BP Spills Coffee
Archived37 replies · 1,903 views
erm and your point is 
Funny thing is, when BP merged with amoco,amoco were losing BILLIONS of dollars. BUT ever since BP essentially took amoco over ,amoco shareholders have seen their share dividends rise by 56%.
Funny thing that innit.
How do i know all this?
I am a BP shareholder.
Incidently i would also like to enlighten you to the fact that many major European and American pension companies have shares in BP,as do many financial institutions.
The Oil Rig which BP used in the gulf was RENTED from another company for fucks sake,not a lot of people know that,but your president bollocks osama or whassischops seems to forget this.
Typical fuckin yanks always ready to jump in with both feet.
BP are trying to save the world!
They're trying to release the pressure from the worlds core to reduce volcano activity! they should be applauded
Funny thing is, when BP merged with amoco,amoco were losing BILLIONS of dollars. BUT ever since BP essentially took amoco over ,amoco shareholders have seen their share dividends rise by 56%.
Funny thing that innit.
How do i know all this?
I am a BP shareholder.
Incidently i would also like to enlighten you to the fact that many major European and American pension companies have shares in BP,as do many financial institutions.
The Oil Rig which BP used in the gulf was RENTED from another company for fucks sake,not a lot of people know that,but your president bollocks osama or whassischops seems to forget this.
Typical fuckin yanks always ready to jump in with both feet.
Well, it's easy to point fingers, but it'd be interesting to see your reaction if BP spilled oil in your country. By the way, you do realize that the oil from Gulf of Mexico will eventually reach the UK if this continues? Also, you might be a shareholder in BP, but I'm from a commercial fishing family. While you can sell your shares or wait for a turn around our market is suffering with inflated prices and long term damage to our seafood and ecosystems.
Also, the video wasn't funny, but that doesn't mean we can't make a good joke once in awhile.
The Oil Rig which BP used in the gulf was RENTED from another company for fucks sake,not a lot of people know that,but your president bollocks osama or whassischops seems to forget this.
So this absolves BP from responsibility?
I bet you could imagine the anti-American outrage if the roles were reversed.
My wife brought up a good point the other day. When ever an American Company (or Japanese as she put it) does damage to a foreign country, that country immediately demands the originating country's government to take responsibility... now I'm not saying that this is the proper way to accomplish things, but why isn't the British government involved in any of this?
Err, like the US took responsibility for Union Carbide's little mishap in Bhopal?
BP (with the full support of every other oil major) are much better equipped and resourced to take care of this than the British Government. Really, you don't want them involved.
This is Obama's "Katrina moment". He reacted too slowly, indecisively and is currently engaged in PR damage limitation to shift as much of the blame onto "British Petroleum" as possible. As if emphasising "British" in all his rants will help his poll ratings; err no. The environmental impact would probably have been a bit less if he had intervened alongside BP more rapidly when the disaster first occurred.
The international press are absolutely correct, he doesn't sound very statesman-like over this. Wanting to know "whose ass to kick" sounds like something from the deep and dark Dubya days, I thought he was meant to be above that sort of thing and at least be reasonable? Disappointed too our PM Cameron didn't have a backbone over the whole thing to have an opinion rather than simply repeating what Blair did I.e. bending over and taking it.
BP should tell him to fuck off. Deep water drilling which is something Obama himself opened up lots of waters to explore is by default a risky business... no company would ever intends for this sort of thing to happen. It's all turned into a "the nasty British have deliberately fucked this up as much as possible" which anyone with half a brain can see is misguided at best and a tad prejudiced at worst.
Col's absolutely right as well, when Americans make mistakes elsewhere it's a different matter 
"collateral damage" is the term I believe?
There were plenty of US companies involved in this, and the whole thing was regulated (not to mention encouraged) by US Authorities, so to label it British is just daft. As for the President's response, it's more or less irrelevant what he says. There'll be untold litigation, and a massive review of operating practices and regulations will surely follow, but the word of the president pretty much adds up to fuck all in the scheme of things. As for Cameron weighing in with his two-pence worth this week - that was just embarrassing.
