BP

[Stoday]

American Oil, spilling into American water, after failure of faulty American equipment supplied and operated by an American company, with American finance, after American president changed law to give them permission to drill where previously prohibited.

And Obama's trying to blame "British Peetroleum"?

[YLGuy]

Are you blaming Obama?

[Jie]

BP does not really belong to British. It is an international company and Americans may own more BP shares than British. I almost sold some BP options before spill. Anyway, all these companies Stoday mentioned will share the pain. I hope that there will still be a BP two years from now.

[MooseMom]

British Petroleum has overall responsibility of the well and as such, has responsibility for the clean up.  They probably have a captive insurance company that will cover their liability for a primary layer, and excess layers will probably be underwritten by many insurance companies around the world.  I would LOVE to look at their insurance package along with the reinsurance policies taken out by their insurers.

I lived in the UK for many years, and I was constantly surprised by how thin skinned the British seemed to be when it came to what they perceived to be American "criticism".  I doubt that most people there see any anti-British backlash; your press is just making that up, and Lord Tebbit has always been a crazy git.  I certainly have never heard any anti-British talk here in the US, although there has been plenty of anti-BP rhetoric. 

Being upset by Obama calling British Petroleum "British Petroleum" reminds me of the houha surrounding those who called Barack Obama "Barack Hussein Obama".  It's just people trying to stir up trouble and divert our attention away from what really matters.

I am suspicious, though, that Halliburton's role has not been more deeply investigated, along with Transocean's; they are probably pretty cozy with lots of Congresspeople from the oil producing/leasing states along the GOM.  But I think their time will come.  We don't know exactly what caused the problem and which company is ultimately liable for the loss of life, but once those families start demanding compensation, I think it will legally become clearer.

The big meeting Obama is arranging on Wednesday is not just with BP but also with executives from other oil companies operating in American waters.  Has anyone noticed that no one from, say, Exxon or Royal Dutch Shell has been in the media saying, "Oh, we have the expertise and the equipment to prevent such a catastrophe." No.  And that is disturbing, so those guys are gonna be questioned, too.
There's plenty of blame to go around, and frankly I think there are more important issues at hand than whether or not the President is emoting appropriately. 

[cariad]

This is an incredibly complex situation, Stoday, and is being treated as such. I think you know that BP was the company that stood to profit from the oil, and that calling it "American oil" is ridiculous, and "American waters" irrelevant. Personally, I so deeply wish that Haliburton takes at least some of the blame, but given their slithery history, I don't see that happening.

I saw one of Bush's former aids on television the other day saying that Obama acted appropriately and that there was no comparison with Hurricane Katrina. This person (from the opposing party, it is important to note) said that the oil spill is within the domain of the private sector, while a hurricane is a natural disaster and demands an immediate (and competent) government response. The oil companies don't want to be regulated, they have made this abundantly clear, and now they have just proven the point made by environmentalists all along - deregulation is dangerous. I wish this revelation had not come at such a cost.

Are you angry because Obama called it 'British' petroleum? Trust me, my husband has a British accent - there is no anti-British sentiment as a result of this.

[MooseMom]

My father's family is from south Louisiana, and my mother's is from the Mississippi Gulf Coast, so I am quite well acquainted with both areas.  What I will be most interested to see is how the people who make their living from tourism and the fishing industry is going to square this with the people who make their living working on the oil rigs and in the refineries.  If you put a moratorium on drilling in the GOM, lots of people will lose their jobs.  On the other hand, if you have a spill like this, a whole culture could be destroyed...an important and unique part of this country could be forever changed.

I personally am fed up with seeing Louisiana and her wetlands being destroyed by interests held by people in other parts of this country.  I am living in Illinois, so I am well aware of all of the insecticides and fertilizing phosphates that seep into the Mississippi and have created the "Dead Zone" in the GOM.  My husband had never heard of this phenomonon, which tells me that most of us are completely unaware of what we are doing to kill off that area.  Think of it this way...the wetlands and swamplands of Louisiana act like kidneys.  They filter and protect the coastline.  Once that is destroyed, the state is going to need dialysis in a major way.

I was  in the UK when Piper Alpha blew up, and even though it was owned by an American company, there was no anti-American rhetoric, but then again, there was not 24 hour cable and talking heads, either.

[MooseMom]

Lord Tebbit and Boris Johnson both need a time out.  They are both politicians and are well aware that politicians sometimes need to be seen to be saying what they perceive their country wants to hear.  If the President stays cool and collected, then Americans wag their fingers and whine that he needs to get mad.  When he does, the Brits get their knickers in a twist.  And what we all have to say in this regard is largely irrelevant.  I don't think the people of Louisiana and the other gulf states really need that much hand-holding and boo-hooing from the President, whoever he/she may be.  They just want their lives back....oh wait, someone else said that recently.

Obama and Cameron seem to be on the same page about this.  Leave them to do their work.

[Stoday]

calling it "American oil" is ridiculous,

Erm — American Oil became Amoco which merged with British Petroleum which then became BP (after all, it's no longer all British).

What narks me about Obama's position is that he is avoiding the root issue and thus trying to avoid having to deal with it. I don't know who is to blame, but I'm sure it's not one company's fault alone.

The worst outcome of the disaster is if deep water oilfields are banned. World oil prices would then increase, particularly if other countries followed America's lead. The best would be better regulation so that this does not happen again.

The notion that BP should carry the can because it makes all the profit is interesting. I hadn't thought of this. I'd always thought that the main profit should accrue to whoever took the greatest risk. Maybe BP compromised safety because it could afford the risk. I think the prospect of criminal prosecution would be more effective in concentrating management's mind on safety. The image of those chained Enron executives being marched off to jail would be an effective curb on the greed-at-any-cost executive.

[cariad]

My apologies, Stoday. I did not notice the capitalization on 'Oil' and assumed you were saying that it was our problem because it was the country's oil, a stance that would be ridiculous. I know nothing about BP's history, and have never heard Amoco referred to as American Oil. I have to admit that it has never been a great interest of mine. A "merger" in which only one company is represented in the new name tends to be considered a buy-out or takeover in the US, not a real merger. But, yes, few of these large companies can really be traced to any one country.

I think the concentration should be on alternative energy so that they can hike the rates to the moon and we will have options. There is a haunting advert around here with a soldier stating, amongst other points, that every time oil goes up a dollar, we end up paying several billion US dollars to Iran, that they can subsequently pour into nuclear weapons development. The commercial calls for alternative energy. I do not believe, and never will, that the answer is destroying our irreplaceable landscape to feed our oil addiction locally.

BP did state, in writing, that a spill was highly unlikely, but that if it did occur, the proximity to shore would allow for these mythical "response capabilities" that would eliminate environmental impact. I recognize that they were acting on information from other companies. Obama would be all for better regulation. Deregulation, according to sources whom I trust (e.g. Elizabeth Warren) caused our financial collapse. Of course, Wall Street continues to fight regulation and reform. Perhaps BP could set a better example and welcome regulation and resolve to work with the country for safer oil drilling.

Oh, must ask - what issue do you think Obama is avoiding? I am unclear on this.

[MooseMom]

I, too, would like to know which "root issue" the President is avoiding.  I suspect that a lot of people have been avoiding a lot of oil-related issues for a long time.  I don't think any President, from whichever party, could possibly avoid dealing with this slow death of the GOM even if he/she wanted to.

BP's buyout of Amoco occurred at least a decade ago, and as such, BP has had a long time to absorb Amoco's assets AND liabilities.  Any profits are NOT going to no-longer-existing Amoco.

Elizabeth Warren is my hero.

This oil spill is going to shed light on many interesting discussions.  All of those people who want small government and free-dealing corporations must surely be rethinking their position.  To expect the Federal Government to "do something" when it is a private company/ies that caused the spill is an opportunity to explore the relationship between the roles of the US Government vs that of Big Business.  BP and other companies operating in American waters have not had to have available the safety equipment required by, say, Norway and Brazil, so they have been able to save money in this regard.  But now they will spend million/billions of pounds to clean this up.  It's a very basic lesson in false economy.

[paris]

BP bought Gulf Oil years ago also.  It wasn't a merger; it was a buy out.  It was after that when  British Petroleum started the campaign that BP meant Beyond Petroleum.  You can twist names all you want to, it is still British Petroleum.  I don't care what they are called, but they are responsible and need to man up.   If an American company created this magnitude of a disaster on British shores, the American co. would be responsible and the Briitsh would rightfully expect it to be so.    No one here is blaming the British population, we just want this company to be held responsible to the biggest oil disaster ever.  Unless you live here and see daily, hourly the effects this is having on jobs, coastlines, businesses, tourism, etc.  you cannot imagine what impact this has had.    We live in North Carolina and they are saying it is just a matter of time until the oil reaches our shores via the Gulf stream.   In the end, our whole planet will be effected.  And all because businesses didn't plan for the unexpected and had no serious emergency plan.    My brother in law worked for years on rigs off of Louisiana shore.  The stories he tells of life on the rigs is terrifying.    I hope and pray someone can find anything to make a difference and soon.

[billybags]

Whoops, thought you lot was talking about BLOOD PRESSURE, silly me.

[cariad]

Whoops, thought you lot was talking about BLOOD PRESSURE, silly me.

This is why I really do detest the tendency to abbreviate the entire english language. Even though everyone uses lol and we all know what it means, I don't because I just don't like it. I am staunchly old-school when it comes to writing.

I was totally unaware that British Petroleum's name was now officially BP as Gwyn and I always knew it as British Petroleum. I guess the new Prime Minister and his deputy are all in a lather over the semantics. Do we not all have bigger problems right now? Obama is such a measured, formal speaker, I have to think this may have just been his style, to use what he thought was the full, official name.

And I still go to my local BP station because it has the magical combination of being the least expensive and most convenient for us. It was dutifully explained to us all during the 2008 oil speculation madness that these stations are almost always independently owned, and that most station owners were operating at a loss while the oil speculators reaped their fortunes. I don't know how the industry can do that to its people on the ground, but they seem to have no qualms about it.

