The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis

[FRE]

That isn't really true tho - BP haven't denied responsibility at all. They've already spent several billion pounds on the clean up, and early compensation claims.

Yes, but they could still try to find ways to avoid paying. When I was a kid, I thought that companies acted responsibly, but since then I've become aware of so many cases where they haven't that I no longer trust them.

 

[helgaleena]

I'm asking for information because I don't know the answer, but I expect someone here will know. I think BP initially decided not to use dispersant saying that the (initial) volume of oil would disperse naturally in a body of water as big as the Gulf of Mexico and that dispersants would do more harm than good - dispersants are usually used on smaller spills which are close to a shoreline. I think there was quite a media storm over this. This is weeks ago now - have I remembered wrongly? I also think it was the involvement of the US authorities that started the use of dispersant - but again I might be wrong. It isn't easy to find a source on the web which states when dispersants were first used and on whose authority. But someone must know.

So can someone help me - who made the decision to use dispersants?

The important thing for me is that it is a dispersant BANNED IN THE UK...

I cannot see why any but covert use of it would be possible by BP when they have this knowledge already.

 

[798686]

When I was a kid, I thought that companies acted responsibly, but since then I've become aware of so many cases where they haven't that I no longer trust them.

So did I. :redface:

I thought all 'grown-ups' did aswell, lol.

 

[Drifterwood]

Do you not have news organizations in Great Britain?

Yep, the BBC - not sure what the first B stands for though :wink:

 

[B_OtterJoq]

Yep, the BBC - not sure what the first B stands for though :wink:

Bisexual?

 

[B_crackoff]

The important thing for me is that it is a dispersant BANNED IN THE UK...

I cannot see why any but covert use of it would be possible by BP when they have this knowledge already.

I hate to say I told you so - but I posted about Corexit on the 1st page of this thread over a month ago!
http://www.lpsg.org/187989-the-british-backlash-over-president.html#post2813044
It turns out that Tripod had mentioned it even before that!

http://www.lpsg.org/184132-oil-spill-update-mile-long.html#post2771457

Halliburton "fortunately" (hahahahahhahahaha) purchased a Gulf oil clean up company which use this, just days before the disaster. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

Goldman Sachs dumped $300Mn of BP shares less than 2 weeks before!

You only ever see this news in the mainstream months after other news organisations have reported it. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

It was not BP's decision to use Corexit 9500, which hides the problem, & kills the sea at lower levels.

The decision to use Corexit triggered the abandonment of "top kill".

Methane levels at sea level in the affected are are astronomically higher.

A particularly bad hurricane season could take an enormous number of oil & detergent particles inland, which is not just highly toxic to humans, but could kill off the land.

It all smacks of something deliberate to me, or something done knowing that either way, success or failure could reap rewards, & bring about social change & compliance.

 

[Jason]

It was not BP's decision to use Corexit 9500, which hides the problem, & kills the sea at lower levels.

This is my impression.

If this is correct - and maybe that is a big if - then this is a significant angle on the disaster. Corexit 9500 is banned in the UK - in the UK we have alternative dispersants (doubtless also with problems but probably not as great) which were offered and refused (it is in this thread somewhere).

If BP decided not to use Corexit 9500 (and I think this is right) who made them use it? And why weren't the less-toxic dispersants offered by the UK used instead? Or why were any dispersants used?

I don't have answers.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

. . .The USA has to balance the damage caused by the oil spill with the damage caused by a nuclear explosion. No one truly knows the ultimate consequence of either. But the nuclear solution was used many times by the old USSR and problems do appear to have been minimal. Water is an excellent insulator against nuclear fall out. . . .

If this is correct - and maybe that is a big if - then this is a significant angle on the disaster. Corexit 9500 is banned in the UK - in the UK we have alternative dispersants (doubtless also with problems but probably not as great) which were offered and refused (it is in this thread somewhere).

If BP decided not to use Corexit 9500 (and I think this is right) who made them use it? And why weren't the less-toxic dispersants offered by the UK used instead? Or why were any dispersants used?

I don't have answers.

Jason, you present an interesting paradox... earlier, you were advocating that we should just drop a nuke on top of the well (which --- I guarantee you --- would remove all life within a significant radius of the blast as well as create potentially disastrous consequences from seismic activity ). Now you're all concerned that there might be a risk associated with the chemical dispersants?

Which is it, sir? If you don't care about the environment and you'd advocate an uncontrolled nuclear explosion, why would you care about dispersants? I really hope your comments aren't posted on here because you feel some obligation to find fault with any action that shifts blame from BP and places it on the Obama administration... that would be truly unfortunate.

 

[FRE]

Jason, you present an interesting paradox... earlier, you were advocating that we should just drop a nuke on top of the well (which --- I guarantee you --- would remove all life within a significant radius of the blast as well as create potentially disastrous consequences from seismic activity ). Now you're all concerned that there might be a risk associated with the chemical dispersants?

Which is it, sir? If you don't care about the environment and you'd advocate an uncontrolled nuclear explosion, why would you care about dispersants? I really hope your comments aren't posted on here because you feel some obligation to find fault with any action that shifts blame from BP and places it on the Obama administration... that would be truly unfortunate.

I certainly would object to using a nuclear bomb to seal the well. However, when that has been done, it has not simply been dropped on top of the well, It is my understanding that a well has been drilled close to the blown-out well, the bomb inserted into it, then set off. Thus, the bomb has been thousands of feet underground when detonated. It sounds as though it would work and cause little or no nuclear contamination of the surrounding area. However, I see it as far too risky to consider. And, so far as I know, it has never been done to seal a well in deep water.

 

[Jason]

The question of who has required the use of the dispersant Corexit 9500 must have an answer. It is on this point that I've said I don't have the answers. My impression is that BP took the decision not to use Corexit 9500, and that some other organisation has in effect over-ruled them (and specifically used Corexit 9500 instead of other dispersants which may be less harmful). Is this what has happened?

The issue I've raised around a nuclear solution is whether it has or has not been discussed. My understanding is that it has not even been discussed, that it was ruled out without discussion. I could certainly understand discussing it and rejecting it, but I can't understand a decision not to even discuss it. There is a technology around using nuclear explosions to stop leaks (for gas wells on land). Whether it is or is not feasible in the Gulf of Mexico is a decision for experts to advise on. But with the horrors of the oil gushing 24/7 surely every possible solution has to be up for discussion. By the way the technique is to detonate the explosion deep under ground, so in this case it would be under say a mile of water and perhaps half a mile or more of rock. It is very hard to see how contamination would be a problem in such an environment.

If this spill were in my backyard I would want to know who was authorising use of a dispersant which is banned in the UK, and why all options for stopping the spill are not under consideration.

 

[SilverTrain]

If this spill were in my backyard I would want to know who was authorising use of a dispersant which is banned in the UK, and why all options for stopping the spill are not under consideration.

But presumably you would NOT want the PM to assure Britons that the corporation responsible for the spill would be held fully accountable for its actions. Right?

 

[Jason]

But presumably you would NOT want the PM to assure Britons that the corporation responsible for the spill would be held fully accountable for its actions. Right?

If a UK prime minister did this he would be out of office in no time or a bit less. No UK PM would act like this because they know the people wouldn't stand for it.

Of course BP is responsible. But there is the idea that blame has to be spread around. Politicians respond in the only way possible - they say sorry. One of David Cameron's successes has been to say sorry for the Bloody Friday killings in London/Derry which took place when Cameron was a kid. No one feels Cameron was responsible, but he still has to say sorry. If something like this oil leak happened in British waters it would be the PM humbly saying he is personally sorry for inadequate regulation. That in no way minimises or reduces the responsibility of BP but it also acknowledges the serious fault of a failed regulatory system - and for that matter it starts the process of fixing the broken system. It also establishes a constructive environment for company and government working towards a solution.

If you want the nub of the reason for the UK backlash it can be centred on Obama's failure to say sorry. I emphasise that BP is at fault; notwithstanding it is Obama who should be saying sorry. The political class in the UK (eg Boris Johnson) have decided that Obama is not a gentleman. And from the likes of Johnson that is about as serious a criticism of a person as you can get. And Johnson and Cameron were at the same school and in the same class, so its a fair bet Cameron thinks the same.

No I would not want a UK PM treating BP as wholly responsible and accountable. I would want (and am confident I would get) a UK PM acknowledging government fault as a first step to working towards a solution.

 

[dandelion]

But presumably you would NOT want the PM to assure Britons that the corporation responsible for the spill would be held fully accountable for its actions. Right?

We had a recent example where a number of banks were held blameless for the unmeasurable damage they had done to people all over the world, and we instead propped up the companies concerned so they can do it again. Though there may have been noises along the way from various leaders saying that those responsible would pay. Paying amounted to cutting the payoff bonuses of some bank leaders who were forced to resign. I dont remember exactly the names of the banks concerned, but are they reimbursing those that suffered? er, no? Can the UK demand those US banks responsible pay the £150 billion annual deficit which has resulted?

 

[b.c.]

But presumably you would NOT want the PM to assure Britons that the corporation responsible for the spill would be held fully accountable for its actions. Right?

Doubtful indeed. Though from what I've read, they don't think *squat* of their own P.M., whom some there describe as a "socialist-liberal". So I guess we can't expect much better of 'em.

 

[dreamer20]

If something like this oil leak happened in British waters it would be the PM humbly saying he is personally sorry for inadequate regulation. That in no way minimises or reduces the responsibility of BP but it also acknowledges the serious fault of a failed regulatory system - and for that matter it starts the process of fixing the broken system. It also establishes a constructive environment for company and government working towards a solution.

If you want the nub of the reason for the UK backlash it can be centred on Obama's failure to say sorry. I emphasise that BP is at fault; notwithstanding it is Obama who should be saying sorry...

No. That's not what would happen at all, as Margaret Thatcher did not apologize for 1988's Piper Alpha disaster. If she were PM now, with B.P. causing a similar disaster via its reckless actions off the UK coast, she would blast them to high heaven.

 

[hud01]

If a UK prime minister did this he would be out of office in no time or a bit less. No UK PM would act like this because they know the people wouldn't stand for it.

Of course BP is responsible. But there is the idea that blame has to be spread around. Politicians respond in the only way possible - they say sorry. One of David Cameron's successes has been to say sorry for the Bloody Friday killings in London/Derry which took place when Cameron was a kid. No one feels Cameron was responsible, but he still has to say sorry. If something like this oil leak happened in British waters it would be the PM humbly saying he is personally sorry for inadequate regulation. That in no way minimises or reduces the responsibility of BP but it also acknowledges the serious fault of a failed regulatory system - and for that matter it starts the process of fixing the broken system. It also establishes a constructive environment for company and government working towards a solution.

If you want the nub of the reason for the UK backlash it can be centred on Obama's failure to say sorry. I emphasise that BP is at fault; notwithstanding it is Obama who should be saying sorry. The political class in the UK (eg Boris Johnson) have decided that Obama is not a gentleman. And from the likes of Johnson that is about as serious a criticism of a person as you can get. And Johnson and Cameron were at the same school and in the same class, so its a fair bet Cameron thinks the same.

No I would not want a UK PM treating BP as wholly responsible and accountable. I would want (and am confident I would get) a UK PM acknowledging government fault as a first step to working towards a solution.

So the company is not solely responsible. This billion dollar corporation has to be monitored to make sure they do things right.

 

[hud01]

We had a recent example where a number of banks were held blameless for the unmeasurable damage they had done to people all over the world, and we instead propped up the companies concerned so they can do it again. Though there may have been noises along the way from various leaders saying that those responsible would pay. Paying amounted to cutting the payoff bonuses of some bank leaders who were forced to resign. I dont remember exactly the names of the banks concerned, but are they reimbursing those that suffered? er, no? Can the UK demand those US banks responsible pay the £150 billion annual deficit which has resulted?

Have you forgotten about RBS.

 

[dreamer20]

But presumably you would NOT want the PM to assure Britons that the corporation responsible for the spill would be held fully accountable for its actions. Right?

If a UK prime minister did this he would be out of office in no time or a bit less. No UK PM would act like this because they know the people wouldn't stand for it...

No I would not want a UK PM treating BP as wholly responsible and accountable. I would want (and am confident I would get) a UK PM acknowledging government fault as a first step to working towards a solution.

Yes UK PMs would act like that. e.g. British PM Brown didn't say "I'm sorry" with regard to Iceland's financial shenanigans, but acted in the interests of British depositors by freezing UK-based assets of Icelandic financial institutions and criticized Iceland:


BBC NEWS | Europe | Timeline: Iceland economic crisis

10 October 2008- UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown condemns Iceland's handling of the collapse of its banks and its failure to guarantee British savers' deposits. He says its policies were "effectively illegal" and "completely unacceptable"...

 

[dandelion]

Have you forgotten about RBS.

Not with you. I was thinking of RBS as an example of a propped up bank, but the problems started in america and spread round the world.

 

[Jason]

A recent item in The Independent gives a British view on saying sorry - mentioning Piper Alpha among others.
Geoffrey Wheatcroft: The hypocrisy of America's outrage - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent