So, this BP oil thing...tell me what to think!
- Thread starter Edrof
- Start date
I thought it was closer to 33% UK, 25% US, 10% Arab (maybe), not sure about the rest. Pretty sure it's an American built rig with an American crew.
Looks more like negligence than anything else.
The prob. is their fault.
Right, which is BP. Transocean was working for them & did what they said.
I have heard no anti-british talk from anyone. Blaming the President is pointless, it isn't his mess why should he clean it? It is BP at fault, they should take action & clean it.
Last edited:
Almost ever article I read says the 'British-owned oil company', or 'British Petroleum'....
Most Americans prob. think bp stands for British Petroleum, there are a lot of idiots in this country. God, Bush won 2 times, so I am telling the truth.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Maybe BP ordered the mistake which caused the problem, in which case they would be criminally negligent and maybe split up as a result.
Even if they didnt directly cause the problem they are still responsible as majority owners but then would only be liable to 65% of costs not 100%. In this case they'll most likely recover
Its a global company, some of its British but it merged with wholly American companies and so is no longer officially British. The uk doesn't have a lot of oil left from what I know hence the merger made good sense at the time.
They also operate in Russia 30% and operate a joint venture there, the Russians own 50% of that 30%. Also Iraq and other places but with no ownership as far I know
Even if they didnt directly cause the problem they are still responsible as majority owners but then would only be liable to 65% of costs not 100%. In this case they'll most likely recover
Its a global company, some of its British but it merged with wholly American companies and so is no longer officially British. The uk doesn't have a lot of oil left from what I know hence the merger made good sense at the time.
They also operate in Russia 30% and operate a joint venture there, the Russians own 50% of that 30%. Also Iraq and other places but with no ownership as far I know
Last edited:
I also read that the BOP had been modified by BP with the BOP makers advising against this, they added some electronic control panel or so to the BOP.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,208
- Location
- Billericay, UK
I think BP is leading the research into 3rd generation biofuels such as Biofuel from algae. Long term this is what we should be looking at, all were doing at the moment is drilling into deeper and deeper wells which is very costly and at some point it just won't be economically viable to extract oil from difficult wells.
If the BOP worked then this accident wouldn't have happened and those people wouldn't have died. Who was responsible to the operation and maintenance of he BOP?
If the BOP worked then this accident wouldn't have happened and those people wouldn't have died. Who was responsible to the operation and maintenance of he BOP?
But.. was the BOP maintained correctly? It may not be a manufacturer issue.
And what about all the other BP failings along the way on this rig that have been uncovered. The BOP will come under scrutiny but the apparent dubious standards and morales of BP's operation will be dissected. It's a shame, my dad worked at BP and knows many of the senior managers personally, but even he comments how apparent BP's mistakes have been with Deepwater Horizon.
It's also disappointing how Obama has responded. We all knew his to-the-left stance wasn't going to be as supportive to industry but some of his comments are extremely ill-thought. This isn't even to mention the attempted block on deep water drilling in the region which was an almost comical act of desperation to improve public opinion.
Same here. It seems Obama has mroe in common with Idiot Bush than I would have hoped. Just goes to show US politics (at least) is full of BS.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,208
- Location
- Billericay, UK
I never quite understood the whole Obama love'in thing anyway. Ok he is the first black US presidant but at the end of the day Obama is a right wing, capitalist with more in common with our own conservative party (ideology wise) then anything else.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 May 2008
- Posts
- 285
- Location
- Manchester
I am waiting for them to raise petrol and then blaming it on the spill.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Obama is the single most left sided politician EVER in American history, he voted ultra left wing on everything he possibly could, more than anyone else in the democractic party, he isn't even remotely close to the Conservatives policy wise, you don't know what you are talking about.
In general democrats are for big governement, more spending, higher taxes, and rupublicans want smaller government, lower taxes as a result of less government employee's and then a whole bunch of right wing crap thrown in because those are "their" people.
Obama is completely democrat, big government, massive spending, big deficit, doing his best to expand a deficit during an economic crisis when the whole world says you have to reduce yours or there is trouble ahead.
Obama could quite happily replace Brown/Harriot without anyone noticing from the standpoint of policy.
He's a tool, he has no idea what he's doing and has basically done nothing but been hailed as brilliant because he's the first black president. The USA needs a new republican party, the same small government, smaller waste, low debt ideals without all the anti homo/black/german/different people idea's to go with them. Well republican policys with democratic morals, which would be close to the conservatives over here.
The oil rig failed in a manner of ways, and iirc parts of the rig that may have failed were built by Dick Chaney's(not sure on spelling) company.
Its basically an american fault, from regulation, to building, to guys running it, and Obama just wants to distance himself away from any extra spending, which is ridiculous as while it would cost the government money, obviously, by laying the blame and actively accusing anyone you bring more people out who claim for everything possible which costs more to the clean up WHOEVER is paying for it.
The thing is his "attacks" on BP, while ignoring all the other companies at fault, has pushed an incredibly important companys value down massively which has increased the stock price loss in BP which has increased the loss in value in the UK, US, Japanese stock markets. ITs had a massive knock on effect and hurt the american economy just as hard as BP, all because he had to be accusatory and blame anyone but american companies directly.
His handling of the whole thing has been awful, simply going out there with the attitude that, the planet requires oil, we push oil companies to do this, we let people loose their lives drilling for it, and accidents happen, there will ALWAYS be oil leaks, there was no need to be overly aggressive about blaming anyone, and its that attitude which has caused a bigger stock price drop than would have otherwise happened, and that which has hurt the stock markets worldwide.
He doesn't think before he speaks and was more worried about distancing americans from the problem, aswell as his ultra left wing "oil = bad" agenda spewing out his mouth before he even remotely thought about the potential consequences.