[MooseMom]

A complicating factor in all of this is the fact that the Deepwater Horizon itself was owned by a Swiss company, and the rig was registered in the Marshall Islands, thus reducing the fed's role in enforcing safety standards and conducting inspections.  If the rig was American registered, the Coast Guard would have subjected it to far more stringent inspections.  So, while good practice may be on the books, it can be bypassed legally if the rig is registered elsewhere.  Therefore, many if not most of these rigs are of foreign registry.  Most corporations will find a way to get around American safety regulations where such regulations exist.

This whole thing is massively more complicated than most of us realize.  To get bogged down in political name calling and navel gazing does not serve the affected people living on the Gulf Coast.

Good point about BP stations being independently owned; boycotting these stations just hurts more Americans.

[Henry P Snicklesnorter]

.

[YLGuy]

The worst outcome of the disaster is if deep water oilfields are banned.

Drill bay, drill?

You mean, the BEST outcome.  We have needed viable alternative energy sources for too long.

[cariad]

Henry! Great to see you in this discussion. I think you've been quoting Wikipedia? They refer to Amoco as both an 'acquisition' and a 'merger' which are different under law. I am not saying you are right or wrong, because I don't know enough about it to say, perhaps it can actually be both? In the end, as Paris says, it's neither here nor there in terms of whether BP should be held responsible. You can rest assured that this is nothing personal against the UK. When American companies make a gopping mess of things, we pass out the torches and pitchforks just as quickly.

YLGuy - I agree!

[Henry P Snicklesnorter]

.

[cariad]

Then I'm confused why Wikipedia has it stated as both. Yes, they're not the most reliable source, but usually companies are pretty obsessive about monitoring these pages during times of high publicity.

I wanted to mention to any interested that Obama will be addressing the nation at 8PM EST tonight, which is in a little less than 90 minutes. Robert Gibbs (press secretary) will follow and answer questions submitted to the White House from the people. Check www.whitehouse.gov for more.

[MooseMom]

I regularly read the online editions of several British papers, usually the Telegraph and The Independent.  I have been struck by how relatively little attention the oil spill has received, although there have been more reports in the past few days, mostly about the non-existent anti-British vitriol and the plight of British pensioners.  This story has been front and center here in the US for weeks, but there seems to be so little about it in the British press.  How do people there view this catastrophe?  I realize that British holidaymakers don't usually visit our Gulf Coast (except maybe for Florida), so perhaps they don't fully understand the scope of this disaster, but I would be very interested to know what the average bloke on the street knows and understands about the spill.  Any of our British IHDers care to enlighten us?  Thanks!

[paris]

After being a part of the airline industry family for decades, I have become very familiar with the terms "merger"  "acquisition"  "buy out" ,etc.  What word is written may not be the actual fact.  Airlines have taken over smaller companies (especially in the 80's and 90's) and they were called mergers, when actually the smaller company was bought, but to keep the publics loyalty to both companies, the word "merger" was used.  We went through it with our company.  The employees were well aware of who bought who, and which company held senority.  There was no merging of employees!   So, through the years, similar situations have taken place with other businesses and the oil industry is no different.   

The bottom line is who is responsible, who is paying, and how do we help the thousands of people out of work with no hope for a future in the fishing industry for possibly decades.  This wasn't a natural disaster.  It was caused by man and some fault of man along the line.  I truly hope other oil companies are now scrabbling to figure out what they would do in a similar situation.   We need every brilliant mind in the world helping to solve this.    The American public is not blaming a country for this --- we just want resolution.  It is a heart breaking situation.

[Henry P Snicklesnorter]

.

[Stoday]

As two contributors to this thread have said, BP is a global company and "British" only reflects the company's origins. Much the same can be said of Shell; originated in the Netherlands but is now a global company. The other major oil companies are also global. So why does Obama harp on about British? I personally think it's to deflect attention from American culpability. Regulation should have been tighter. We know it was too loose because of the incongruity of protecting walruses.

Cariad points out the real danger, that a ban on deep-sea drilling will result in higher oil prices that benefit countries like Iran.

[YLGuy]

I think that arguing over the companies former and current names' is a little bit ridiculous.  It is reasonable for people to make the mistake and call the company by it's former name.  Please don't get so upset by the mention of British.  We don't blame the UK.  This is a HUGE disaster. 

[paris]

I think that arguing over the companies former and current names' is a little bit ridiculous.  It is reasonable for people to make the mistake and call the company by it's former name.  Please don't get so upset by the mention of British.  We don't blame the UK.  This is a HUGE disaster. 

Well said.  I posted previously that no one is blaming the British.   The company could be called anything -- we just want the responsible party to take care of this disaster.    The name means nothing to anyone here.  There is no big outcry over the nationality of the company.   Seriously, there has been more time spent here regarding the name than anything I have read on the internet or newspapers.   We really don't care about the name.