Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs  
User currently offlinefuturepilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

I say if their 20 Billion can't cover the costs, squeeze every penny outta them and push for 30-40 billion dollars. No tax dollars should towards this cleanup, so they better find a way to make that fund larger.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37736098/ns/business-us_business/


"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2828 times:

Like this?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...-we-broke-freakin-womb-mother-eart

Let Obama and congress handle it. I am sure BP will do what has to be done.


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2560 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2783 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 1):
Like this?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...-we-broke-freakin-womb-mother-eart

Let Obama and congress handle it. I am sure BP will do what has to be done.

Does anyone actually take her seriously anymore? She's the lefty version of Ann Coulter - too much on the fringe to be relevant to anyone with even a sense of moderation.

One thing that your post brings up "let Obama and Congress handle it" has had me wondering. I hear so many people say they want government out of their business, yet these same folks want that same government to deal with this crisis. I heard one mayor in Alabama say, "we want the federal government to let us handle the cleanup, but we want them to make sure BP pays for everything." So which is it - do you want the government to deal with this or don't you? You can't have it both ways.
IMO - the government is ill-equipped to be in charge of the cleanup. They aren't in the oil business (well, OK, that could be argued), so for better or worse, the oil industry should be in charge. The have more expertise and know-how, even if they don't particularly seem that way to most people at the moment.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3116 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2759 times:

Katrina had 2.5 million claims for government assistance. 900,000 of those claims were fraudulent, with the exception of about 100 that were prosecuted the rest of the felons were paid anyway.

Who is going to determine the legitimacy of the claims?
Who decides what each claim is worth?

I have a second cousin that had a friend that used to go fishing in the GOM should I file a claim?

Okie


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2731 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 3):
Katrina had 2.5 million claims for government assistance. 900,000 of those claims were fraudulent, with the exception of about 100 that were prosecuted the rest of the felons were paid anyway.

Who is going to determine the legitimacy of the claims?
Who decides what each claim is worth?

Not that I'm informed enough about him to make an opinion, but the administrator of the claims will be the same guy who handled all the 9/11-related claims.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2726 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 2):
One thing that your post brings up "let Obama and Congress handle it" has had me wondering. I hear so many people say they want government out of their business, yet these same folks want that same government to deal with this crisis. I heard one mayor in Alabama say, "we want the federal government to let us handle the cleanup, but we want them to make sure BP pays for everything." So which is it - do you want the government to deal with this or don't you? You can't have it both ways.

Who said we want it both ways? When a foreign company is responsible for destroying an eco system and wipes out the living for an entire community who else is supposed to make sure they fulfill their obligation? I don't want Obama telling me I have to fork over 10% more of what I earn so everyone can have health care but he sure as hell better get involved when a foreign company or even a domestic company causes this much carnage. You can't compare the two.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 2):
I hear so many people say they want government out of their business, yet these same folks want that same government to deal with this crisis.

Actually it's exactly what many people want. Keep the government out of most stuff, and only involve them with the military/defense/NEEDED regulation/disasters (which this fits into)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6628 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2652 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Apologizing to BP for their "trouble"

(Reuters) - A Texas Republican apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward on Thursday for having to set aside $20 billion for Gulf of Mexico damage claims, drawing ridicule from Democrats and embarrassing Republicans.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65G42D20100617



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2560 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2622 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
Actually it's exactly what many people want. Keep the government out of most stuff, and only involve them with the military/defense/NEEDED regulation/disasters (which this fits into)

Ahh, but if the government had done more regulation and/or oversight that might have prevented this disaster in the first place, wouldn't people have screamed "keep the government out of private enterprise?" Now they want toe cavalry to come to the rescue - that's my point when I say you can't have it both ways. Same goes for the banking and brokerage houses and the financial meltdown in 2007-08


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12676 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2623 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 5):
When a foreign company is responsible for destroying an eco system and wipes out the living for an entire community who else is supposed to make sure they fulfill their obligation?

Well, after putting aside $20bn BP seems to be doing the right thing.

But before folks start slamming "foreign companies" they'd do well to remember the pitance Union Carbide paid out in India after killing thousands and causing as big an environmental disaster.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineqantas077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5861 posts, RR: 39
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 9):
Well, after putting aside $20bn BP seems to be doing the right thing.

and then we get a republican apologizing to BP for setting the money aside...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/18/2930221.htm



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3199 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

If $20b isn't enough, then at least it's a start. If they could squeeze every cent we're worth when oil went up to $147 per barrel and pocket the profits, they should have enough to set aside this fund and any other for compensations.

