futurepilot16
Topic Author
Posts: 1756
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:20 am

BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:30 pm

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."
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10893
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:25 pm

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.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:43 am

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.
 
Okie
Posts: 3555
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:20 am

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
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4641
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:17 am

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
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10893
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:31 am

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.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:28 pm

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 :)
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:42 pm

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 avatar
ER757
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:40 pm

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 avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13482
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:34 pm

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5176
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:15 pm

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
 
einsteinboricua
Posts: 4710
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:31 am

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."
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12429
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:09 am

$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.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:48 am

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 avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13482
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:20 am

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:29 pm

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
 
Okie
Posts: 3555
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:09 am

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
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12429
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:23 am

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.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:28 am

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.
 
Okie
Posts: 3555
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:35 am

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
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:19 am

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:56 am

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 :)
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12429
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:09 am

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.
 
Okie
Posts: 3555
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:10 pm

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
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:05 pm

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.
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:02 pm

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.

[Edited 2010-06-19 10:04:38]
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:55 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 25):
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?

Why are those things mutually exclusive?

The ones negociating compensations are not the same people who are working to stop it.
Step into my office, baby
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:24 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 25):
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?

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 average people who;s financial position has been severely hit, and the need to take care of them.

An example would be a fisherman, who has a loan to buy his boat, a home mortgage, kids in college, etc. Part of the responsibility that BP holds is to ensure that people like this don't have THEIR lives destroyed.

That has nothing to do with stopping the leak. BP tossing $20 Billion will not stop the leak any faster. It will, however, help protect BP in future litigation - which is probably why BP moved so fast to get the fund set up.

And on other news:

Quote:
Anadarko Petroleum, a minority partner in the ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico, blamed BP for "reckless" behavior, seeking to distance itself from the worst oil spill in US history.

"The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions," Anadarko chief executive Jim Hackett said in a statement issued late

Anadarko, which owns 25% of the Macondo well where the Deepwater Horizon rig was drilling, signed a contract saying that it would pay a quarter of the costs associated with the well, unless BP is found guilty of gross negligence.

"BP's behavior and actions likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct and thus affect the obligations of the parties under the operating agreement," Hackett said.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/18/news...anies/BP_Anadarko/index.htm?hpt=T2
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:15 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 25):
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?

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
Step into my office, baby
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:45 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 28):
Because BPs CEO is too busy attending a Yatch race...

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 someone who sails as well and who has never ever met any other sailor with disregard for the environment, I can tell you clean water is very high on our list of values. I have sailed highly polluted waters and I can personally tell you it sucks. Nothings compares to being able to see through 20 meters of water.

Despite that, I am certainly not anti drilling.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:00 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 28):
Because BPs CEO is too busy attending a Yatch race...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100619/...spill

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 entitled to do what he wants in his own time, he probably needed to relax after that joke of a congress hearing he had to endure.
 
Boeing1970
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:24 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:13 pm

Quoting futurepilot16 (Thread starter):
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.


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?

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 25):
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.

Got that right.

[Edited 2010-06-19 15:17:33]
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:44 pm

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 31):
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?

I think God did a pretty good job with the eco-system. He's not the one that tossed the system out of balance.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:50 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
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

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 Valdez) Congress passed a law limiting the oil company's exposure to $75 million. When governments put an artificially low cap on liability, this is the type of situation you will get. I'm not talking about punitive damages here - I'm just talking about the cost of putting things right.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 20):
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.

From what I understand, the eventual lawsuits do not come out of the $20 billion fund. Those will be over and above that cost.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:17 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
From what I understand, the eventual lawsuits do not come out of the $20 billion fund. Those will be over and above that cost.

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, not after they get in front of a jury. All support and work that comes out of the fund should, however, be used to reduce losses, nor only for the people, but for BP's liabilities.

For example, if a fisherman has the loss of a boat at risk and BP's fund allows him to save his boat then there should be no way the "loss of the boat" should be part of any suit. There is, however, risk of suits for loss of income if the fund doesn't govern those losses.

If the fund is intelligently distributed then BPs long term liabilities can be significantly reduced.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:32 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 34):
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, not after they get in front of a jury. All support and work that comes out of the fund should, however, be used to reduce losses, nor only for the people, but for BP's liabilities.

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 attitude he displayed, but the exceptional situation warrants the unusual response.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 34):
If the fund is intelligently distributed then BPs long term liabilities can be significantly reduced.

That's one of the problems. The person in charge of the fund is an Obama appointee, which immediately raises red flags - although this particular guy might be unusual in that he might be relatively honest. Rudy Guliani stepped up to vouch for his honesty and integrity, so we might be OK. But I would have preferred to appoint an independent. I would suggest that the BP hires someone like Price Waterhouse or DRT to ensure that controls are in place to ensure that none of the money goes to people/interests who shouldn't get it. After Katrina, some 30% of all payouts ended up going to people who shouldn't have gotten it.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
seb146
Posts: 14066
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:48 am

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 have been wondering the same thing: All these people out there screming "Keep government out of banks! Keep government out of car companies! Keep government out of business!" But, at the same time, when an overseas company is the culprit of a major disaster, the United States government needs to get involved in every single level. Not only that, but it is the current administration's fault rather than all the past administrations equally. Why can't we just band together and say "fix it now!" instead of this whole pointing fingers BS?

Quoting ER757 (Reply 2):
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.

Oddly, when anyone on the "right" has an opinion, it is free speech. I think this rant of hers is just plain silly, but she does have just as much right to say what she wants to say as anyone else. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. This is one argument I have for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. Make people listen to both sides of an argument instead of just bobbing their heads when the right says something and screaming about socialism when the left says anything.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:47 am

Quoting seb146 (Reply 36):
But, at the same time, when an overseas company is the culprit of a major disaster

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 company also. (And, yes, I lived in Australia for those who figured it out.   )
 
seb146
Posts: 14066
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 2:55 pm

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 30):
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 entitled to do what he wants in his own time, he probably needed to relax after that joke of a congress hearing he had to endure.

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 learned anything from the previous administration, 1/3 of the term on vacation is perfectly acceptable.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
Wasn't it BP US that was drilling American company. American workers? American Suppliers?

That brings up technical questions: Did this happen in American waters? Why are British people being questioned by Congress if it was an American project? How "international" was this drilling project?
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:01 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 38):
Why are British people being questioned by Congress if it was an American project?

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 made it clear that he was not going to make a definitive statement in certain areas until the investigations were completed. Not unreasonable, especially since there are multiple investigations (including a PB probe and a US Gov probe) and BP turns over all findings over to the government as they are made.

We don't expect the CEO of Airbus or Boeing to make a definitive statement before the full investigations are completed after an aircraft accident, why should it be any different for an oil company involved in an equally compiles technical issue?

But there is an election in November and posturing for that election is more important than reason.
 
seb146
Posts: 14066
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:36 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 39):
In the bit I watched BP's CEO made it clear that he was not going to make a definitive statement in certain areas until the investigations were completed.

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 much do they actually know about drilling? Or refining? Or any of the technical issues like that? Would it be like asking a baggage handler to explain technical issues about a plane crash? I know politicians really want to posture and make themselves look good for elections; "I stood up to the evil oil companies!" and all that. But, if the facts are not even all in, what is the point besides trying to make themselves look good? Since this is American politics, that really is all there is.....
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 36):
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 government out of business!" But, at the same time, when an overseas company is the culprit of a major disaster, the United States government needs to get involved in every single level.

Yeah, this is very apparent and true. Unfortunately. The way this should be handled is through the courts in an efficient and effective manner instead of having elected officials parading in the most pathetic manner BP staff (all for show and with elections in mind, of course). This is usually difficult, unfortunately, because the legal system is so broken and nobody wants to fix it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 36):
Not only that, but it is the current administration's fault rather than all the past administrations equally.

No it ain't. Even if you consider any caps that can be blamed on government, it is still 100% BP's fault (and by that I mean anyone else involved in the mistake too). Everyone agrees that BP should be paying for the clean up and associated damages and not taxpayers. This view reflects BP's full responsibility for what happened.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:19 pm

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 capitalists .... you could not write a better script . It covers the environment , big capitalism , and the saving power of the central bureaucracy ... its got everything ! Well done .... team these people are good.

