Why are the Americans and media blaming BP for oil spill?

[Wildcat]

Not all of the job losses will be caused by the accident itself. Mr Obama's reaction has been to impose a 6-month moratorium on offshore drilling. That will put a lot of Coon-Asses out of work.

 

The moratorium is on new drilling whilst they re-evaluate the regulations that have failed. That leaves existing rigs unaffected, including the BP run Atlantis rig than is missing 90% of the paperwork it needs to establish its safety.

[Alastair]

PRESIDENT Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill is starting to make him come across as a bit of an arsehole, it emerged today.

In the past week British liberals have become increasingly distressed at the president's political exploitation of anti-UK sentiment and his constant use of the world 'folks'.

 

And as the White House threatened legal action against BP but none of the American companies it was working with, Britons who just 18 months ago were cheering on the Obama campaign have this week found themselves quietly typing the word 'Bhopal' into Google.

 

Julian Cook, from Finsbury Park, said: "He's using all these phrases like 'kicking ass' and 'nickel and diming' whatever the hell that means.

 

"John F Kennedy would never have used the word 'ass', unless of course he was humping one for the fourth time that afternoon.

 

"And he keeps saying 'folks'. 'We gotta do somethin' to help those folks down there in Louisiana'. Does he mean 'people'?."

 

He added: "I'm sure it's not an affectation. It probably seeped into his sub-conscious when he was editor of the Harvard Law Review."

 

Martin Bishop, a West Wing fan from Hitchin, said: "This morning I saw a quote from Norman Tebbit - Norman Tebbit - saying that the Americans do seem to have forgotten how one of their corporations dealt with the disaster at Bhopal.

 

"So anyway, here's some interesting facts. The Bhopal gas leak killed an estimated 16,000 people and directly affected around 500,000. Union Carbide eventually paid out $450m in compensation. Which is an average of $900 per person. So, as you can see, they really did somethin' to help those folks down there in India."

 

Julian Cook said: "I'm not sure how these words are coming out of my mouth, but Barack Obama has made me agree with Norman Tebbit.

 

"And now you'll have to excuse me because I think my ****ing head's about to explode."

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/obama-starting-to-sound-like-a-bit-of-an-arse-201006102804/

[Wildcat]

Your letting Tony Hayward and the rest of the BP management off pretty lightly it seems.

 

Was their only responsibility to manage the revenue from the oil well?

 

It is BP's oil spill ultimately they are responsible. They may have outsourced the work, and they will have contractually outsourced some the responsibility for what happened, but that is between BP and their suppliers.

[Alastair]

It is BP's oil spill ultimately they are responsible. They may have outsourced the work, and they will have contractually outsourced some the responsibility for what happened, but that is between BP and their suppliers.

 

It's the responsibility of government to regulate capitalism. Left to its own devices the profit motive will always come first.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I'll answer your points in reverse order:

 

Was their only responsibility to manage the revenue from the oil well?

 

The traditional (albeit outdated) view is that those operating a company work for the benefit of the owners. If you accept that point of view then yes, their only responsibility was to manage the revenue from the oil well. They are obliged to maximise the benefit to the owners of the company - the shareholders. That view is a very good reason for introducing regulatory control of an industry.

 

A more modern (and perhaps more acceptable) view is that those operating a company do so on behalf of the stakeholders. 'Stakeholders' includes shareholders - who are entitled to a return on their investment - but it also includes the company employees, the customers and - particularly in the case of a company which has such great potential to damage the environment and the lives of so many people - stakeholders can be expanded to include everybody.

 

If every company accepted that viewpoint and stuck to it rigidly, there would be no need for regulators. Few companies do and very few welcome regulation (with the possible exception of the nuclear industry [in the UK, anyway]) so regulators are - IMO - very necessary.

 

Companies operating in the Nuclear Industry in the UK are in an unique position. They are the only companies in the UK which are not permitted to operate as 'Limited Liability Companies'. - They are required by law to accept unlimited liability. I understand that the reason for the law which prevents them from claiming limited liability is the potential for damage should they have a major incident. That unlimited liability may also make them more interested in listening to the regulatory authorities and in following their advice.

 

Perhaps (once the investigation into this incident has been completed, the cause(s) and the guilty parties have been identified and the damage has been repaired) then governments might like to consider whether Oil companies should also be obliged to accept unlimited liability.

 

Your letting Tony Hayward and the rest of the BP management off pretty lightly it seems.

