Animosity between US and UK over oil spill?

[Pangloss]

I'm afraid I just have one indirect link on this because it was a video item on local news that I caught just before we left our vacation spot, and I'm afraid to scour the news at the moment because I've tivo'd the US-UK soccer game and I don't want to spoil it! (Have at thee, former colonial oppressors!!!!!)

 

This one is about Obama saying "no hard feelings" to the British and I'm kinda afraid to read it because I see soccer pics on the page. (lol) But the news item I heard was that it's become a bit of a row in the UK -- is that right? Something about some in Britain being upset that Obama has been so critical of BP? I was kinda surprised at that because I didn't get the impression that Obama was criticizing Britain, per se, but just this specific multinational conglomerate. I've never gotten an anti-UK vibe from any aspect of the story, as reported locally over the last couple of months.

 

Could this be a misperception on the part of British people that Americans are upset with them over this?

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gWex3tV4QpJTdP2ea1byEXbTTQrQD9G9TKM81

[iNow]

It's rubbish. I've heard the story, too... On NPR, I think.

 

Honestly, wouldn't the British be mad if an American company was the cause of the worst environmental disaster in their entire history? Yes, they would, and that anger would not be mistaken to be directed at americans in general (except, maybe among the extremists). Same here.

 

It's a stupid suggestion on its face, and a large part of me can hardly believe that our "news" has become so vacuous that it actually reports this silliness now as some sort of important story.

[Pangloss]

Makes sense. The story kinda struck me as inflammatory, and came right on the eve of the opening of World Cup Soccer.

[insane_alien]

pangloss, first off, its a USA versus ENGLAND game. not the whole UK. as a Scot and seeing as our team didn't make it, i'm obliged to support Anyone But England.

 

what seems to be happening is obama is trying to direct the anger over this incident from the american populace to the proper target, BP the company and not Britain the country.

 

and seeing as BP is a big multinational corporation essentially tied to the UK only by name and location of its headquarters.

 

Some of the stuff i'm seeing coming out of the states does seem to be a bit ridiculous though. i mean, its not as if BP WANTED to do this. its a cockup of epic proportions and bad for their business.

 

And there is animosity to BP from here in the UK as well. I'm angry at them, not for the accident itself, because it was first and foremost an accident. but for the seemingly lax standards the kept aboard the rig. if it was in the north sea it would even have been allowed to start drilling until some additional safety measures had been put in place. I'm angry at them for not holding to their own internal safety standards more than anything else.

[ajb]

What is worrying, as insane has pointed out is that the attachment of Britain to BP has been overstated or at least been over estimated by many people. It was once British, but was fully privatised in 1987, thanks to Thatchers privation drive. It is now a multinational based in the UK.

 

Now, on a related issue it is a fact that many UK pension funds are tied up in BP stocks. The price of shares in BP is falling and this may well add to the pension crisis we face in the UK. No-one is happy about the oil spill and no-one wants BP to collapse.

[Pangloss]

That's interesting, I'd heard a bit about the stock angle but I didn't realize it was tied to pensions. Makes sense, though.

 

I don't know how much of this you can aim at privatization, since there were regulations in place that were supposed to stop everything that went wrong. Maybe the anger should be aimed at those who were supposed to enforce the rules and the general system that's failed to enforce them. At least one high-level bureaucratic manager has already lost her job over this, but there may be more repercussions to come.

[abeefaria]

As an American, I hold no ill feelings toward the English as a result of the oil spill. Furthermore, it upsets me to read/hear some in the U.S. wanting the U.S. government to seize BP's assets. These people left reason a long time ago.

[iNow]

Furthermore, it upsets me to read/hear some in the U.S. wanting the U.S. government to seize BP's assets. These people left reason a long time ago.

Can you elaborate on that, and assure me that you understand the comments pertain only to BP America, not BP as a whole, and that they relate to the financial liability of BP America and their legal responsibility to handle costs resulting from their mistakes?

[jackson33]

For the record, BP is very much tied to the UK, operations extensive in the 'North Sea', is vital to the British economy and 18 million Brit's are in part dependent of incomes from their stocks. BP's board of directors will be meeting this week to decide on paying out the current dividends, while the Obama team is saying they should not, then into the foreseeable future, while what BP was permitted to do, then having an accident unfolds. I'm still waiting for the proof, BP was "solely" responsible!!!

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_fields_operated_by_BP

 

 

"The government must put down a marker with the US administration that the survival and long-term prosperity of BP is a vital British interest," the former British ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, has told the BBC.

He urged Prime Minister David Cameron to raise the issue in his scheduled conversation with US President Barack Obama over the weekend.