What do you think the chances of most of the funds (20billion) ending up in Shore Bank / CCX web ... this should be interesting.. but its so transparent .
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:43 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 42):
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 capitalists .... you could not write a better script . It covers the environment , big capitalism , and the saving power of the central bureaucracy ... its got everything ! Well done .... team these people are good.

And whose fault is is? Who walked right into it? Are you suggesting that the spill is a left-wing conspiracy?

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 42):
back of free market capitalists

You apologizing to BP as well?
Step into my office, baby
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:58 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 43):
And whose fault is is? Who walked right into it? Are you suggesting that the spill is a left-wing conspiracy?



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 ....

But If I was to think up a conspiracy for the green movement ... this would be on the top of my list . Too bad the administration seems to lack any organization to capitalize on it ...they are just not that smart.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 43):
You apologizing to BP as well?



No , because BP is a major player in the whole green movement and wants the socialists to take over corporation controls . They make money either way ...
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:38 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 42):
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 capitalists .... you could not write a better script . It covers the environment , big capitalism , and the saving power of the central bureaucracy ... its got everything ! Well done .... team these people are good.

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 lawyers (and THEIR politicians) could have delayed it for 20 years. It's folly to believe that "your big, bad president" FORCED them into handing over $20 BILLION.

You're paying too much attention to politicians trying to make Obama look bad by apologizing to BP for the shakedown. You need to understand that even Republicans were highly pissed at that idiot and wants him removed from the Committee.
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 8:01 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 45):
If BP hadn't wanted to get the fund going then their lawyers (and THEIR politicians) could have delayed it for 20 years. It's folly to believe that "your big, bad president" FORCED them into handing over $20 BILLION.



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 trying to make the GOP some how culpable in this ...but sorry they are not even significant enough to matter ... no one cares what they say ..they are powerless.

The President is just doing what he has been trained to do all of his life .... make villains and make policy that takes money from the economy and puts it under federal control . Nothing new here ... just a nice big juicy event to give them political cover.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
seb146
Posts: 14066
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:30 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 44):
Too bad the administration seems to lack any organization to capitalize on it ...they are just not that smart.

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 hardest to get the country out of fossil fuel and into solar, wind, and geothermal. The left has been wanting a green and renewable energy plan for decades. It is the RIGHT that is blocking it.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 46):
make policy that takes money from the economy and puts it under federal control

First you say BP willingly put up the money. Then you say BP was forced to be put under government control. As bad as all this is, it is the right-wing media telling everyone Obama is socializing everything. Has there been a wholesale takeover of oil comapines or BP? Was BP sued by the government to put up the $20 billion?
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12429
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:21 pm

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 disaster. Looks like the $20 B is just a down payment. Looks like a lot of lawyers are going to make a lot of money instead of some crumbs of money to many affected by this disaster.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9064
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: BP $20 Billion Fund May Not Cover Spill Costs

Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:38 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 46):
I know you are trying to make the GOP some how culpable in this

Two oilmen in the White House when BP got the "Green Light"?

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 46):
The President is just doing what he has been trained to do all of his life .... make villains and make policy that takes money from the economy and puts it under federal control .

Normal people don't mind the government doing normal government things, like setting standards for drilling in a safe manner, providing care for vets, public health (like the CDC), etc.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
the left is the side that tries their hardest to get the country out of fossil fuel and into solar, wind, and geothermal.

BP fund is different in that it gives BP a demonstration of INDEPENDENCE in the distribution and helps them minimize some financial liabilities. They can say that it cuts their liability $20 Billion

When you take the time to think about it you can start seeing that this deal for for BP as much as it is for individuals and businesses impacted by their spill.

Do the math - BP announced that they have sent $104,000,000.00 to 31 thousand people. Sounds impressive until you realize that you are talking an average of about $3,350 per check. Doubt if that is half a boat payment per month for a fisherman.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that BP isn't structured to handle payments to a few million people who have been hurt. Maybe that is why BP was so fast to move on a deal with Obama.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dfwjim1 and 11 guests