What it comes down to is facing up to the consequences of things going wrong in deepwater drilling. As a massive consumer of oil, America must decide whether they want to see the potential effects in their own back yard, or push it back to the dirty zones of Nigeria and the Canadian tar sands (to name but two). As well as being a typically hypocritical stance, this would mean leaving massive oil reserves in the ground, and missing out on a massive tax-payday in what could be the closing decades of the oil era.
Pablo Bastardo wrote: There were plenty of US companies involved in this, and the whole thing was regulated (not to mention encouraged) by US Authorities, so to label it British is just daft. As for the President's response, it's more or less irrelevant what he says. There'll be untold litigation, and a massive review of operating practices and regulations will surely follow, but the word of the president pretty much adds up to fuck all in the scheme of things. As for Cameron weighing in with his two-pence worth this week - that was just embarrassing.
What it comes down to is facing up to the consequences of things going wrong in deepwater drilling. As a massive consumer of oil, America must decide whether they want to see the potential effects in their own back yard, or push it back to the dirty zones of Nigeria and the Canadian tar sands (to name but two). As well as being a typically hypocritical stance, this would mean leaving massive oil reserves in the ground, and missing out on a massive tax-payday in what could be the closing decades of the oil era.
Good opinion, IMO, Colin. I don't really think one would be able to just blame one factor/country/company. American companies being involved doesn't absolve BP from anything IMO, but it seems that everyone /everything/every factor involved is part of the issue.
It's time for consumers to boycott all petroleum products.
That'll show them.
And if you don't care enough to do that, STFU.
Pablo Bastardo wrote: There were plenty of US companies involved in this, and the whole thing was regulated (not to mention encouraged) by US Authorities, so to label it British is just daft. As for the President's response, it's more or less irrelevant what he says. There'll be untold litigation, and a massive review of operating practices and regulations will surely follow, but the word of the president pretty much adds up to fuck all in the scheme of things. As for Cameron weighing in with his two-pence worth this week - that was just embarrassing.
What it comes down to is facing up to the consequences of things going wrong in deepwater drilling. As a massive consumer of oil, America must decide whether they want to see the potential effects in their own back yard, or push it back to the dirty zones of Nigeria and the Canadian tar sands (to name but two). As well as being a typically hypocritical stance, this would mean leaving massive oil reserves in the ground, and missing out on a massive tax-payday in what could be the closing decades of the oil era.
Yes and no. A couple things on your comment Col. First, I have no doubt BP is trying their best to cap off the well. That's a lot of oil, so a lot of revenue lost. The main problem with BP at this moment is not the capping of the well, its everything further away from the well. The complete lack of planning on the collection of the oil at the surface. BP has been dragging its feet in the clean up process, or even letting others come join the fight. Why BP couldn't set up a two-prong attack on this thing is beyond me, one for capping the well and the other for clean-up. God knows they have plenty of fishermen willing to work.
Second, most of this anger towards BP (or the British) is really BP's doing, as their PR here has been absolutely horrid. Their solution for everything is to keep the media away from it. Now I have a personal distaste for the media ever since I saw them in action in Iraq, but you don't close off the media, that only pisses them off. BP could have put a face to the clean-up and a face to the oil well, and people would feel better.
As for Obama, the media has really been very light on him over here. If this were Bush, the media would have tore into him by day two. Obama has done next to nothing, but there are all sorts of concessions made by the media for him, it boggles my mind. He comes up, talks about stepping on things, and that makes everyone feel he's doing his job?
As for labeling this "British is daft", I have to agree, but at this point the shoe's on the other foot, eh?
EdelBrock wrote: Second, most of this anger towards BP (or the British) is really BP's doing, as their PR here has been absolutely horrid ....... people would feel better.
Yes I think the PR response from BP is the biggest and single most tragic event of the whole situation. I mean, how dare they not handle the press correctly? What are they thinking? I think they should break off all efforts to plug the hole and invite Fox, CNN etc down to BP headquarters for tea and biscuits. Possibly a handjob for some of the Fox journos.