 

London Mayor Boris Johnson has expressed concern about the "anti-British rhetoric that seems to be permeating from America". [/Quote]

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10282777.stm

 

The animosity suggested is in "the handling" of the situation (think there was a thread on this) or the rhetoric (suggested politically motivated, in an election year) coming from the White House and Congress.

 

 

Can you elaborate on that, and assure me that you understand the comments pertain only to BP America, not BP as a whole, and that they relate to the financial liability of BP America and their legal responsibility to handle costs resulting from their mistakes? [/Quote]

 

iNow; Anything pertaining to BP, whether comments (dropping 50% the value of their stock, causing interest rates to drop to junk) or actions can effect BP's Worldwide operations, American or otherwise. If the US Government continues to interfere in their operations, other than this incident for whatever reason (political or legally) and openly, the Company will suffer.

 

As 'abeefaria' has suggested there are those in Congress and certainly many pundits that feel Government should cease assets (bank accounts/property) to insure the tens of thousand of current claims are paid, paid in full, which will certainly take years to be litigated (my estimate 10/15 years). Whether it's the 'suggested limits' think far less than one billion or Congress's proposed 10B$ limit, there is and will be a limit. Generally these issues are solved by the courts, adding up all involved and valid insurance policies or those that re-insure the insurers, setting the limits, not Federally Elected Officials, whom will be long gone when much of this will be decided. 'abeefaria' is also correct and I agree, this frenzy to blame and solve the problem itself, have long left, reason behind.

[iNow]

I'm still waiting for the proof, BP was "solely" responsible!!!

If this is your mindset, then I'm not confident I can have a reasonable discussion with you on this topic. They were in charge of the operation, and all of its parts. The operation led to the current mess, and by contract, by existing legislation & acts, and further by their own comments of acceptance... They are responsible for cleanup and costs when all is said and done.

 

 

iNow; Anything pertaining to BP, whether comments (dropping 50% the value of their stock, causing interest rates to drop to junk) or actions can effect BP's Worldwide operations, American or otherwise.

Where is it that you believe I've suggested otherwise?

 

 

If the US Government continues to interfere in their operations, other than this incident for whatever reason (political or legally) and openly, the Company will suffer.

Where is it that you believe I've suggested otherwise?

 

 

I know I've asked you to do this in the past, but it seems again to be time for you to refresh yourself on the concept of a red herring.

 

 

'abeefaria' is also correct and I agree, this frenzy to blame and solve the problem itself, have long left, reason behind.

So, I'll ask you the same question I asked him.

 

Can you elaborate on that, and assure me that you understand that the comments relate to the financial liability of BP America and their legal responsibility to handle costs resulting from their mistakes?

[Pangloss]

Abeefaria's comments were really focused more on the concept of asset seizure, not corporate identification or blame-finding. He wants to know if anybody here supports seizure, and I think that's a valid question. As long as we're leaping to conclusions, iNow, why don't you assure us that you're not stealthily supporting an effort to nationalize the oil industry? Or can we just stick with what folks are actually saying?

[iNow]

My comment was an attempt to clarify what he was saying. I say we should focus on that, especially since the driving motivation of my question was because what he was actually saying was rather unclear.

[Pangloss]

Well here's a clear question for you: Do you feel that BP's assets should be seized?

[iNow]

Well here's a clear question for you: Do you feel that BP's assets should be seized?

I have not yet made up my mind on that point. Perhaps reading clarifications on the thoughts of others will help, as will seeing what is decided as pertains to putting money into escrow, and how much money is set aside. So, the answer is, not yet, no, but I remain open to the idea that it might be required at some point in the future.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

These issues were explored this morning on This Week starting about a minute into this video:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-spilling-10901444

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As long as we're leaping to conclusions, iNow, why don't you...

Where is it that you believe I've jumped to any conclusions?

Edited June 13, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[jackson33]

A grassroots campaign dubbed Seize BP is holding demonstrations in more than 50 cities from June 3 through June 5.

 

The movement got a big shot in the arm earlier this week after former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote on his blog that "it's time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership." (Reich is now a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.) [/Quote]

 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/02/markets/thebuzz/

 

From coast to coast, people are stepping up to the plate and organizing demonstrations for the Seize BP Week of Action in their cities and towns.

 

We will take to the streets from Thursday, June 3 to Thursday, June 10 in cities across the country to demand: Seize BP![/Quote]

 

http://www.seizebp.org/

 

 

Congress could order any or all BP US bank accounts be closed to any transactions, without taking legal action or until BP contested the action, which they would surely do. While I don't think Obama or Congress will take this action, there are those that want this done. IMO, anything even coming close to those actions, would not only alienate the UK, their citizen but create Worldwide contempt and have not alter results for what cost BP will in the end pay. This kind of talk only hurts the hoped for end result for help from BP and the industry in solving the various current and future problems.