And then having Republican Joe Barton apologizing to BP for the government's actions is the most appalling action made so far by ANY party. So if I understood correctly, the GOP is blasting Obama for not doing enough so he gets tough with them asking BP to compensate, BP unleashed the biggest oil spill in US history by negligence, and yet this guys expects BP to do nothing...?



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13148 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

$20 Billion may only be a small part of the total disaster's costs. There may never be enough money to 'compensate' from this disaster in terms of real costs now and the forseeable future. This may be only an initial payment, as much as anything to put some limits now that won't ruin BP for the immediate future including it's slow it's stock value slide with it's worldwide effects on pensions and investors.

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8344 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 3):
Who is going to determine the legitimacy of the claims?
Who decides what each claim is worth?

A special master, but this time claims are heading out faster in in all probability.

Some issues can be handled in a routine manner. If you have a commercial fisherman then he has a financial history that can be used to substantiate his costs & income. It can even be set for the fund to make direct payments to the banks with the boat mortgage, home loans, etc. as well as the payment for living expenses. Same with tourist related businesses.

Quoting okie (Reply 3):
I have a second cousin that had a friend that used to go fishing in the GOM should I file a claim?

No. But your second cousin might be talking to his other fishing buddies - especially if one is a trial lawyer and they live on the Gulf.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 7):
A Texas Republican apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward on Thursday for having to set aside $20 billion for Gulf of Mexico damage claims, drawing ridicule from Democrats and embarrassing Republicans.

Fortunately someone in the Republican Party realized that there is an election in a few months and that apology was quickly rescinded, with an apology made on national TV for anyone who "misunderstood".

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12):
$20 Billion may only be a small part of the total disaster's costs. There may never be enough money to 'compensate' from this disaster in terms of real costs now and the forseeable future. This may be only an initial payment, as much as anything to put some limits now that won't ruin BP for the immediate future including it's slow it's stock value slide with it's worldwide effects on pensions and investors.

The oil industry has poured massive amounts of money into the state and federal governments over the years, in direct and indirect taxes. Since the governments have been getting prime teat on this industry for so many years it also has some responsibility. You even had two "oil men" in the White House when BP was given the go-ahead for this bad well.

So, while BP is giong to be hit with a huge bill in the long term, the states and federal governments also have their won responsibilities and need to accept them, not pass the buck.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12676 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2472 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
The oil industry has poured massive amounts of money into the state and federal governments over the years, in direct and indirect taxes.

Something that's very quickly forgotten when the oil majors announce their profits for the year.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6495 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2428 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
So, while BP is giong to be hit with a huge bill in the long term...

No, that's not how it is going to happen.

While BP will experience a short term decrease in investments in new oil fields, then the other oil majors will see the opportunity to raise profit margins.

The end result will be BP unharmed in the long run while the other oil majors will experience skyrocketing profits. Shareholders of the other oil majors are already laughing.

As always there are only the consumers to pay the bills. And they will pay the bills eleven times. One time to BP and ten times to the other oil majors so they can load their shareholders down with gold.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3116 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2414 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 15):
As always there are only the consumers to pay the bills. And they will pay the bills eleven times. One time to BP and ten times to the other oil majors so they can load their shareholders down with gold.


Just when you thought money came out of thin air, we find out it comes out of the consumers pocket.

The other major issue is if you clobber BP too bad then they will fold. If they do not have enough financial resources to produce what leases they have it will be difficult to find an institution or bank that will loan them money to make a hole in the ground.

Okie


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13148 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Let us not forget that this fund will be considered a business expense to BP that will reduce their taxes on what would have been profits all over the world. That will mean the US govenment will probably be out several billions in taxes on those dividends given up.

This fund plan also has other positive affects. It will make monines available a lot faster to the victims of lost income vs the many years a lawsuit would take as well as cut out some of the payoff to lawyers (although I suspect many lawyers will 'help people file a claim' - of course for a fee of perhaps 10-20%). I suspect the states on the GOM affected by this will seek monies for their respective state treasuries to help comp for higher rates of unemployment as well as getting 'free money' to help with thier deficits from the bad economy.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8344 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 16):
Just when you thought money came out of thin air, we find out it comes out of the consumers pocket.

It also comes out of the ground. Be it gold or black gold there has been a lot of wealth generated.

Quoting okie (Reply 16):
The other major issue is if you clobber BP too bad then they will fold. If they do not have enough financial resources to produce what leases they have it will be difficult to find an institution or bank that will loan them money to make a hole in the ground.