As for making people feeling better, who seriously gives a fuck? The first and foremost goal should be contain the environmental disaster, not schmooze the US public most of whom as has been said consume oil at an alarming rate seemingly ignorant to where it comes from as well as the risks of retrieving it. Managing their PR well has little or no bearing on their efforts to fix the problem and nor should it.
The original point stands that if the US government had acted in conjunction with BP at the start of this rather than simply going "it's British Petroleum's gig" the environmental impact probably would have been a bit less... that shows more failing on the US government's behalf than BP.
I don’t think BP’s attempts to cap the well have much to do with recovering the oil that’s down there. Assuming the well was to produce 40,000 bopd (which it wouldn’t), that’s only a billion dollars a year. Not worth it, in other words. They could drill plenty of other wells into the same field for far less money than they’ve spent trying to stop the flow from this one. If they could push a button and destroy the well, they would. It’s just not as simple as that, unfortunately. The efforts to capture the oil coming out are purely due to the fact that they can’t stop it from coming. I don’t know much about the efforts of BP to stop the spread of oil, but I can’t see why they won’t be doing everything they can. They know they’ll be held to account for every ounce they spill, and all the dispersant and other crap they use in the process. It is fair to say that BP, along with everyone else involved, were badly-prepared for this. They didn’t put plans and infrastructure in place. I’m sure BP are feeling this very painfully right now, but the burden of this responsibility is shared across the whole industry, and the regulatory bodies. Like BP, the US government (like that of every other oil state) is happy to trouser the revenues, but reluctant to put money into preparing for the worst. There are exceptions to this – I know of two sites in the UK where the local authorities insist on massive cash reserves and detailed planning for things going wrong. There’s nothing stopping this from happening anywhere else, apart from a lack of financial will. As for BP’s PR performance, I find some comfort in them concentrating on more pressing matters than controlling the 24-hour media. What would be the point, anyway? ‘It’s hardly an opportunity to coat ourselves in glory so what’s the point in trying’ may be the argument. You have to bear in mind that Hayward will be pulled in three ways – Engineering, Legal and Media. My guess is that his instinct is to go with the Engineers, with the Legal people shouting loudest and the Media people doing their best at an impossible job with not much support. Of course, the worst may be yet to come for BP, or others. Apres le deluge, the inquest and the litigation. Both will be very keen to establish what and who caused this. The rig owners, operators, well specialists, authorities, and licence holders will all have their version of events, but who to believe?
I loved the headline on Thursday's Daily Express
'Obama Is Wrecking Our Pensions!'
I might have imagined the exclamation mark but that was deffo the headline. I'm always astounded when small time investors get all shocked and indignant when share's plummet on the back of real-life situations like this. If you're gonna play at being mini-capitalists then prepare to have your fingers burnt once in a while. That's the way the game works. Deal with it.
You mean Princess Diana wasn't on the front page?
Wonder why that is. She's not died or anything, has she?
Pablo Bastardo wrote: You mean Princess Diana wasn't on the front page?
Wonder why that is. She's not died or anything, has she?
Murdered mate. By Prince Philip and MI6 no less. Some say she brought it on herself. She was 'courting' a fuzzy-wuzzy after all. Greasy looking chap with a funny name. Dreadful business. Queen of Hearts she was. I think there's a condolence book somewhere
Great. Did MI6 and the Duke not consider for ONE SECOND the effect that this would have on house prices?
Pablo Bastardo wrote: Great. Did MI6 and the Duke not consider for ONE SECOND the effect that this would have on house prices?
Obviously not but with the equity in all our homes being eroded on a daily basis by single mothers, asylum seekers and Katie Price aka 'Jordan' one could be forgiven for not getting that upset by the Duke's lack of foresight. He's far from the worst offender.