 

Another article, think from France, but advising seizure;

 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/who_runs_americas_response_to_the_oil_blowout_20100602/

 

If this is your mindset, then I'm not confident I can have a reasonable discussion with you on this topic. They were in charge of the operation, and all of its parts. The operation led to the current mess, and by contract, by existing legislation & acts, and further by their own comments of acceptance... They are responsible for cleanup and costs when all is said and done.[/Quote]

 

iNow; It's not my mindset, it's simple reality....No one has any idea exactly what or who is at blame, though BP has accepted the responsibility to fix the problem and let the blame be fixed later. I'll add our Federal Government is portraying the blame IS LEGALLY on the shoulder of BP, which has NOT been established.

 

I believe Transocean actually owned that rig and it was being leased (probably 40-60K$ per day) to BP. This rig, in theory was NOT supposed to sink, under any circumstances and did, I'd suggest being flooded and weighted down while weak (heat) by WATER being used to put out a natural gas fire. Then you had to have a reason the closed off well opened up while being worked on. As I understand it, Haliburton, was responsible for work which apparently also failed, but this should have been in the pipes above the containment equipment, which both would logically fail when the rig sank. This then the typical 'Chicken and Egg' scenario, where certain things wouldn't have happened if other things had not and none totally responsible. While guessing their may be 50 contractors involved, each with specific duties, according to their own expertise. When and if it's determined the actual cause, I'll be more than happy to argue the law.

 

Can you elaborate on that, and assure me that you understand that the comments relate to the financial liability of BP America and their legal responsibility to handle costs resulting from their mistakes? [/Quote]

 

I already have;

 

Whether it's the 'suggested limits' think far less than one billion or Congress's proposed 10B$ limit, there is and will be a limit. Generally these issues are solved by the courts, adding up all involved and valid insurance policies or those that re-insure the insurers, setting the limits, not Federally Elected Officials, whom will be long gone when much of this will be decided.

 

 

Perhaps reading clarifications on the thoughts of others will help, as will seeing what is decided as pertains to putting money into escrow, and how much money is set aside.[/Quote]

 

As law stands, this moment, less than 1B$ would legally be more than a sufficient escrow, far less than has already been spent by BP, in total (not aware of a clean up or compensation figure). The problem for BP is agreeing to anything much less the suggest 10B$ liability limit Congress would like, is that money would have to be barrowed at junk bond rates 8-10% or higher (we're talking years of litigation) and that litigations (class action or individual). Then, where would you draw the line. Sea Food workers are out of work, but they cater to local business, should they be paid, then both pay taxes, should the States be compensated, not to mention the tens of thousand of different business that have already been hurt by media coverage of conditions that may or may not be present. BP is no more responsible for most of the expected law suits, than anything else that can affect an economy.

 

They were in charge of the operation, and all of its parts. [/Quote]

 

Specifically on this thought; They are also regulated on each phase, inspected by a series of State/Federal/Industry people and subject to a host of laws/rules. Speaking of that rig, I understand it had 16 recent complaints from these folks during the last days of operation.

[iNow]

Well, while I need a bablefish to decipher most of your posts, one part which stood out above is how you've shifted the goalposts from "responsibility" to "blame."

 

The words are not the same, so you should avoid conflating them and strawmanning my position in the course of so doing.

[Pangloss]

Personal tit-for-tats aside, jackson33 appears to me to be on the right track, and the video you posted in #14 (if that's from today's show) supports what he's saying. Donna Brazile suggested that the $6.9 billion earned by BP in the first quarter of 2010 be set aside. Former Labor secretary Robert Reich then goes a step further, suggesting that the company be placed in receivership.

 

Going back to the other subject discussed above, host Jake Tapper, ostensibly objective, rephrases Reich's statement to mean "government take-over", and proceeds to question the panel on that basis, without objection from Reich.

 

These are good questions and I think it will be interesting to see how Democrats tiptoe down this very narrow passageway.

[Severian]

If the US seizes BP's assets, can the UK seize the assets of the big US mortgagors that caused the credit crunch?

[abeefaria]

Can you elaborate on that, and assure me that you understand the comments pertain only to BP America, not BP as a whole, and that they relate to the financial liability of BP America and their legal responsibility to handle costs resulting from their mistakes?

 

iNow, I am not sure what you are asking me. I will write one thing, I cannot know if the "comments pertain only to ..." unless those who made the comments elaborate (if my guess is correct as to the answer you seek). I know that the dingbat rosie o'donnel and a facebook page are calling for the U.S. government to "seize BP's assests." This is absurd, in my opinion. The seizure of any part of BP will not aid in the clean up; furthermore, for remunerations to the victims, I suspect lawsuits would be the way to go if BP does not fairly compensate those hurt by the spill.

