The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis

[Mr. Snakey]

And this would have helped how exactly?

Please spell out this alternate reality you dream of.

My friend, if you don't know i can't help you. Lets put it this way. If George Bush acted sooner with Katrina the disaster may not have been as bad as it was. He got the blame for it. So this is kind of the same situation. A lack of leadership. I kept my explanation simple so even you could understand it.

 

[dreamer20]

This disaster is as much now a British problem as an American one...But the fault here is US regulation. In the UK and other countries, safety is ENFORCED. In the USA, it isn't. If a company is legally able to make shortcuts; it will. The fact that the safety precautions taken in almost every other country would have prevented this disaster is outrageous. This is something that should happen in China<snip>...Some dodgy dealings going on here.

Yes the U.S. government trusted BP to fulfill its obligation to carry out its offshore drilling in a safe and responsible manner. Sadly BP didn't do as it promised to and the fault for the disaster lies with BP.

Contrary to what you have stated above, the UK and all other countries do not have spotless safety records. Also oil companies have little concern for the environmental damage they cause in developing countries, e.g. See the Chevron links re: environmental damage in Angola, Ecuador & Nigeria.



Deadliest Oilrig Accidents - Oil Rig Disasters - Offshore Drilling Accidents

Piper Alpha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Piper Alpha was a North Sea oil production platform operated by Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia) Ltd.[1] The platform began production in 1976,[2] first as an oil platform and then later converted to gas production. An explosion and resulting fire destroyed it on July 6, 1988, killing 167 men,[3] with only 59 survivors. The death toll includes 2 crewmen of a rescue vessel.[4] Total insured loss was about £1.7 billion (US$ 3.4 billion). At the time of the disaster the platform accounted for approximately ten percent of North Sea oil and gas production, and was the worst offshore oil disaster in terms of lives lost and industry impact.[5]

The Legacy of the Piper Alpha Disaster

The Cullen Enquiry was set up in November 1988 to establish the cause of the disaster. In November 1990, it concluded that the initial condensate leak was the result of maintenance work being carried out simultaneously on a pump and related safety valve. The enquiry was critical of Piper Alpha's operator, Occidental, which was found guilty of having inadequate maintenance and safety procedures. But no criminal charges were ever brought against it.[14]
The second phase of the enquiry made 106 recommendations for changes to North Sea safety procedures, all of which were accepted by industry.[15]


Petrobras Enchova Central Platform Fire - Oil Rig Disasters - Offshore Drilling Accidents

During a blowout on the Enchova Central off Brazil, 42 workers lost their lives attempting to evacuate the platform.


Chevron Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chevron's Nigeria pipeline under investigation | Bank Information Center: Monitoring the projects and policies of the World Bank, IMF and other international financial institutions

 

[B_talltpaguy]

My friend, if you don't know i can't help you. Lets put it this way. If George Bush acted sooner with Katrina the disaster may not have been as bad as it was. He got the blame for it. So this is kind of the same situation. A lack of leadership. I kept my explanation simple so even you could understand it.

Or in other words, you just have a loud, whiney mouth which you are happy to run with no solutions offered.

Bullshit... Let me know when you have something to actually discuss beyond political scapegoating.

 

[dreamer20]

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.

So James Carter also was POTUS when an oil disaster occurred in the Gulf. It took ten months for the Ixtoc 1 oil leak to be capped and contained. Obviously talking to the CEO of oil companies, like Pemex's, doesn't stop oil spills.


Ixtoc I oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Or in other words, you just have a loud, whiney mouth which you are happy to run with no solutions offered.

Bullshit... Let me know when you have something to actually discuss beyond political scapegoating.

Your posts lack substance and validity. More than often they are just insulting. If you wish to discuss the issues in a mature way i will be more than happy to do so. Cursing and name calling will get you nowhere.

 

[dandelion]

Well, if BP's aim is to ensure a boycott by American consumers, then that's what they should do

Paying a dividend would no doubt be welcome amongst their american shareholders. Resuming drilling in the gulf would be welcome amongst all those they employ there.

Outside foreign pressure is going to do nothing to sway the image that Obama projects to the American public. There is no way he is going to allow himself to look like he's controlled by foreign interests.

Alienating the new british government is hardly a sure fire way to get cooperation the next time he wants some international support. Jason is the one normally going round saying Britain should cooperate more with the US instead of Europe. Even he has suddenly come round to the idea that maybe Europe may end up as an anti-US block in this. Mr Cameron is actually showing some spine in starting to withdraw troops from the US's wars. (An irony the US went to war for oil, created a massive expanse of burning and leaking oilfields in process, but now finally has some notion of what it feels like)

the fault here is US regulation. In the UK and other countries, safety is ENFORCED. In the USA, it isn't. If a company is legally able to make shortcuts; it will. The fact that the safety precautions taken in almost every other country would have prevented this disaster is outrageous. This is something that should happen in China

I am again reminded of the International aid agencies sending medical teams to the US because its citizens do not get basic medical care. The US just doesnt have a tradition of state intervention. If you leave it to the market things go wrong. Obama starts off by sacking his own oil regulators? Sounds like he thinks they did their job well.