Pablo Bastardo wrote: I don’t think BP’s attempts to cap the well have much to do with recovering the oil that’s down there. Assuming the well was to produce 40,000 bopd (which it wouldn’t), that’s only a billion dollars a year. Not worth it, in other words. They could drill plenty of other wells into the same field for far less money than they’ve spent trying to stop the flow from this one. If they could push a button and destroy the well, they would. It’s just not as simple as that, unfortunately. The efforts to capture the oil coming out are purely due to the fact that they can’t stop it from coming. I don’t know much about the efforts of BP to stop the spread of oil, but I can’t see why they won’t be doing everything they can. They know they’ll be held to account for every ounce they spill, and all the dispersant and other crap they use in the process. It is fair to say that BP, along with everyone else involved, were badly-prepared for this. They didn’t put plans and infrastructure in place. I’m sure BP are feeling this very painfully right now, but the burden of this responsibility is shared across the whole industry, and the regulatory bodies. Like BP, the US government (like that of every other oil state) is happy to trouser the revenues, but reluctant to put money into preparing for the worst. There are exceptions to this – I know of two sites in the UK where the local authorities insist on massive cash reserves and detailed planning for things going wrong. There’s nothing stopping this from happening anywhere else, apart from a lack of financial will. As for BP’s PR performance, I find some comfort in them concentrating on more pressing matters than controlling the 24-hour media. What would be the point, anyway? ‘It’s hardly an opportunity to coat ourselves in glory so what’s the point in trying’ may be the argument. You have to bear in mind that Hayward will be pulled in three ways – Engineering, Legal and Media. My guess is that his instinct is to go with the Engineers, with the Legal people shouting loudest and the Media people doing their best at an impossible job with not much support. Of course, the worst may be yet to come for BP, or others. Apres le deluge, the inquest and the litigation. Both will be very keen to establish what and who caused this. The rig owners, operators, well specialists, authorities, and licence holders will all have their version of events, but who to believe?
Plugging the hole never has been the real solution anyways, they were all long shots. The real solution in the relief well they have been drilling, but that will take at least 2-3 months to drill. But again, its not the hole I have an issue with at the moment.
Col and Glas, I can't imagine you actually stand behind BP on their poor PR management. Hayward isn't the only employee at BP, it doesn't have to be him... they do make a few pounds or two to shell out for a proper PR team, and it doesn't take away from trying to clog the hole.. The lack of not having a single PR person during this whole thing is really unbelievable. When the Brit economy sinks, then you'll understand the importance of PR. Granted no one is ready for this disaster, but here are a couple things that they should have done: 1)Put someone in charge of the clogging the well 2)Put someone in charge of drilling the relief well 3)Put someone in charge of the clean up efforts 4)Put someone in charge of the PR and then hayward directs these guys.
I think they've done 1 and 2, but completely botched 3 & 4. Completely unacceptable for a 300 Billion annual revenue company.
If this spill happened in the River Thames by an American Company, you Brits would be scrambling and complaining all over the place, and when the government would not be holding up their end, you would blame it on the power of the American Company influencing the government. So all blame would rest squarely on the American company. However, since it is over here, now it is more the American governments fault in not regulating properly, and you act as if BP is some sort of victim to the whole affair.
So if I get this right: Rule 1 - When a disaster occurs, blame the US Rule 2 - When the disaster is caused more by some other country (or another country's company), blame the US.
Apparently this will affect the US psyche in the same way as 9/11.
Prepare for tactical strikes on St James Square and Aberdeen as the US make attempts to neutralise the leadership, invasion force to secure Gaping Ghyll and other potholes in deepest North Yorkshire so that they can't escape there.
Follow up a short while later with an invasion of a country that has feck all to do with it but the septics have a beef with, so France can anticipate Sock and Drawer in the near future.
Yeah, fuck off. The only reason for us Americans to get upset with the British is when they negatively stereotype us like you just have. Last time I checked the United States wasn't 100% southern republicans.
Nationality is a weird red herring that's been thrown into the mix. It's the company (only partly British) that takes the blame and the slack assed safety culture that it swims in (mainly American). The company will pay... that's if it survives.
James Thomas wrote: Apparently this will affect the US psyche in the same way as 9/11.
Prepare for tactical strikes on St James Square and Aberdeen as the US make attempts to neutralise the leadership, invasion force to secure Gaping Ghyll and other potholes in deepest North Yorkshire so that they can't escape there.
Follow up a short while later with an invasion of a country that has feck all to do with it but the septics have a beef with, so France can anticipate Sock and Drawer in the near future.