[iNow]

iNow, I am not sure what you are asking me.

You said this:

 

Furthermore, it upsets me to read/hear some in the U.S. wanting the U.S. government to seize BP's assets. These people left reason a long time ago.

 

 

I was asking for you to:

 

1) Clarify why you find the suggestion to seize BPs assets upsetting, and...

2) Explain how that suggestion is in any way unreasonable

 

 

 

I know that the dingbat rosie o'donnel and a facebook page are calling for the U.S. government to "seize BP's assests."

Okay. Not sure how that's even vaguely relevant, but thanks for using this opportunity to randomly attack some random person. That's always helpful.

 

 

This is absurd, in my opinion.

That part was never unclear. I'm asking why that is.

 

 

The seizure of any part of BP will not aid in the clean up;

Rubbish. If nothing else whatsoever, it will ensure funds are available for said cleanup. Game. Set. Match.

 

Would you like to explore what's behind door number two?

 

 

 

furthermore, for remunerations to the victims, I suspect lawsuits would be the way to go if BP does not fairly compensate those hurt by the spill.

I agree, but unfortunately, the suffering of these people is happening right now, so I find it incredibly reasonable to seek a way to make those decisions happen more quickly. There are people struggling to feed their children right now... People whose livelihoods were shattered by this spewing of oil which began 56 days ago. I don't think it's reasonable to ask that the sole recourse for their suffering be through a judge ten years later with a lawyer they can't afford.

 

In short, I'm okay with trying to set aside money up front and get it to the people who need it with minimal delay, and I wonder what you find unreasonable in this scenario. I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm saying I don't understand your point and want you to clarify it.

[ajb]

If the US seizes BP's assets, can the UK seize the assets of the big US mortgagors that caused the credit crunch?

 

I also think we should do all we can to get money from Iceland, for their banks that collapsed as well as the volcano. Let the Icelandic people pay the price for things that they had no control over!

[abeefaria]

Originally Posted by abeefaria

The seizure of any part of BP will not aid in the clean up;

Rubbish. If nothing else whatsoever, it will ensure funds are available for said cleanup. Game. Set. Match.

 

Would you like to explore what's behind door number two?

 

Game. Set. Match eh?

BP has the funds, the question is whether or not they will keep their word on the cleanup. It would be their downfall if they did not clean up the spill. You are premature to call it set and match.

[iNow]

Game. Set. Match eh?

BP has the funds, the question is whether or not they will keep their word on the cleanup. It would be their downfall if they did not clean up the spill. You are premature to call it set and match.

 

Let's try to please recall the context of our exchange, shall we?

 

You said:

 

The seizure of any part of BP will not aid in the clean up;

 

 

To which I replied,

If nothing else whatsoever, it will ensure funds are available for said cleanup.

 

The question had nothing to do with how many funds were available to BP (which, frankly, is somewhat troubling itself, as despite their enormous strength and wealth, their share prices have been falling badly, hence reducing available funds for cleanup). The point was entirely tied to your comment that seizure would not aid in cleanup.

 

I provided a reasonable counter claim, and my point remains valid, as far as I can tell. The seizure WOULD, in fact, aid in the cleanup, if nothing else by ensuring the funds are in place to execute that cleanup.

 

 

Now, to repeat... I'm not yet a supporter of seizure of BP. I don't think it will be necessary, and I think funds will be available in other ways. I'm simply saying that there is a non-zero possibility that seizure will be needed in the future, and that such a seizure might actually help if it gets down to it.

[abeefaria]

I provided a reasonable counter claim, and my point remains valid, as far as I can tell. The seizure WOULD, in fact, aid in the cleanup, if nothing else by ensuring the funds are in place to execute that cleanup.

 

Seizing assets does not equal aid in cleaning up; it equals seizing assets (which I suspect would be unConstitutional). So, how does seizing assets turn into aid in the clean up? I would really like to know how the government, flush with cash, would do anything more than what BP is doing.

[iNow]

Seizing assets does not equal aid in cleaning up; it equals seizing assets (which I suspect would be unConstitutional). So, how does seizing assets turn into aid in the clean up?

Cleanup requires money.

Money must be available for cleanup to be executed.

Seizing assets ensures money is available.

Seizure is a last resort if money is not put forth in other ways.

 

The logic seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

 

Also, I have no idea why you think this would be unconstitutional given past SCOTUS interpretations of the commerce clause. Can you please elaborate on why you suspect that?