Page 1 of 4

Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:26 am
by Jack
[spoiler=Oil spill threatens to roil US-British relations]WASHINGTON — The leaking oil that has tainted the Gulf of Mexico is also threatening the political shores on both sides of the Atlantic, with a British company the villain.

President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron planned to discuss the environmental catastrophe over the telephone on Saturday, hoping to ease what has become a growing rift over the criticism of the well's owner, BP PLC.

Obama has sharpened his criticism of BP as the company struggles to halt the gushing oil at the bottom of the Gulf. Cameron is under pressure at home to get Obama to tone it down amid complaints that the heated rhetoric will have severe implications the company and its investors.

The State Department has said American anger over BP's handling of the disaster wouldn't affect the relationship between the U.S. and Britain.

Obama has he would have fired BP's top executive if he were in charge. He embraced the idea that the oil company suspend its quarterly dividend. He reproached BP for spending money on a public relations campaign. This past week, he said in a television interview, "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers — so I know whose ass to kick."

He occasionally refers to "British Petroleum," although the company years ago began using only its initials and is a far-reaching international corporation with extensive holdings in the United States, including a Texas refinery and a share of the Alaska oil pipeline.

The angry words from Washington have produced a backlash in Britain, where BP is viewed as a corporate pillars. Millions of British retirees depend on BP dividends since pension funds are heavily invested in the oil company, the world's third-largest.

Cameron has tried to find a middle ground. He has said he shares with Americans the "frustration" about not being able to halt the spill and concern about the environmental damage caused by the thousands of barrels of oil gushing from the BP well. But Cameron also views BP "as an economically important company" not only in the United Kingdom but also the United States and other countries, according to his office.

"It is in everyone's interests that BP continues to be a financially strong and stable company," Cameron has said.

British Treasury chief George Osborne, after meeting with BP executives, said Friday that his government understands U.S. concerns, but that Cameron "is also clear that we need constructive solutions and that we remember the economic value BP brings to people in Britain and America."

BP's stock has dropped by 40 percent since the oil rig fire on April 20 that unleashed the country's worst oil spill. But stocks have rebounded somewhat in recent days. BP shares rose $1.19, or 3.6 percent, to close at $33.97 in New York on Friday.

The company's board is expected to meet Monday to discuss deferring its second-quarter dividend and putting the money into escrow until the company's liabilities from the spill are known.

BP's chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, who has faced criticism for not being more visible in BP's response to the Gulf spill, is to meet with Obama at the White House on Wednesday. Probably joining him will be accompanied by CEO Tony Hayward and other BP executives. It will be the first time Obama has met with BP officials since the crisis began.

Hayward will testify at a House hearing on Thursday.[/spoiler]
WTH Britain? :neutral:

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:33 am
by Ra
Everyone would hate BP if it were American Petroleum/Chinese Petroleum/Indian Petroleum/etc. It's not that their British, it's that they're idiots.

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:46 am
by dark lord tacoma
i just like to point out it was a american crew on the rig that caused the insident

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:50 am
by dark lord tacoma
i couild be wrong but from my understanding bp was renting it out to a american company to man like i said i could be wrong

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:26 am
by Jack
I think it is stupid for the Brits to get buthurt cause the Americans are pissed off at BP. It's not an America versus Britain issue, it's an America versus BP issue. :neutral:

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:15 am
by Ra
Dark Lord Tacoma wrote:i just like to point out it was a american crew on the rig that caused the insident

lol, that's too funny. Transocean and BP are to blame, for ignoring warning signs and sidestepping safety. That's just **Filtered** hilarious if you really want to blame the incident on the workers.

In February 2009, BP filed a 52 page exploration and environmental impact plan for the Macondo well with the Minerals Management Service. Their plan stated that it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities". In the event an accident did take place the plan stated that due to the well being 48 miles from shore and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts would be expected. And of course, following a loosening of regulations in 2008, BP was not required to file a detailed blowout plan.

Not to mention the blowout prevention system was previously damaged. This however went unreported and was one reason for the catastrophe. In the hours before the initial explosion, heavy drilling "mud" had been keeping the explosive gasses in the pipe contained. This however changed, when the BP official on board directed the crew replace it with lighter sea water. Even against protests from the Rigs chief driller. Further protesting, which would delay the drilling, could be grounds for firing by BP.

Oh and don't forget how Tony Hayward claimed this was a "tiny spill" at one point and just wants to "get back to his life" Apparently this oil spill is a waste of his precious time. :cry:

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:25 am
by Jim
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle ... Id=7040629

Look at the amount that are english ;)
Less than half are english i think

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:34 am
by dark lord tacoma
on a lighter note BP has acheived a main goal of us prisedents of brining more oil to the us shores with out blood shed lol

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:37 am
by dark lord tacoma
Lt. Frank Drebin wrote:
Dark Lord Tacoma wrote:on a lighter note BP has acheived a main goal of us prisedents of brining more oil to the us shores with out blood shed lol


depends if you count the wildlife :P

sorry human blood shed :-D

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:17 am
by Jack
Jim wrote:http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021809&contentId=7040629

Look at the amount that are english ;)
Less than half are english i think

And? :-s

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:57 pm
by Hitchkok
Dr. House wrote:I think it is stupid for the Brits to get buthurt cause the Americans are pissed off at BP. It's not an America versus Britain issue, it's an America versus BP issue. :neutral:

what you're missing (and is clearly stated in the article you brought), is that Obama's rhetorics might lead to a drop in the company's shares, which will, in turn, adversly affect many of the pensions in Britain.

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:45 pm
by Jack
Hitchkok wrote:
Dr. House wrote:I think it is stupid for the Brits to get buthurt cause the Americans are pissed off at BP. It's not an America versus Britain issue, it's an America versus BP issue. :neutral:

what you're missing (and is clearly stated in the article you brought), is that Obama's rhetorics might lead to a drop in the company's shares, which will, in turn, adversly affect many of the pensions in Britain.

Ummmm, so their money > our beaches and wild life? Kay

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:48 pm
by Captain Teague
For centeries America and britain have been allies and now it might collaspe cause of an oil thing.

God western countries are run by idiots these days.

Where are the good old days.


The Bush and blair days they were the best.


America stop being greedy as you have iol in alaska and some people say the real invasion plans of the middle east was to gain more oil. :-k


Ps Im British who ever mocks us are fools for doing so where would america be now if europe didnt find North,central and south america hey?

Just think about that.

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:03 pm
by Ra
O_Altair_O wrote:For centeries America and britain have been allies and now it might collaspe cause of an oil thing.

God western countries are run by idiots these days.

Where are the good old days.


The Bush and blair days they were the best.


America stop being greedy as you have iol in alaska and some people say the real invasion plans of the middle east was to gain more oil. :-k


Ps Im British who ever mocks us are fools for doing so where would america be now if europe didnt find North,central and south america hey?

Just think about that.

Bush and Blair.. that's just sad. Those two singlehandedly ruined their respective countries. Bush being possibly.. the worst president in the history of the United States.

You do realize.. the offshore oil platforms.. are American oil platforms? And Alaska.. LOL.. there is enough oil there to support America for a few hours. Hence why the idea was nixed quite some time ago.

Where would we be if North/South America had never been found by Europeans.. :-k A better world. One where the native americans weren't humiliated and forced to live on reservations?

Re: Oil spill

Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:51 am
by Londo Mollari
well, the fact that 40% of BP's shares are owned by americans, means that any action taken by Obama is going to annoy a lot of people, many of them american

also, the world economy as it is, really cannot afford to have BP going under, if the worlds 4th largest company was to become bankrupt, the ramifications would be huge