Would be pretty funny if they tried - we'd kick the shit out of them. Drag them out of their 'Ummers and beat them around the face and neck with an inflated pig's bladder - they wouldn't know what's hit them.
Hey nonnie nonnie kai yay, motherfucker!
I think the video's pretty funny. Thanks. BTW, it is BP's fault (they operated the rig, for crissakes, and it's their wellhead), and Obama has really screwed up by not reacting quickly. You Brits can get all high and mighty, but it's the folks in Louisiana who are the ones fucked by this.
Shakin' Baker wrote: You Brits can get all high and mighty.
That's a bit rich, coming from an American!
Shakin' Baker wrote: I think the video's pretty funny. Thanks. BTW, it is BP's fault (they operated the rig, for crissakes, and it's their wellhead), and Obama has really screwed up by not reacting quickly. You Brits can get all high and mighty, but it's the folks in Louisiana who are the ones fucked by this.
I dunno what you all expected that Obama should have done. What would "reacting more quickly" have changed? The hole is still open. And even Mr. President can't close it faster - he's not Superman and no engineer.
Bere wrote:
Shakin' Baker wrote: I think the video's pretty funny. Thanks. BTW, it is BP's fault (they operated the rig, for crissakes, and it's their wellhead), and Obama has really screwed up by not reacting quickly. You Brits can get all high and mighty, but it's the folks in Louisiana who are the ones fucked by this.
I dunno what you all expected that Obama should have done. What would "reacting more quickly" have changed? The hole is still open. And even Mr. President can't close it faster - he's not Superman and no engineer.
There are two things off the top of my head he could have done (and could still do, as it still needs to be done)
1)Put a freeze on the need for mortgage payments, to ensure people linked to this catastrophe don't lose their home. Plus mortgage payments are usually the bulk of the money people need to make to stay afloat.
2)Ensure proper leadership to protect the local coastlines is being completed.
In the end, the President's main job is to make the public calm, especially in this economy. He can make the difference between the stock market remaining stable and it taking a nose dive.
US politics these days mostly consist of finger pointing, too many chiefs and not enough indians, and plenty of business, business, business. Unfortunately I don't think America is in a position to really deal with any problems, especially not an oil spill. We have too many internal problems to fix, which doesn't seem to be happening.
Bit concerned about Obama's BP bashing meself. Seems to me like he'd be better off helping the situation rather than constant finger pointing, and wiping billions off the stock value of a company every time he speaks. I'm sure BP are doing everything they can to stop the flow, as they can afford it, or could afford it (pending latest Obama statement on one hour).
Bashing a company into financial trouble is not necessarily the cleverest thing he could have done though.
Anyway, latest O speech is in about an hour, so will be interesting to see what he says....
pure_shaw wrote: now we're even.
I'm not sure that's quite how it works! It's a good point, but not worth dwelling on. Piper was a long time ago, and the production industry has changed fundamentally because of it. Drilling is a different matter, they've always enjoyed much a less onerous safety environment and this will almost certainly change in the coming years.
Obama's said that he's going to force BP to pay for the clean-up. He's not right. It's the courts who will determine the extent of BPs liability (expect a figure in the high 90%s, if not total liability), and they who will handle the claims for compensation. This is Right. It was BPs operation and they were responsible for the key decisions.
The only people who are rubbing their hands are the lawyers. They will be working on this for generations. The court cases relating to the tanker that ran aground off Alaska in 1989 have only recently been completed. This spill is massively more complex and extensive - expect it to run and run.
Amazing development yesterday - seems I was quite wrong about what the Prez could insist on. I wonder if he did actually kick anyone's elbow?
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall in that room. I wonder what he offered to get BP to agree to all that? Or what he threatened them with?
Not that anyone thought BP would end up escaping any of the liability, but it's amazing that they appear to have agreed to stump up the cash in advance, and at the expense of everyone's beloved dividends. Praps BP just want to get the worst of it out of the way, minimise litigation and then get on with rebuilding the company.
Not much chance of that, I'm afraid. The exact sequence of events on the rig will need to come out soon, and then...
...oh dear.
yeah voting for that dumbo eared motherfucker to be in office was the worst thing to have happened second to that shit spill out in the ocean.