 

Not so. - I am, however, not prepared to sentence them until after they've been tried and convicted. Given that Obama has imposed a 6-month moratorium on offshore drilling while this incident is investigated, it appears that nobody has identified all the reasons for the spill (and the reasons the oil is still pouring out of the well), nor have they identified those who were culpable and the degree of culpability.

 

When I said '[Obama] will indeed get the blame' I wasn't implying that he deserved it - indeed, I went on to say that he inherited the problem, he didn't allow it to happen.

 

But it appears he didn't do anything to tighten regulatory control either and - as the man at the top - he is indeed likely to be blamed.

 

Much, perhaps as Hayward is likely to be blamed. (I somehow doubt that Hayward was on watch on the rig when the explosion took place and if that particular rig lacked a piece of safety equipment he may not have know that fact ... Which doesn't mean he shouldn't have been aware of it and does not exculpate him.)

 

I don't know what odds the Bookies are giving on Tony Hayward being in the same job in a month or two, but I wouldn't bet too heavily on that.

 

I've no idea what the total cost of the disaster will be. Obama called the moratorium on drilling, so he must accept the responsibility for all the oil workers being out of a job and if the owners of the laid-up rigs move them elsewhere, all those oil industry jobs (jobs which are vital to many communities on the Gulf Coast) may well disappear for a very long time.

 

BP may be held liable for the remainder of the costs.

 

Other than political point scoring and an attempt to divert attention from his own shortcomings, the only reason that Obama could have for wanting BP to cancel its proposed dividend payments is that he feels that the bill BP may be facing may be approaching the company's ability to pay.

 

I can understand his attitude. It's perfectly consistent, isn't it? - After all, when American Banks and finance companies triggered the recent financial crisis, the US Government stepped in and prevented those companies from paying out vast sums to their shareholders and large numbers of their executives, didn't they?

 

Or rather they didn't. Vast sums of the bailout money provided by US taxpayers went straight into the pockets of shareholders and company executives. Neither Obama nor his predecessor did anything to stop that.

[Tony]

A nice analysis Rupert_Baehr

 

 

I've no idea what the total cost of the disaster will be. Obama called the moratorium on drilling, so he must accept the responsibility for all the oil workers being out of a job and if the owners of the laid-up rigs move them elsewhere, all those oil industry jobs (jobs which are vital to many communities on the Gulf Coast) may well disappear for a very long time.

It seems that the penny is now dropping with communities around the Gulf, since shutting down the oil industry - even for a few months - is simply not a viable option no matter how large the problems.

 

And like all accidents, human factors are to blame, not corporations. Some days the holes in the cheese line up.

[Rupert_Baehr]

The moratorium is on new drilling whilst they re-evaluate the regulations that have failed. That leaves existing rigs unaffected, including the BP run Atlantis rig than is missing 90% of the paperwork it needs to establish its safety.

 

Rigs that are producing oil may continue to do so. New drilling has been suspended. That puts about 50,000 jobs at risk.

 

I don't know how much it costs to take a drilling rig out of use - but I bet it's not a cheap option and I've no doubt htat the owners of the driling rigs will want to get them back into use as soon as possible. Just as soon as they can get them somewhere (other than the Gulf of Mexico) where they are permitted to use them.

[Phanerothyme]

And like all accidents, human factors are to blame, not corporations. Some days the holes in the cheese line up.

 

This guy was CEO of Shell?

Only human failings of judgment and/or behaviour can explain some of the great tragedies of our time.

[evildrneil]

Hmmm you never struck me before as someone that would give much credence to the opinion of Lord Tebbit or Boris Johnson. My immediate reaction to anything either of them say is that whatever it is they are saying is likely to be nonsense.

 

Is that not a slightly blinkered view? You may not like their politics but it doesn't automatically make them 100% wrong for all time!

[Wildcat]

A nice analysis Rupert_Baehr

 

It seems that the penny is now dropping with communities around the Gulf, since shutting down the oil industry - even for a few months - is simply not a viable option no matter how large the problems.

 

And like all accidents, human factors are to blame, not corporations. Some days the holes in the cheese line up.

 

No one is shutting down the oil industry, even for a few months. The moratorium is on drilling not pumping out oil from the thousands of oil rigs in the gulf.

 

At most the moratorium will reduce output of deep sea oil wells in the gulf by 4%.

 

http://www.woodmacresearch.com/cgi-bin/corp/portal/corp/corpPressDetail.jsp?oid=2009641