-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

6.08.2010

BPs Financial Woes

BP bankruptcy ahead? Rivals 'licking their chops

BP's Worst Case Scenario Play Video CNBC – BP's Worst Case Scenario
Related Quotes
Symbol Price Change
^DJI 9,939.98 +123.49
^GSPC 1,062.00 +11.53
^IXIC 2,170.57 -3.33

Some have wondered whether BP can financially survive the disaster in the Gulf. Sure, the oil giant is a diverse, international money-making machine, but the Guardian reported Monday that BP had already spent $1.25 billion seven weeks into the oil spill, with no clear end in sight. The company will be dealing with an avalanche of lawsuits for years (a New Orleans attorney told me she expects that some local law school grads will spend the bulk of their careers working on spill-related cases) and the company's stock recently nose-dived. In spite of all this, BP CEO Tony Hayward has repeatedly insisted that his company will see the disaster through until the Gulf Coast is "made whole" again.

But New York Times financial reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin notes that many industry watchers doubt BP can survive. Rivals Exxon and Shell are already circling like buzzards in anticipation that the company may stagger into oblivion. Or, as Sorkin puts it, they're "licking their chops" hoping to acquire a BP in bankruptcy: "Flinty legal minds are dreaming up scenarios in which BP would file a prepackaged bankruptcy and separate the costs of the cleanup — and potentially billions of dollars in legal claims — into a separate corporate entity."

Sorkin reckons that the company's legal liability and long-term cleanup costs could work out to a red-ink tally of $15 billion to $40 billion. He writes: "The company has about $12 billion in cash and short-term investments, but there is already a debate about whether it should cut its dividend out of fear that it could run out of money. Of course, it could sell assets or seek loans, which in this environment is still not that easy."

Sorkin notes that Wall Streeters are already talking about a "Texaco scenario" — a buyout from an industry rival akin to the deal struck allowing Pennzoil to take over Texaco after the former firm won a multibillion-dollar jury verdict against the latter in a dispute over the sale of Getty Oil. But that was the outcome of a bare-knuckled clash of corporate chieftains, and the BP catastrophe probably won't produce any such dramatic resolution overnight. After all, Exxon — the company responsible for the Alaska Valdez disaster, which had formerly been the largest oil spill in U.S. history — is now the most profitable and highest-capitalized corporation in the country.

— Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.

Obama's learning 'whose ass to kick' in oil mess

Is President Obama bowing to criticism that he hasn't shown enough emotion and outrage about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill? In an interview with the "Today" show's Matt Lauer on Tuesday morning, the president offered his bluntest response yet about the disaster, telling Lauer he's been talking to experts about "whose ass to kick" when it comes to responsibility for the mess.

[Haunting images of the oil spill]

"I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf.  A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be," Obama said, defending his administration's handling of the spill. "And 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."

Watch that segment of the interview here:

 

That's a pretty sharp response for a president known for his cool-headed approach to situations. In recent weeks, as Obama has been assailed for not being expressive enough in his response to the spill, White House officials has defended his reaction by suggesting that voters would prefer to see concrete actions over empty "method acting."

[Jaw-dropping political gaffes]

Yet administration officials are not ignorant of polls showing the nation less than thrilled with Obama's handling of the Gulf. According to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, more than two-thirds of those polled, 69 percent, disapprove of the federal government's handling of the spill. That's higher than the outrage over the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina.



--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

6.07.2010

MORE BP Cover UP

BP Buys 'Oil' Search Terms to Redirect Users to Official Company Website

BP Spokesman Acknowledges Purchase 'To Make It Easier for People to Find Out More About Our Efforts in the Gulf' and Other Ways to Help

Be careful where you click, especially if you're looking for news on the BP oil spill.

TK
Screengrab of google search for "oil spill" shows BP website as first link.
(google.com)

BP, the very company responsible for the oil spill that is already the worst in U.S. history, has purchased several phrases on search engines such as Google and Yahoo so that the first result that shows up directs information seekers to the company's official website.

A simple Google search of "oil spill" turns up several thousand news results, but the first link, highlighted at the very top of the page, is from BP. "Learn more about how BP is helping," the link's tagline reads.

A spokesman for the company confirmed to ABC News that it had, in fact, bought these search terms to make information on the spill more accessible to the public.

"We have bought search terms on search engines like Google to make it easier for people to find out more about our efforts in the Gulf and make it easier for people to find key links to information on filing claims, reporting oil on the beach and signing up to volunteer," BP spokesman Toby Odone told ABC News.



--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

BP OIL Spill and US Politics "Temporary Receivership"

Rev. Jesse Jackson

Posted: June 5, 2010 08:24 PM

Place BP Under Temporary Receivership

What's Your Reaction:

Earlier this week, Robert Reich argued that President Obama and the U.S. government should place BP under temporary receivership. I concur.

When he visited the Gulf Coast last week, the President declared, "I take full responsibility." But only if the government takes the reins away from BP and places it under its own authority can that claim be fulfilled.

From the beginning, BP has fed the public lies, mistruths, and half-truths. Was it 1,000 barrels a day spilling into the Gulf? Or 5,000? Or perhaps 15,000? Is it mustering all of the available global know-how, wisdom, innovation and resources to cap the well? Is BP trying to cap the gushing well with golf balls or tires? Have the guys on the beach in the white suits--clean and white, I should say--been there since day one and are they in for the long haul, or was it a one day photo op while the President was in town?

Left to BP, the public has absolutely no confidence that BP is telling the truth about the oil spill or is doing whatever it takes to cap it. And now that the Attorney General has launched a criminal investigation, it makes all the more sense for the Obama administration to take control over BP and the oil spill clean up operation. President Obama cannot be in charge if BP is still holding the keys.

But make BP foot the bill.

Reich stated, "If the government can take over giant global insurer AIG and the auto giant General Motors and replace their CEOs in order to keep them financially solvent, it should be able to put BP's north American operations into temporary receivership in order to stop one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history."

Isn't that one of the primary functions of government--to protect the public--yes, the nation--from harm and disaster; to look after the public welfare when the private sector utterly fails to work in the public interest?

And BP, which has one of the worst health and safety records of any oil company--from the Texas City explosion that killed 15 people, to leaks in the Alaska pipeline, to rigging the markets in the Midwest--has shown little concern about the welfare of people and communities. It may have the "equipment and expertise", but it does not have the interest of the people and the surrounding Gulf Coast communities and industries at heart.

Reich's "five reasons for taking action" against BP are worth noting: 



1. We are not getting the truth from BP....(BP chief) Hayward says BP's sampling shows "no evidence" oil is massing and spreading underwater across the Gulf. Yet scientists...say they've detected vast amounts of underwater oil, including an area roughly 50 miles from the spill site and as deep as 400 feet. Government must be clearly in charge of getting all the facts, not waiting for what BP decides to disclose and when. 




2. We have no way to be sure BP is devoting enough resources to stopping the gusher....If government were in direct control of BP's North American assets, it would be able to devote whatever of those assets are necessary to stopping up the well right away.

3. BP's new strategy for stopping the gusher is highly risky.... But scientists say that could result in an even bigger volume of oil--as much as 20 percent more--gushing from the well. At least under government receivership, public officials would be directly accountable for weighing the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy.

4. Right now, the U.S. government has no authority to force BP to adopt a different strategy....The President needs legal authority to order BP to protect the United States. 



5. The President is not legally in charge. As long as BP is not under the direct control of the government he has no direct line of authority, and responsibility is totally confused.

(Robert Reich)


Yes, the BP oil spill is the environmental equivalent of a nuclear meltdown; the nation's security is at risk. It's a state of emergency that cannot be left to a private corporation like BP to deal with. BP has betrayed the public interest and demonstrated the worst behavior with the worst impact one could imagine. Management of this crisis must be under the authority of the President and our government who are charged with protecting the nation.

And yes, BP must foot the bill. That's easy enough for a corporation that averages over $20 billion in annual profits from oil. It must pay for the immediate capping of the well and clean up of the Gulf Coast. It must pay for the long-term restoration of the region. It must pay for the damage and devastation it has caused to the lives and livelihood of families and businesses; to the birds and fish; to the marshes and beach--all of which surely will exceed the $75 million liability cap under federal law.

It's time to go beyond BP!



--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

How Two Friends Turned Abandoned CASTLE into a 4☆HOTEL | by @chateaudut...

Join us on an extraordinary journey as two lifelong friends, Francis and Benoit, turn a crumbling, centuries-old castle into a stunning 4-st...