Even partially absolving BP of culpability is just plain wrong.

Of course there should have been better enforcement of environmental and safety standards. Even so, it is BP and / or related companies that bear primary responsibility. Saying that BP should be absolved would be like saying that a drunk driver should be absolved of responsibility for killing someone simply because the police were not sufficiently diligent in enforcing laws against drunk driving.

More like a drunk driver should not be convicted because no one had written a law against drunk driving. I dont know the situation, and I doubt people in the US do either. Investigations into this will go on and on, as also will court cases bringing out more and more detail. It is plain the US made mistakes in its regulatory process, but equally it is plain that BP initially stood up and said it would honour its commitments to sort out the mess.

If George Bush acted sooner with Katrina the disaster may not have been as bad as it was. He got the blame for it. So this is kind of the same situation. A lack of leadership..

But what exactly could he have done?

Yes the U.S. government trusted BP to fulfill its obligation to carry out its offshore drilling in a safe and responsible manner. Sadly BP didn't do as it promised to and the fault for the disaster lies with BP.

That has been proven, has it? I dont think it has. The responsibility for putting it right lies with BP, but I think we are a very long way from settling blame.

 

[FRE]

I am again reminded of the International aid agencies sending medical teams to the US because its citizens do not get basic medical care. The US just doesnt have a tradition of state intervention. If you leave it to the market things go wrong. Obama starts off by sacking his own oil regulators? Sounds like he thinks they did their job well.

I am not aware of "International aid agencies sending medical teams to the US because its citizens do not get basic medical care."

Could you provide more information?

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Your posts lack substance and validity. More than often they are just insulting. If you wish to discuss the issues in a mature way i will be more than happy to do so.

So you still have nothing to back up your claims, and your latest response is to personally attack those who challenge your hollow rhetoric... Real cute, but your assertion is still baseless without further explanation.

 

[vince]

I assume everyone in the USA following the thread has seen John Napier's letter to Obama. I don't think I've spotted a mention of it on this thread. John Napier is president of RSA (insurance company) and his intervention is surprising (and presumably with a nod from the government).

That letter comes off a self serving and nationalistic at the same time. It is a masterful piece of deflection in an attempt to shift responsibility and defend British interests. A very well crafted appeal to the mob's nationalism.

One wonders what is the extent of the insurance industry's direct or indirect exposure to BP's mistakes? Directly or indirectly. It would be interesting to know what the financial connections and potential for losses are. I assume that BP carried some insurance to cover themselves in the event of an accident. No?

 

[dandelion]

I am not aware of "International aid agencies sending medical teams to the US because its citizens do not get basic medical care."

Could you provide more information?

Not off hand. saw a documentary about it. Filming people in the US queueing up at clinics being held in sports centres by whatever international aid charity. Said they did a lot of it. I was quite shocked. Both by US citizens needing this help and by the US having the gall to claim to be a world leader yet refusing to take care of its own people. Why exactly should we contribute to world aid chairties which then feel the worst need is in the US?

 

[FRE]

Not off hand. saw a documentary about it. Filming people in the US queueing up at clinics being held in sports centres by whatever international aid charity. Said they did a lot of it. I was quite shocked. Both by US citizens needing this help and by the US having the gall to claim to be a world leader yet refusing to take care of its own people. Why exactly should we contribute to world aid chairties which then feel the worst need is in the US?

I'm inclined to believe the part about "people in the US queueing up at clinics being held in sports centres." I'm not saying that international aid charities played no part in it, but I am not aware of it.

There is a serious problem here regarding lack of access to adequate medical care. The problem has been recognized for decades by many of us, but unfortunately, many Americans turn a blind eye to the problem until they find themselves in that position as the result of losing their medical insurance for one reason or another. I hope that recent legislation will lead to solving that problem.

 

[maxcok]

<Sigh> This tired line? I'm open to folks disagreeing with me. But that last bit is really unecessary. You don't hold a monopoly on the truth, and in reality, you know just as much as I do about what goes on in Obama's mind.

Can you show me where I claimed to have a monopoly on the truth or claimed to know what's in Obama's mind? If not, this is a specious deflection. And my defense of the president in this instance is based on what he's said repeatedly in his campaign and since taking office, not "what's in his head".

So, you've been accused of being hyperbolic before? Hmm . . . wasn't me. Maybe there's a pattern there?

