Why is BP liable for any of this?

I'm not saying they have no blame, I just don't like the attitude that it should fall entirely on their shoulders. Everyone, including the last President, is to blame somewhat. Also, I read yesterday that some within Obamas circle of advisors are pushing for fines of $100b or more, in order to try and bankrupt them. That is their actual goal.

It's idiocy like this, shortsightedness of an epic level, that annoys me.

What they should be worrying about, is getting this shit cleaned up ASAP, not who looks best. Obama's grandstanding also pisses me off quite a bit. There is a group of people who are really struggling at the moment, and to me it seems that all he cares about is looking good for November.
 


papajohn56 said:
If I'm renting a house, and dig up the front yard until I hit the septic tank and shit is spewing everywhere down the street, should the landlord be responsible for the cleanup?
Click to expand...

If you told the tenant they better find a way to dig faster and fuck the safety measures or they'll find another tenant....then yes.
 
I'm guessing that the average American doesn't know that BP is a UK company - to most of us, it's just another in the myriad gas stations we pass every day. I believe the whole xenophobic, anti-British attitude some are seeing directed towards BP is just a perception, not reality.

Is it a Big Oil company like all the others? Yes. The response is no different than if Exxon (US), Chevron (US), or Shell (Netherlands/UK) were connected. These guys are all fat cats who make shitloads of money to us. So do we want to see them suffer when one of them - however indirectly it is argued - fucks up our coastline? Yes, yes we do. We want them to get loved tenderly.

On another note, I don't see bankrupting BP or running them out of the country as a good idea anyway. There was a good piece in the New Yorker recently about how smart it would have been for the other Big Oil companies to reach out as soon as this happened and offer whatever resources they had to help plug the leak. They hesitated. Don't be surprised if this all winds up going the way of Lehman Brothers, etc. The regulations and whatnot that are certain to be put in place after this (and yes, both Bush AND Obama loosened these) are sure to be painful for the rest of these companies and ultimately the US consumer.
 
johu said:
BP publicly said it would cover the cost of the incident, so I'm sure something points to BP being responsible.
Click to expand...

There are two reasons for this. First is that an incident like this has happened before, and the operator did not cover the costs of cleanup. The second is that with all the communication that could be subpoenaed if there was an investigation, the government would find enough asshats to lay all the blame on whoever they want to sink. So if BP doesn't take responsibility they could have been royally fucked in the future for more than just cleanup costs.
 
Reidy said:
Also, I read yesterday that some within Obamas circle of advisors are pushing for fines of $100b or more, in order to try and bankrupt them. That is their actual goal.
Click to expand...

Where the fuck did you read that? How would that help the US or any of Obama's cronies unless they owned massive amounts of RDS or EXO (or where getting indirect payment from them....if so, where is the proof?)? Even Fox News wouldnt be so stupid as to let a story like that run. If you have a link to the source of that story please post it.
While the gubmint is surely looking to rape BP like a pack of silverbacks on meth and viagra, the reason for doing so would be to get some money to help pay for the damage caused by the spill, set a precedent that would scare other companies into operating in a more cautious manner, and drum up support from voters by proving that the US wont just stand by and let "Big Oil" do whatever the fuck it wants....even though that is pretty much what we have done for quite some time.
 
turbolapp said:
If you told the tenant they better find a way to dig faster and fuck the safety measures or they'll find another tenant....then yes.
Click to expand...

My point was BP is responsible - Transocean wasn't telling BP to fuck safety, it was the other way around. BP is renting the house, Transocean is the landowner
 
$uccess said:
Where the fuck did you read that? How would that help the US or any of Obama's cronies unless they owned massive amounts of RDS or EXO (or where getting indirect payment from them....if so, where is the proof?)? Even Fox News wouldnt be so stupid as to let a story like that run. If you have a link to the source of that story please post it.
While the gubmint is surely looking to rape BP like a pack of silverbacks on meth and viagra, the reason for doing so would be to get some money to help pay for the damage caused by the spill, set a precedent that would scare other companies into operating in a more cautious manner, and drum up support from voters by proving that the US wont just stand by and let "Big Oil" do whatever the fuck it wants....even though that is pretty much what we have done for quite some time.
Click to expand...

I can't find the exact story, but did a quick Google search and found a reference to it here:

BP, plc. (BP): Obama Urged To Fine BP $100B In Damages

I read both The Times, and The Independent so it could have been in one of them. It doesn't mention the intention to bankrupt the company though, but I know I read that somewhere.

They are both well respected newspapers too, not exactly Fox News. Although The Times is owned by Murdoch.
 
Regarding the state's move to punish/tax/regulate/blah BP, the following is a good piece on regulation...

The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty Regulation Print

It was written in 1980. Its treatment of the matter is timeless. The arguments made by the author were true then; they are true now; and they will be true in twenty years.

If you believe in the positive effects of regulation, I encourage you to read the short piece linked above.
 
When all is said and done BP will continue to profit on a scale few of us can imagine. They are a major supplier of an addictive and needed drug. Drug suppliers always make bank. Oh, and their boys at the other drug supply companies will also capitalize -- they will raise prices due to a 'shortage' of said drug.

PS: Obama is a major fucking douchebag.
 
My dad used to be the manager of an oil terminal for Shell (he was in charge of it). He said that while working there for 5 years he forced contractors to stop doing things due to safety issues hundreds of times. To him (and he said for most managers... including most oil rig managers) half of the job is putting your foot down and preventing people from taking shortcuts since the stakes are so high.

Contractors will always cut corners and it is the responsibility of the plant manager (in this case BP) to manage everything and make sure that the contractors don't go out of line. It is the oil rig manager (a BP employee's) responsibility to make sure that corners aren't cut that can lead to a situation like this.

So either the guy at BP did a poor job overseeing Transocean (BP's fault), or BP signed off on Transoscena's attempts to cut corners (also BP's fault).

No matter which contractor was working with BP this probably would've happened as it seems like the BP person in charge of the oil rig was unwilling to stop contractors from cutting corners. That makes it almost entirely BP's fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom