no mate, its fact. anyway, when was the last time the media and/or gov told the truth about anything?
B.P.'s Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Thread (it's all here).....
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
no mate, its fact. anyway, when was the last time the media and/or gov told the truth about anything?
BP buys Google, Yahoo search words:Is it to keep people from real news on Gulf oil spill disaster?
not stating that the source is a bastion of truth, but this would NOT surprise me- no wonder google has been less helpful for keeping track of the news on this mess
not stating that the source is a bastion of truth, but this would NOT surprise me- no wonder google has been less helpful for keeping track of the news on this mess
Gotta love the spin in the title, "BP buys Google" roflmao
How much less damaging news do they want than this:
Oil spill creates huge undersea 'dead zones' - Americas, World - The Independent
or how much more damaging can it be than that?
ooops I spoke too soon:
Offshore Oil Companies Under The Microscope - Forbes.com
Freakin lovely. Multiple spews.
It actually says "buys google, yahoo search words"
If it says "BP pays for words" it would have been a lousy headline, whereas the gist of the story is well summed up in the chosen headline for people with a good command of the language and the capacity to absorb a headline longer than 3 words.
If it says "BP pays for words" it would have been a lousy headline, whereas the gist of the story is well summed up in the chosen headline for people with a good command of the language and the capacity to absorb a headline longer than 3 words.
BP needs to tell whining Americans to take a hike
Matthew Lynn, Bloomberg Opinion · Wednesday, Jun. 9, 2010
Ever since oil started gushing from its well in the Gulf of Mexico, the British energy company BP PLC has responded precisely the way you’d expect from a massive corporation caught up in a terrible mess.
It has sent its public-relations staff out to grovel abjectly on television. It has run around trying to make it look like it’s doing something, even if it is only stuffing old socks into the leaking well. Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward has been wringing his hands at every available opportunity.
But this is a catastrophe on a whole new scale. Traditional responses won’t work. In fact, there are no words BP can use to apologize sufficiently for the damage the leak has caused. Whatever it says, it’s still going to be the most reviled company in America.
Instead BP should try a different tack. It should tell the U.S., and everybody in it, to go take a hike. In reality, the U.S. is guilty of the most appalling hypocrisy. It’s too late to rescue BP’s reputation now; all it can realistically hope for is to salvage as much money for shareholders as possible.
It isn’t hard to understand why BP is in trouble. The biggest oil spill in U.S. history has soiled at least 140 miles (225 kilometers) of coastline, halted new exploratory drilling in the Gulf and shut down a third of its fishing areas. Politicians are baying for BP’s blood. The media is kicking the company to pieces. The New York Daily News last week described Hayward as “the most hated -- and clueless -- man in America” for his handling of the crisis. Publicity doesn’t get much worse than that.
Spin Doctor
So far, BP has been playing this right out of the chapter in the spin doctor’s manual headed, “What to do when your company is about as popular as the Third Reich in 1946.” It has apologized, and apologized again. It has simpered, felt people’s pain, and promised to learn from its mistakes. Responsibility has been taken, errors owned up to.
No doubt we can expect some pretty hefty donations to environmental charities over the next few years. And don’t be surprised if we see the Hayward family cancelling its summer vacation and getting down to the Gulf beaches with a bucket and big mop.
The trouble is, none of it is going to work. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has more chance of getting the Ford Motor Co. franchise for Lubbock, Texas, than BP does of staying in business in the U.S. So why not try a complete reversal of tactics instead? Tell everyone in the U.S. to go stuff it where the oil don’t leak.
U.S. Double Standards
Here are three reasons why it should:
First, the U.S. is guilty of crazy double standards. Hayward should go on TV and say: “Excuse me, which country is the biggest oil consumer on the planet? Who refused to do anything about climate change, or even to put sensible taxes on gas? Heck, your president even flies around in a 747 when a modest Gulfstream jet would get him there just as fast. So of course the oil companies have to drill in more and more dangerous places. If you insist on being addicted to cheap oil, you have to recognize there are risks attached. So grow up, and stop acting like children.”
Next, BP likely is finished in the U.S. There is no form of apology that will make any difference. The average American consumer now hates BP and isn’t about to change that opinion for a generation or more. So BP should just hire the nastiest, meanest lawyers that money can buy -- the one commodity the U.S. has in over-abundance. Fight every lawsuit. Refuse every claim above the bare minimum.
You’re going to get hammered anyway, so you might as well go down fighting.
Wasting Money
Whatever you do, don’t waste a lot of money on an army of advertising agencies and public-relations consultants trying to restore your image. It’s not going to work, so there is no point even trying.
Finally, BP needs to protect its shareholders. So sell your assets in the U.S. to one of the other energy majors while you still can. Just remember there’s a big world out there, with a lot of oil and cars in it. Your job is to look after the owners of the company, not make yourself acceptable to a country that doesn’t want you anymore.
Of course, doing this really will make Hayward the most-hated man in the country.
But then, who cares? George W. Bush was the most-hated man in France, but since he wasn’t looking for any votes in Bordeaux, it didn’t count for much.
BP’s image in the U.S. matters only so long as it tries to do business in the U.S. If it cuts its losses and gets out now, it can carry on fine in Japan, France, Argentina and all the other countries where no one is really that bothered by what happens in the Gulf of Mexico.
Just say: “Thanks for everything guys. It was good while it lasted. Sorry about the oil spill, but so it goes. Goodbye and goodnight.”
It’s the only strategy that’s going to work now.
In reality, the U.S. is guilty of the most appalling hypocrisy over the oil spill, writes Matthew Lynn.
Matthew Lynn, Bloomberg Opinion · Wednesday, Jun. 9, 2010
Ever since oil started gushing from its well in the Gulf of Mexico, the British energy company BP PLC has responded precisely the way you’d expect from a massive corporation caught up in a terrible mess.
It has sent its public-relations staff out to grovel abjectly on television. It has run around trying to make it look like it’s doing something, even if it is only stuffing old socks into the leaking well. Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward has been wringing his hands at every available opportunity.
But this is a catastrophe on a whole new scale. Traditional responses won’t work. In fact, there are no words BP can use to apologize sufficiently for the damage the leak has caused. Whatever it says, it’s still going to be the most reviled company in America.
Instead BP should try a different tack. It should tell the U.S., and everybody in it, to go take a hike. In reality, the U.S. is guilty of the most appalling hypocrisy. It’s too late to rescue BP’s reputation now; all it can realistically hope for is to salvage as much money for shareholders as possible.
It isn’t hard to understand why BP is in trouble. The biggest oil spill in U.S. history has soiled at least 140 miles (225 kilometers) of coastline, halted new exploratory drilling in the Gulf and shut down a third of its fishing areas. Politicians are baying for BP’s blood. The media is kicking the company to pieces. The New York Daily News last week described Hayward as “the most hated -- and clueless -- man in America” for his handling of the crisis. Publicity doesn’t get much worse than that.
Spin Doctor
So far, BP has been playing this right out of the chapter in the spin doctor’s manual headed, “What to do when your company is about as popular as the Third Reich in 1946.” It has apologized, and apologized again. It has simpered, felt people’s pain, and promised to learn from its mistakes. Responsibility has been taken, errors owned up to.
No doubt we can expect some pretty hefty donations to environmental charities over the next few years. And don’t be surprised if we see the Hayward family cancelling its summer vacation and getting down to the Gulf beaches with a bucket and big mop.
The trouble is, none of it is going to work. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has more chance of getting the Ford Motor Co. franchise for Lubbock, Texas, than BP does of staying in business in the U.S. So why not try a complete reversal of tactics instead? Tell everyone in the U.S. to go stuff it where the oil don’t leak.
U.S. Double Standards
Here are three reasons why it should:
First, the U.S. is guilty of crazy double standards. Hayward should go on TV and say: “Excuse me, which country is the biggest oil consumer on the planet? Who refused to do anything about climate change, or even to put sensible taxes on gas? Heck, your president even flies around in a 747 when a modest Gulfstream jet would get him there just as fast. So of course the oil companies have to drill in more and more dangerous places. If you insist on being addicted to cheap oil, you have to recognize there are risks attached. So grow up, and stop acting like children.”
Next, BP likely is finished in the U.S. There is no form of apology that will make any difference. The average American consumer now hates BP and isn’t about to change that opinion for a generation or more. So BP should just hire the nastiest, meanest lawyers that money can buy -- the one commodity the U.S. has in over-abundance. Fight every lawsuit. Refuse every claim above the bare minimum.
You’re going to get hammered anyway, so you might as well go down fighting.
Wasting Money
Whatever you do, don’t waste a lot of money on an army of advertising agencies and public-relations consultants trying to restore your image. It’s not going to work, so there is no point even trying.
Finally, BP needs to protect its shareholders. So sell your assets in the U.S. to one of the other energy majors while you still can. Just remember there’s a big world out there, with a lot of oil and cars in it. Your job is to look after the owners of the company, not make yourself acceptable to a country that doesn’t want you anymore.
Of course, doing this really will make Hayward the most-hated man in the country.
But then, who cares? George W. Bush was the most-hated man in France, but since he wasn’t looking for any votes in Bordeaux, it didn’t count for much.
BP’s image in the U.S. matters only so long as it tries to do business in the U.S. If it cuts its losses and gets out now, it can carry on fine in Japan, France, Argentina and all the other countries where no one is really that bothered by what happens in the Gulf of Mexico.
Just say: “Thanks for everything guys. It was good while it lasted. Sorry about the oil spill, but so it goes. Goodbye and goodnight.”
It’s the only strategy that’s going to work now.
Exactly my point. It's a headl turning, eye catching spin.
Yeah, I must be stupid alright. :roll:
Nothing to say about the rest of my post?
And you say, "Sorry about the spill but this is a great time for me to snivel about the USA". lmao
Here is some information about the CAP that I found. BP is already over $1.3 billion in cleanup costs.
"BP's liabilities may be capped by a federal rule that limits the payouts for economic damages stemming from an oil spill to $75 million. Once that threshold is reached, a federal fund kicks in, covering an additional $1 billion. The federal fund is paid for by a 8-cents-a-barrel tax on oil produced or imported into the Untied States.
Then again, BP may not be able to use the liability shield. Carl Nelson, a Tampa-based maritime lawyer, said the $75 million cap only applies when a company has no violations related to an accident. That rarely happens. BP will almost certainly be found to be at fault in some way for the spill.
To ward off any confusion, lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced bills raising the liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion, an initiative they've dubbed the "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act." Lawmakers say there's precedent for making the law retroactive: Witness the Superfund, which forced polluters to reimburse the government for toxic cleanup."
"BP's liabilities may be capped by a federal rule that limits the payouts for economic damages stemming from an oil spill to $75 million. Once that threshold is reached, a federal fund kicks in, covering an additional $1 billion. The federal fund is paid for by a 8-cents-a-barrel tax on oil produced or imported into the Untied States.
Then again, BP may not be able to use the liability shield. Carl Nelson, a Tampa-based maritime lawyer, said the $75 million cap only applies when a company has no violations related to an accident. That rarely happens. BP will almost certainly be found to be at fault in some way for the spill.
To ward off any confusion, lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced bills raising the liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion, an initiative they've dubbed the "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act." Lawmakers say there's precedent for making the law retroactive: Witness the Superfund, which forced polluters to reimburse the government for toxic cleanup."
Yeah. What I noticed a while back was that the explosion was the result of a high-pressure bubble of gas escaping and something/someone on the rig did something to light it. And BP knew of these bubbles long before that bubble lit up. So why did BP not do stuff to prevent the escape of the gas?
As the entire project was BP's, I can't see how it can avoid blame.
Besides, don'tcha think if they could have legally done it, they'd have paid the $75M and then ignored the spew?
As the entire project was BP's, I can't see how it can avoid blame.
Besides, don'tcha think if they could have legally done it, they'd have paid the $75M and then ignored the spew?
"And you say, "Sorry about the spill but this is a great time for me to snivel about the USA". lmao"
I find it both ironic and thrilling watching Americans along that stretch complain and boo-hoo about how OIL has caused them so much discomfort and `pain` in thier once cushy life-styles. :lol:
Shame about the wild-life though.
I find it both ironic and thrilling watching Americans along that stretch complain and boo-hoo about how OIL has caused them so much discomfort and `pain` in thier once cushy life-styles. :lol:
Shame about the wild-life though.
Do you know of even one that has 3 words or less?
With the Exxon it took years in court, to be 'proved to be' at fault, who footed the expenses for the cleanup during that time?
There is also the issue of fire-booms, there were not any when the Fed was supposed to have some on hand for just such a thing. That was a defense common to all drilling companies. BP was not in charge of that defense for the coastal lands.
If they were serious about making them pay they would be ceasing the $5 B cheque to the shareholders.
A law rarely applies retroactively. A retroactive law will be very difficult to defend in courts, the courts very likely will strike it down. Even fi they raise the cap, it is doubtful if they could make it stick to BP.
Indeed. Obama has declared a moratorium on new offshore drilling and it has caused outrage in the same areas which are devastated by the BP leak. Apparently a lot of jobs depend upon the offshore drilling and people don't want it stopped, in spite of the disaster.
Well, I think Obama should stick to his guns. If he gives in to the demands of Louisiana and lifts moratorium prematurely and as a result there is another leak, guess who Louisiana will blame? Of course it will blame Obama.
well get those displaced workers out to help clean up the mess before they go creating another one.
Perhaps I missed it because there have been so many posts which essentially say the same thing but, can someone point out proof that Obama allowed a relaxation of safety rules that enabled the oil spill as has been alleged on this thread?
No. That is simply the political spin by Limbaugh and other Republicans. However, Congressional investigations have revealed that MMS was notoriously lax during Bush administration, refused to enforce many rules. And that may have led BP to neglect proper safety precautions.
Inspector General’s Inquiry Faults Regulators
WASHINGTON — Federal regulators responsible for oversight of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico allowed industry officials several years ago to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil — and then turned them over to the regulators, who traced over them in pen before submitting the reports to the agency, according to an inspector general’s report to be released this week.
The report, which describes inappropriate behavior by the staff at the Minerals Management Service from 2005 to 2007, also found that inspectors had accepted meals, tickets to sporting events and gifts from at least one oil company while they were overseeing the industry.
Although there is no evidence that those events played a role in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the report offers further evidence of what many critics of the Minerals Management Service have described as a culture of lax oversight and cozy ties to industry.
Inspector General Faults Minerals Management Service - NYTimes.com
Actually it was Bush that relaxed the regs on oil production. Obama just left it the way Bush arranged it.