If you would point out how anything I've said is hyperbole or blatant misrepresentation, I could debate that with you. But I'm sure it's easier to strongly disagree with someone and simply hyperbolize how far they are from the truth that you so clearly have a monopoly over.

Again, my 'truth monopoly', lol. As for pointing out your "hyperbole", how about the "blatant misrepresentation" below for an example? Coincidentally, one I already debunked in the very post you quoted in your response here, so I don't think we need to debate it. Although I suppose you're free to tell me I'm wrong and try to defend it as truth if you can.

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.

Continuing . . . .

Tell me once where I have claimed that my opinion or assessment represented the totality of my understanding of the issue at hand.

Maybe you can first show me where I made any such statement? Otherwise, it's another specious deflection.

For example, the comment you're referring to represents my thoughts on ONE dimension of Obama's motivations. I don't think Obama is a one-dimensional person - I've even stated that belief.

Fine. Would you then like to show me where I've said anything challenging your belief?
Otherwise, you guessed it, specious deflection.

But, in spite of all that, if you don't like what I have to say, you don't have to respond to it. At the end of the day, this is an online political forum - it's not an academic journal, or a Congressional committee. It's not that serious.

Oh, but you see, to me this issue is very serious. Environmental issues top my list of serious concerns. You can make light if you want (and you have), and you can misrepresent if you want, but what makes you think I'm going to ignore you if you make a statement I strongly disagree with? You don't have that prerogative.

 

[alx]

Personally I think Obama Has been far too outspoken regarding the spill.

He made it clear that the blame was on Britain, in fact it is the US that failed.
US regulations obviously were not upto standard.
The oil reg is actually owned and operated my Transocean an American company, BP are just majority owners of the oilfield.

Obama says the most rediculous of things sometimes.

 

[b.c.]

Not completely. As you said, BP is playing a strong role in sinking its own life boat. But if Obama didn't think things he said didn't have an impact on market activity, he wouldn't put so much effort in semantics when job growth isn't as high as expected.

When he repeatedly says, "we're going to make BP pay as much as possible because they are fully responsible" and estimates for the amount of damage are rising daily, investors will start selling BP stock because the financial prospects for the company are grim. Follow star's thread about BP being a good buy (or a good short sell) now because of plummeting stock price.

So, what's the point? If you operate a vehicle in a careless manner and drive it through your neighbor's wall into their living room, who is responsible? The makers of the vehicle? Perhaps your neighbors for putting their house in your vehicle's path? Or maybe the person who issued you your driver's license.

The President says BP is responsible because they are. Those who whine about holding them accountable are usually the same ones historically opposed to government regulation of businesses and industry in the first place.

If the resulting "financial prospects for the company are grim" as a result of their own carelessness, then so be it. Lesson learned.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Personally I think Obama Has been far too outspoken regarding the spill.

He made it clear that the blame was on Britain

Then you should be able to provide quotes of when/where he specifically blamed another nation, not the corporations involved. Links please...

US regulations obviously were not upto standard.

Which regulations "were not up to standard" exactly? Can you please cite them, and then explain how it is specifically Obama's fault that these regulations were "not up to standard" back when the oil field in question was approved by regulators to be explored?

The oil rig is actually owned and operated my Transocean an American company, BP are just majority owners of the oilfield.

And who hired Transocean?

Obama says the most ridiculous of things sometimes.

Such as what remarks exactly?

 

[alx]

So, what's the point? If you operate a vehicle in a careless manner and drive it through your neighbor's wall into their living room, who is responsible? The makers of the vehicle? Perhaps your neighbors for putting their house in your vehicle's path? Or maybe the person who issued you your driver's license.

The President says BP is responsible because they are. Those who whine about holding them accountable are usually the same ones historically opposed to government regulation of businesses and industry in the first place.

If the resulting "financial prospects for the company are grim" as a result of their own carelessness, then so be it. Lesson learned.

No, Transocean owned and operated the rig not BP.

 

[FuzzyKen]

I think that right now everybody is lashing out at everyone else. In spite of this disaster some individuals want "business as usual". Other people are beginning to realize that a number of safeguards failed and that a number of promises made by corporations of various ownership were in fact lying when it came to their ability control a disaster.

I most certainly feel very sorry for those in the U.K., because it most certainly is not the people of that great country who are guilty of anything. Part of the problem is that though initials have come in to play, the perception that BP is 100% owned by the U.K. is what is there and sadly, politicians trying to feather their own nests with upcoming elections in the United States are saying virtually anything factual or fictional to make themselves look popular to somebody.

Many jobs in many places are going to be negatively impacted by this disaster and the pack of lies that followed.

All US Presidents read prepared speeches which are not necessarily as good as they should be. Barak Obama in that office deserves no more blame or credit than any other US President in the same situation. Bush II was notorious for speeches that were not the best. The same can be said of virtually every President all the way back to Harry S. Truman. Ronny had his screw ups, so did Jack Kennedy, Billy, and King George the 1st. King George the 1st lost an election because of the: "Read my lips no new taxes" speech and was set up in such a way that facts he was given by others proved to be impossible and untrue.

Quite frankly, I do not care who or whom is the owner, the operator or the driller. All are responsible, none want the blame, all are finger pointing, and because of American elections both parties are trying to take the largest oil spill disaster in recorded world history and use it for their own gain.

The percentages of foreign ownership here are not even important. That in and of itself is a diversion to try and stir up political garbage to begin a disinformation campaign and feather political nests.

Bottom line, all share in the responsibility equally. All Companies involved with this (especially Halliburton) need to pay their fair share and by doing this it is quite likely that none will face bankruptcy. A "clever diversion" blaming one more than the other only protects the "guilty".

 

[B_talltpaguy]

No, Transocean owned and operated the rig not BP.

And who hired Transocean, and for what purpose?

 

[maxcok]

Personally I think Obama Has been far too outspoken regarding the spill.

He made it clear that the blame was on Britain, in fact it is the US that failed.

Frankly, I just don't get this perception that "Obama is blaming Britain". This oh-so-important semantic distinction between "BP" and "British Petroleum" is something that I think is being fueled by politicians and the media in the U.K. Seriously, what is the equivalent of Fox News over there? Is it possible your politicians are stirring up this controversy, so when(if) the pensioners and/or the Treasury take a hit they can blame the U.S. and Obama? This is all very bizarre and a little baffling to me.

The American people can be pretty dense, but even they know the difference between a multinational corporation and a country, at least I think they do. When I was a kid, I never thought Texaco was owned by Texas or Amoco was owned by America. At the same time, I wonder how many Brits who now want to be distanced from the old name used to look with nationalistic pride on the world's 4th largest corporate entity, "British Petroleum". Of course, that all would change with the "BP" disaster.

I heard my first "peep" on the story today on NPR (National Public Radio for you Brits), which is where one might expect to hear it in the States, if anywhere. Of course, it was a reporter from the BBC. I don't know if it's being covered on the news networks here; I rarely watch television. Other folks in the States can correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody I'm aware of is confusing Britain with BP, or even much aware of the controversy. Listening to the story I had the following thought: Considering BP is not a government enterprise, it's kinda sorta starting to sound like the British government, the press and the people are defending it as if it were. Kinda sorta ironic and hypocritical, imho. Ironically too, by stirring up this tempest, Britain will force the story into the mainstream news here and raise the ire of the American people.

My takeaway is this: the plummeting stock value and the potential losses to BP and by extension to British pensioners will be the result of BP's appalling and irresponsible practices that led to this disaster, and its clumsy moves, lies, and deflections in the aftermath, not due to Obama calling the company to account by whatever name. (I haven't really heard many Brits express concern for other investors, or for the exponentially greater damage to the economy of the Gulf region and the U.S. economy in general, much less the environmental devastation.) Nor do I think BP will bear the full weight of responsibility at the end of the day. You can be for damn sure there will be full Congressional hearings into what went wrong, and all the bad actors will be called on the carpet. Darth Cheney won't be there to protect Halliburton this time either.

I read through the entire thread again, and I think Dong20 has summed things up most astutely and neatly in his post, so I'm pulling it forward.

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, in part, lining up the US as potential scapeoat for any 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.

And I concur with your opinion.

 

[Drifterwood]

I haven't got time to read the whole thread, but I would like my 2 cents and imagine that many of my thoughts have already been covered.

BP is a global company. It is 40% US owned and I imagine that more than another 10% is owned outside the UK. It is a genuine International company.

Globalisation is the thing here, and a dash for profit at perhaps the expense of safety or proper controls.

Second, shit happens, ask Union Carbide, Piper Alpha, Chernobyl etc etc.. The question is, how much shit do you want to accept for your desire for, in this case, cheap energy? But is it cheap? This is an example of the real cost.

This is the question. Is Obama asking it? Not really; and from what I can hear, he is on some Jeffersonian preach about the honourable little guy being fucked by big business. How convenient that this particular Big Business can be called British.

But who wants the oil, who gave the licence?

I was a member of Greenpeace for many years, and I have a ton of sympathy for everyone in the Gulf, as I do for all those around the world who have been and continue to be fucked by our blind dash for oil, but I have fuck all time for anyone outside the area, who consumes too much energy, and then wants to be a whiney bitch when the shit for it actually happens in their back garden.

If you want to bitch, use less fossil fuel and join a green campaign.

Thanks. :redface: