fertiliser to the water to help the bacteria break up the oil, instead of adding dodgy dispersants.

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.

Well Im not sure I blame him for that. Id say he was doing the right thing: let BP get on with cleaning up. The trouble is, he is now under pressure to do something and has to be seen to be doing something even if in reality it just makes matters worse.

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.

Well thanks for the friendly advice. I mentioned I do not have time to follow this in detail to make clear that I was uncertain on what exactly is happening in the US. If you look at the title of this thread you will see it is 'the British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis ', not 'the US backlash...'. I have posted the british view. Im pretty certain fellow brits also are not following congressional hearings into BP which I happened to watch the other evening.

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

Yep. Thats why the US wants that oil.

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?

So what of the fish species destroyed by over fishing? animals hunted to extinction. Animals kept in tiny pens so US citizens can eat them at the ends of their miserable lives. Dont tell me this is unique.

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

Hmm. Perhaps. Mostly I think people are just pissed the US is making the crisis worse than it needs be.

Newsflash: Though the U.S. regards Britain as it's most important ally, our president works for and is accountable to the American people, not the British people or the British government.

It is increasingly, abundantly clear that your only concern in this disaster are the possible ramifications on the British economy and the possible hit on your own pension fund, as further evidenced by our exchange in another thread starting here.

I just said, this thread is supposed to be about the british reaction to events in the US. We dont care if the US goes bust except in so far as it drags us down too. That is the meaning of national interest, as you just said yourself in reverse about the president working for US interest alone. This issue precisely demonstrates that US and UK common interest is in reality only where the two have common goals and not otherwise. The US likes to portray itself as everyones friend internationally, but obviously this is impossible.

 

[maxcok]

You make some very salient points, dandelion.

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).

What horseshit! Obama has repeatedly stressed the need to transition away from fossil fuels as the core of his energy policy. At the same time, he is realistic enough to recognize that we will be dependent on oil and gas for some time to come. His initiative to pursue offshore drilling was a pragmatic centrist move. In no way has he dismissed environmental concerns, in fact he has repeatedly said it needs to be done safely and responsibly, minimizing the possibility for damage to the environment.

Really Sbat, your hyperbole and blatant misrepresentations are starting to put you squarely in the company of certain other prominent posters on the board. Surely that's not how you want to be regarded.

No questions about environmental standards compliance enforcement, or the rigors of compliance reviews that were conducted. . . .

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.

You can bet your sweet ass there will hearings on top of hearings to craft new rules for the future of offshore oil drilling, coalmining, etc. - rules that will hopefully finally address the lax and secret gladhand policies of previous administrations. If anything positive is to come out of these recent disasters, and I think it will, it will be scientific analysis of best practices, stricter rules of compliance for big energy companies, stronger oversight and a serious move to develop clean energy technologies.

 

[maxcok]

Actually, the new median govt estimate (53-64mil gallons) presently makes it about 5-6 times larger than the Exxon spill, with the higher range of the new govt estimate pegging it at about 9 times larger than the Exxon spill, and only 3 weeks short of eclipsing the epic Ixtoc I spill back in 1979.

I know, as if my estimates weren't bad enough.

I've deliberately been posting the most conservative estimates so no one can accuse me of being hyperbolic.

 

[TomCat84]

What horseshit! Obama has repeatedly stressed the need to transition away from fossil fuels as the core of his energy policy. At the same time, he is realistic enough to recognize that we will be dependent on oil and gas for some time to come. His initiative to pursue offshore drilling was a pragmatic centrist move. In no way has he dismissed environmental concerns, in fact he has repeatedly said it needs to be done safely and responsibly, minimizing the possibility for damage to the environment.

Really Sbat, your hyperbole and blatant misrepresentations are starting to put you squarely in the company of certain other prominent posters on the board. Surely that's not how you want to be regarded.

You can bet your sweet ass there will hearings on top of hearings to craft new rules for the future of offshore oil drilling, coalmining, etc. - rules that will hopefully finally address the lax and secret gladhand policies of previous administrations. If anything positive is to come out of these recent disasters, and I think it will, it will be scientific analysis of best practices, stricter rules of compliance for big energy companies, stronger oversight and a serious move to develop clean energy technologies.

Actually his push for more offshore drilling was yet another misguided "centrist" attempt to placate moderate Republicans for a hypothetical anti global warming bill.

 

[Jason]

If we are looking at the British reaction The Guardian is also now available.
Britain sticks up for BP amid spill, shares rise | Business | guardian.co.uk