Skip to main content

View Diary: White House plans to force BP to set aside money to pay damages (272 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Tony boy's boss has done the admitting and I (0+ / 0-)

    would think that comments made in his 'little people' global press conference would count as on the record.  The big question has seemed to have been based not on where the money was coming from but rather who would administer the escrow account.  I notice that you are conveniently ignoring the other rigs that they have at legal risk as well as the tasty profits they could be making.  For a company that was able to post over $6 Billion in profits in just 3 months in what '06 or '08?  I doubt that the $20 Billion starting stake is causing any sleepless nights.

    Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

    by nargel on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 11:54:22 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, yes, other rigs at legal risk (0+ / 0-)

      Who owns those rigs?  Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean, not BP.

      So at most BP has some leases at risk, not rigs.  But they can't drill anyway.

      BP's got a lot at stake in the US - there's no denying that.  But the entire company's value world wide before the spill was only US$200 billion.  How much of that value is in BP US?  I don't know and I doubt you do either.

      But at some point when the liabilities begin to exceed the value of the business the obvious solution is to amputate the diseased limb so the rest of the business can survive.

      •  Atlantis IS a BP rig for one and the same (0+ / 0-)

        whistleblower at BP is the one pointing at other rigs with the same legal problems so they are likely to be BP owned as well.

        I doubt your $200B number includes materials, equipment and tax sheltered money at the moment and that assumes that number is even accurate.  Based on past corporate behavior (not just BP but large corporations in general) I strongly doubt so.  In this case, they have been so strongly self convinced that they are above the law for so long that they are quite likely to have taken few if any real precautions to properly hide the stash.

        Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

        by nargel on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 08:33:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're 56% right (0+ / 0-)

          http://www.rigzone.com/...

          It's 44% owned by BHP Billiton cutting BP's risk in half right there.

          I doubt your $200B number includes materials, equipment and tax sheltered money at the moment and that assumes that number is even accurate.  

          YEEARGH!!  Do you enjoy being willfully ignorant?  Have you even bothered to look up BP's numbers?

          http://finance.yahoo.com/...

          BP's market cap before the disaster was $200B.  That includes EVERYTHING because it's the value of the whole damned company on the public markets!

          Based on past corporate behavior (not just BP but large corporations in general) I strongly doubt so.

          What specific past corporate behavior are you referring to?  Are you saying that you have found a pattern of big publicly traded companies low balling their value to investors and trading below actual value?  Please, tell us more... this is fascinating information!  I mean most of us thought the problem was that these companies hide losses and exaggerate gains to make themselves look more valuable.  If instead they are underselling themselves that's fascinating new result!

          •  Willfully ignorant? BPs numbers? (0+ / 0-)

            I provide you with a link to multiple charts (annual AND quarterly) and a link to the database they were derived from and you are so lacking in intellectual curiosity you couldn't be bothered to look beyond the first chart.

            Interlocking directorates, shell companies and even something as simple as skimming profits are all well known ways to keep assets out of view of governments, not to mention shareholders at times.  I'll just follow your lead and claim that all BP's upper management are pure as Ivory Snow, nothing to see here!  Large multinationals that have spent decades acting as if (not to mention convincing themselves that) they were beyond the law.  Running corporate malfeasance at some high level eventually?  Pish!  Such thinking about the Saints of the Boardrooms!  'Tis not to be born, I say.

            Feh.

            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

            by nargel on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 02:26:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, so now we're accusing BP management of (0+ / 0-)

              embezzling not millions but billions?

              Interlocking directorates, shell companies and even something as simple as skimming profits are all well known ways to keep assets out of view of governments, not to mention shareholders at times.

              Keeping assets out of sight (and reach) of governments makes sense.  But why shareholders?  These guys are paid primarily in options.  They want to drive UP the stock price, not down.

              •  You ask for SPECIFIC (0+ / 0-)

                examples of corporate maladministration and when I provide a few examples (taking care to note that I am not specifically charging BP execs with them) and your first response is to charge me with that.  Slick logic fail there skippy.

                Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                by nargel on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 01:08:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not true and no you did not (0+ / 0-)

                  Your claim:

                  I doubt your $200B number includes materials, equipment and tax sheltered money at the moment and that assumes that number is even accurate.  Based on past corporate behavior (not just BP but large corporations in general) I strongly doubt so.

                  My challenge:

                  What specific past corporate behavior are you referring to?  Are you saying that you have found a pattern of big publicly traded companies low balling their value to investors and trading below actual value?  Please, tell us more... this is fascinating information!  I mean most of us thought the problem was that these companies hide losses and exaggerate gains to make themselves look more valuable.  If instead they are underselling themselves that's fascinating new result!

                  Your response:

                  Interlocking directorates, shell companies and even something as simple as skimming profits are all well known ways to keep assets out of view of governments, not to mention shareholders at times.  I'll just follow your lead and claim that all BP's upper management are pure as Ivory Snow, nothing to see here!  Large multinationals that have spent decades acting as if (not to mention convincing themselves that) they were beyond the law.  Running corporate malfeasance at some high level eventually?  Pish!  Such thinking about the Saints of the Boardrooms!  'Tis not to be born, I say.

                  You ask for SPECIFIC examples of corporate maladministration and when I provide a few examples

                  If you think these are "SPECIFIC" examples then you don't know what "SPECIFIC" means.

                  Once again, I challenge you to provide evidence of large publicly traded companies lowballing their value for investors.

      •  You want numbers? (0+ / 0-)

        Try these: http://www.oilwatchdog.org/...

        BP is shown as pulling in 10, 15, even $20 billion per quarter for years.  Not exactly going in the tank if required to put a couple quarters profit (even a couple of years) into staying out of jail.

        Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

        by nargel on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 08:58:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you know the difference between annual and (0+ / 0-)

          quarterly?

          Title of the chart says it all:

          Big Five Oil Companies’ Annual Oil Profits

          Teh stupid is giving me a headache!!!

          •  There's more than one chart (0+ / 0-)

            there, idiot.

            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

            by nargel on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 01:27:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Number Fail (0+ / 0-)

              BP is shown as pulling in 10, 15, even $20 billion per quarter for years.  

              Chart on Page 1 shows annual numbers and BP at a bit over $20 billion in 2006.  All other years are less.

              Chart on Page 4 shows quarterly numbers and BP at ~ $10 billion in 2008 Q4.  All other quarters are less.

              So either you can't tell the difference between annual and quarterly or you can't tell the difference between $10 billion and $20 billion.

              Which is it?  Inquiring minds want to know!

              •  First I had to find the charts (and the data (0+ / 0-)

                base) for you, then I had to point out that there was more than one chart there and now I'm supposed to teach you how to read charts?  Hell with that.  You are as much a 'scientist' as a bought and paid for climate change denialist.  

                Go ahead and continue to defend the poor oppressed profit-above-all upper management of BP and their 'right' to lawyer up and continue to clutch their parts in their criminal company in whatever pieces you seem to think would would absolve them of liability.   It's a stupid position to take but whatever floats yer boat.

                Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                by nargel on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 12:57:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site