BP will have both the assets (especially reserves)and cash to handle their exposure. They might actually have INSURANCE in addition to their own resources. Insurance that requires them act in a manner consistent with the insurance company policies.

That mix brings up a possible reason for the BP working with the WHite House for a reserve fund. It would be folly not to understand that all arrangements were worked out before the meeting, including the $20 Billion amount. That avoided insurance policy conflicts and hopefully delivers cash to those who need it.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3116 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2394 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
That mix brings up a possible reason for the BP working with the WHite House for a reserve fund. It would be folly not to understand that all arrangements were worked out before the meeting, including the $20 Billion amount. That avoided insurance policy conflicts and hopefully delivers cash to those who need it.



So the real question why is Obama trying to shake down BP (65% interest) there were two other investors in the Macondo well, Anadarko had a 25% interest, and of course the invisible 10%. Looks like you need to do a little research and see how close this 10% deal is to the White House. Something is not passing the smell test.

Okie


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8344 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 19):

So the real question why is Obama trying to shake down BP

I have a feeling that BP jumped at any opportunity to get on with some of the financial support for those hurt by the spill - without hurting their situation with their insurance policies.

"Shake down" is off as far as possible I'm concerned. If the Republicans push it throughout summer they are going to loose seats in November around the Gulf.

Do you really believe that BP didn't start talking to the government over a month ago on potential alternatives? You get half a million people adversely impacted and you get half a million lawsuits. Nor does BP want a long line of class action suits. BP gets relief from this fund and right now that largest relief is help with PR disasters their PR guys & gals have made.

And now that BP has made the first step all other companies involved with that rig (including Haliburtoin) will be talking to their lawyers (and politicians in the southern states and DC) to address their risks. Look for the brighter companies in the group to join BP in being proactive.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2380 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 8):
Ahh, but if the government had done more regulation and/or oversight that might have prevented this disaster in the first place,
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
/NEEDED regulation

Though I see your point. That is the gray area where all political battles are fought  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13148 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2346 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 19):
So the real question why is Obama trying to shake down BP (65% interest) there were two other investors in the Macondo well, Anadarko had a 25% interest, and of course the invisible 10%. Looks like you need to do a little research and see how close this 10% deal is to the White House. Something is not passing the smell test.

The other 10% is held by Mitsu & Co., I believe a huge Japan based investment house.

Apparently from a news article I saw earlier, Aradarko is trying to put all the blame and financial responsibiltiy of this disaster to the BP who were really in charge of operations at the well. In turn BP is saying that your a partner, you have to pay up part of our costs when things go wrong just like you make money (and huge amounts) from your investment. They should also be required to put up part of the $20 Billion fund; if so then Aradarko would have to put up $5 Billion and Mitsu $2 Billion. Then there is the many billions in future costs. I suspect there will be a huge lawsuit over this with all sides fighting each other where the lawyers will make many millions.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3116 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 22):
The other 10% is held by Mitsu & Co., I believe a huge Japan based investment house.



Knew that (smoke), but who is at exposure with large investments in Mitsu (mirrors).

Okie


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8344 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2312 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 23):
Knew that (smoke), but who is at exposure with large investments in Mitsu (mirrors).

I think Texas has a "Deep Pockets" Law so all partners are probably at an open risk, along with their insurance companies. Lord only knows how wide and deep the responsibilities will eventually run.


25 RJ111 : Why is so much emphasis being put on financial revenge and not on how to co-operate and get the leak stopped as soon as possible? Disgusting IMO.[Edit
26 mt99 : Why are those things mutually exclusive? The ones negociating compensations are not the same people who are working to stop it.
27 Post contains links Ken777 : Actually there is an intense focus in many parts of the US to the protection of those financially impacted by the spill. Critical issues, like averag
28 Post contains links mt99 : Because BPs CEO is too busy attending a Yatch race... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100619/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill
29 PPVRA : He's not in charge of the spill anymore. And if anything, his interest in sailing is enough to tell me that he does care about the environment: as so
30 RJ111 : I think that sums up my point really, the word seems to be whose fault was it, and not, how do we fix and prevent this in the future. The man is enti
31 Boeing1970 : Oil leaks from the sea floor every day without BP's help. You going to set up a super fund to cover it or take God to court? Got that right.[Edited 2
32 Ken777 : I think God did a pretty good job with the eco-system. He's not the one that tossed the system out of balance.
33 Dreadnought : They manage their business according to percieved risk. One of the reasons BP got so cavalier with safety is that 20 years ago (after the Exxon Valde
34 Ken777 : That is my belief also. I believe that BP was fast to work out the current deal because it provides the appearance of getting onto helping people NOW
35 Dreadnought : Agreed, and it was the right thing to do. Obama did well to get that fund set up. I don't like the precedent it sets, and I dislike the nasty attitud
36 seb146 : I have been wondering the same thing: All these people out there screming "Keep government out of banks! Keep government out of car companies! Keep g
37 Post contains images Ken777 : Wasn't it BP US that was drilling American company. American workers? American Suppliers? It's sort of hard to blame the POM's when this was a Yank c
38 seb146 : If a person listens to the right long enough, one would believe it is Obama's fault and he can never ever take any time off for anything. If we learn
39 Post contains images Ken777 : Poor Old Tony was raked over the coals because politicians were being politicians. (And some were pretty pathetic. ) In the bit I watched BP's CEO ma
40 seb146 : That brings up another point for business in general: How much do the CEOs of BP actually know about the day-to-day operations of their company? How
41 PPVRA : Yeah, this is very apparent and true. Unfortunately. The way this should be handled is through the courts in an efficient and effective manner instea
42 AGM100 : What a great event for the left this .... they get to steal more money for the bureaucrats and stick the blade into the back of free market capitalist
43 mt99 : And whose fault is is? Who walked right into it? Are you suggesting that the spill is a left-wing conspiracy? You apologizing to BP as well?
44 AGM100 : No , but they don't seem to mind the political playground it created. And Your right Barton walked right into the hay maker with that his apology ...
45 Ken777 : What pap. Do you really believe BP wasn't part of establishing the payment and the fund design? If BP hadn't wanted to get the fund going then their
46 AGM100 : I already said BP is a willing participant ..... and I am not defending the GOP at all... they had the rug pulled from under them too. I know you are
47 seb146 : Ummmm.... so the left is the party of "drill baby drill?" I have been following the left for some time and the left is the side that tries their hard
48 ltbewr : From a news article on MSN.com, apparently BP is going to issues bonds, sell some assets and make deals to raise $50 BILLION for liabilites from this
49 Ken777 : Two oilmen in the White House when BP got the "Green Light"? Normal people don't mind the government doing normal government things, like setting sta
50 Post contains links speedygonzales : You can all send your apology to BP here: http://apologizetobp.com/
51 AGM100 : No ... they did not resist the 20 billion at all. They were hoping it would help make the President look like he was kicking their ass. What a weird
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Benoit Report - Roids May Not Be To Blame posted Wed Sep 5 2007 20:25:19 by PC12Fan
Louisiana Gov May Not Run For Re-election posted Tue Mar 20 2007 22:27:24 by Tom in NO
Bears DT Tank Johnson May Not Go To Miami posted Tue Jan 23 2007 02:18:37 by Queso
Barry Bonds May Not Return This Year posted Fri Jul 15 2005 19:29:43 by Slider
CDC: Moderate Obesity May Not Be Deadly posted Wed Apr 20 2005 16:53:07 by PROSA
Wolfowitz MAY NOT Actually Be Evil... posted Tue Mar 29 2005 19:56:43 by Cwapilot
L. Armstrong May Not Compete In 2005 Tourde France posted Mon Jan 10 2005 20:44:50 by Chrisdigo
Court Rules Riaa May Not Subpoena ISPs posted Fri Dec 19 2003 18:56:41 by Aloha717200
Right Now Bush May Not Be On AL's Ballot In 04 posted Thu Apr 24 2003 10:57:40 by MD-90
Sars May Not Originate From China: WHO Official posted Sun Apr 6 2003 08:41:20 by Carnoc
Barry Bonds May Not Return This Year posted Fri Jul 15 2005 19:29:43 by Slider
CDC: Moderate Obesity May Not Be Deadly posted Wed Apr 20 2005 16:53:07 by PROSA
Wolfowitz MAY NOT Actually Be Evil... posted Tue Mar 29 2005 19:56:43 by Cwapilot
L. Armstrong May Not Compete In 2005 Tourde France posted Mon Jan 10 2005 20:44:50 by Chrisdigo
Court Rules Riaa May Not Subpoena ISPs posted Fri Dec 19 2003 18:56:41 by Aloha717200
Right Now Bush May Not Be On AL's Ballot In 04 posted Thu Apr 24 2003 10:57:40 by MD-90