E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
/
A worker uses a suction hose to remove oil washed ashore from the Deepwater Horizon spill in Belle Terre, La., on June 9, 2010.
LONDON -- Hopes that BP can settle early out of court on liability for its 2010 U.S. Gulf of Mexico oil spill looked forlorn on Wednesday after U.S. prosecutors laid out a legal case for gross negligence on which tens of billions of dollars hang.
In the two years that have passed since the spewing Macondo deep-water well was capped, the Department of Justice has made it clear BP may have a gross negligence case to answer -- implying a potential $21 billion fine on top of other payments, some already made, others yet to be determined.
The British oil company has been vehement in denying such liability for the United States' worst offshore environmental disaster, which killed 11 people and poured crude into the sea for months. It repeated that position after the DoJ filing on Tuesday.
Nevertheless, the parties have been in talks about a multi-billion-dollar settlement that could cover outstanding liabilities, and two months ago the Financial Times raised expectations there was a deal in the air by reporting that BP was hoping to pay $15 billion to put the case behind it, while the DoJ was holding out for $25 billion.
The window of opportunity for a deal before the November presidential election and ahead of a trial scheduled to start in January has narrowed since then, and now investors see the weight of uncertainty on the British oil company's share price sticking around for a long time to come.
"The market was hoping that some sort agreement would be reached, either before the presidential elections or ahead of the trial," said Ivor Pether, a fund manager at Royal London Asset Management.
"We don't know when or whether they will reach agreement, but the aggressive language in today's DOJ statement might well reduce the chances of a swift settlement."
Related story
In Isaac's wake, Gulf beaches stained with oil tar
BP shares were down 4 percent on Wednesday morning after 39 pages of DoJ court papers homed in on a key well pressure test, saying the way it had been "so stunningly, blindingly botched in so many ways, by so many people, demonstrates gross negligence."
Uncertainty over whether BP can continue to operate in Russia, and whether it can even exit its business there at a decent price, have combined with the oil spill wrangle to put BP's share valuation based on earnings at a discount to the sector in Europe, even though it is the second largest next to Royal Dutch/Shell .
"While these (DoJ) accusations are not entirely new or surprising, they appear to be a firming of the DoJ language," said Credit Suisse analyst Kim Fustier in a note.
"This suggests to us that a settlement acceptable to BP is not imminent, and lowers BP's chances of settling in the low end of the $15 (billion)-$25 billion range. Hence, if it cannot get to a satisfactory agreement we think it might be best for BP to continue to litigate, which would maintain the Macondo overhang for longer than we'd hoped. ... We believe a settlement or $20 billion or less would be a positive."
Breakup talk revived
Pressure for closure on the spill and in Russia is something chief executive Bob Dudley has become used to since he took over from Tony Hayward in the aftermath of the spill.
And on Wednesday, one analyst revived suggestions that the company should be broken up to release underlying value on the business.
"We reiterate that the best outcome for long-suffering BP shareholders, and indeed the only credible route to unlock our increased SoTP (sum-of-the-parts) value … is a demerger of remaining assets starting with the U.S.," said Investec analyst Stuart Joyner in a note.
Joyner said that valuation would be more than 68 percent higher than BP's current share price, and suggests there could be $90 billion of hidden value in a stock valued at around $132 billion. Other analysts' calculations based on pre-Macondo comparisons with rival Shell have put total lost value at between $60 billion and $70 billion.
"BP died when it failed to cap the Macondo spill in the first few days," said Joyner. "The CEO did a good job of saving BP from forced liquidation, but we do not believe he can revert to its pre-Macondo strategy."
More from Open Channel:
- Democrats get 'creative' to tap corporate cash for convention
- Days after filing, medical device manufacturer drops libel suit
- Medical distributor files libel suit over report on fat-melting device
- Could super PAC-backed third-party candidates sway presidential race?
- CIA ends investigation of terror detainees' deaths without charges
- S. African telecom firm helped Iran evade US sanctions, documents show
- Vote on an iPad? Technology could supplant voter IDs at polls
- One of the most dangerous cities in the US plans to ditch its police force
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
no fn sh.t. ya think? bp blows and so do our legislature for no requiring safety caps on their wells.
A profound grasp of the obvious.
BP is Chucky and the movie is Child's Play in the Gulf.
safety caps are required for wells... the problem is that the regulatory agencies are underfuned and cannot inspect ALL wells. In the case of DWH there was one agency representative for over 50 wells. The other problem is that the regulations are written (by the industry) and are NOT actually adhered to by the operators.
DRILL BABY DRILL!!!
The problem for BP is that they have unwittingly supplied the DoJ with all the information necessary to convict them of gross negligence. Early on there was a huge attempt by BP, Haliburton, and TransOcean to blame each other. Especially significant early on was the blame for the 11 deaths and additional serious injuries.
In the blame game BP blamed TransdsOcean and Haliburton, Haliburton blamed BP and TransOcean, and Transocean claimed that the well platform was actually a steamship and that absolved it of all blame. But in the process, they provided huge amounts of proof against one another. That will come back to haunt them.
notliborcon - If regulating the oil industry doesn't work what is the point of more regulations?
CONSUME BABY CONSUME!!!
The problem is that corporations have NO FEAR. They will do CRAZY, DANGEROUS things with no concern for retribution. $21 Billion? It will hardly be a BLIP in their profits.
WE NEED THE CORPORATE DEATH PENALTY!
All the assets are sold off to MORE RESPONSIBLE firms, all the investors lose EVERY DIME and the management team is FORBIDDEN from EVER running a corporation again and has ALL THEIR SALARY for the last decade clawed back.
THAT will put the FEAR OF GOD into these jerks. No regulation or inspection will EVER cover all the misdeeds of these corporate behemoths.
NOTHING BRINGS FOCUS TO THE MIND LIKE AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS!
What we need is honest politicans who accept NO funds from any lobbyist what so ever..therefore..no lobbyist. I have no sedcond thoughts that this disaster may never have happened if politicans wrote meaningful bills and laws rather than bowing down to lobbyist and their money..which BP has a ton of..and I refer to lobbyist.
NOT A CENT less than $250 Billion !!!!!!!!!
Romney, and the Republicans want to lower the restrictions on drilling (WHAT GIVES). Meaning more drilling in hazardous location with no control over spills, and long term effects) Right now tar balls are washing up on beaches in the gulf.
With all due respect, while I agree we need honesty in our government, the problem is not our government but rather the Christian population. It is a God problem that only He can fix. We Christians are at fault for not being responsible to our Christian testimony. If we all gave God due diligence, we would all be honest and at due diligence Mr. Ivan, I am even falling short.
I don't see the need to punish BP further. They didn't do any lasting damage to the gulf, and the government entities (I think the states get most or all of the eventual fines here, even DOJ) involved in the legal action have already shown propensity to waste the spill money by purchasing items such as police cruisers and ipads with it.
BP's specialty is deep-water exploration and drilling. You and I pay at the pump for making this energy extraction more expensive. BP has innovated and fielded some world-class spill prevention tech in response to the spill.
BP needs to do to make things right, but draconian fines will just end up as gulf coast government waste funded by American consumers and British retirees & middle class who form many of the shareholders in BP. Britain is an important ally who has partnered with us in Iraq and Afghanistan only because they're an awesome friend. Destroying one of their biggest companies that so many of their pensions are vested in isn't something to take lightly. American companies rely on British goodwill to operate there as well. We need to do the right thing and let this one go.
relaxdontdoit,
I wonder how the families of the 11 people killed feel about "let this one go"? Or the people who were affected by the spill? Easy to protect / worry about your own interests when you don't have skin in the game.
Instead of these "We're not admitting to any guilt" payoffs to the government, not only do these corporations need to be fined until it hurts, the decision makers need to be charged criminally, and if found guilty, jailed.
"Regulations? We don't need no stinking regulations"
Marklepew, they're entitled to massive settlements and-depending on the structure of the settlements and their legal standing in relation to BP's creditors and the US govt, the families of those killed can only be hurt by destroying BP.
Even though it is down substantially since their accident in the Gulf of Mexico, BP still has a market capitalization of $113.46 billion...........so relax I think your concerns are unfounded.
In full agreement with relaxdontdoit. Once again the bankrupt Gulf states are seeking to use the judiciary to milk the cash cow known as BP. Why have a working population when someone else can pick up the tab for municipal and federal ineptitude in dealing with the socio-economic problems that exist in the southern states. The financial penalties that are being muted are disproportionate to both the environmental and economic effect of the incident. Wasn't an American company sub-contracted for the day to day operation of the rig. Where is the law suit against them? At a time when many once great American industrial powerhouses find themselves with their backs to the wall financial stability can be enhanced by the de-stabilisation of the competition. Didn't Harley -Davidson try to ban the Triumph Bonneville in the 50's to protect its home market. It's about time that American industry peered out from behind the petticoats of a corrupt and protectionist judiciary and fought with the same ideals that stood the nation in such good stead a little over 70 years ago. Fight the good fight- but fight FAIR
You must be of the belief BP didn't cause a major environmental disaster and is only being "picked on".
Wow! What color is your world, especially when your own lying eyes can't see it.
SKUP... Yea, lets throw the baby out with the bathwater. Great idea thanks for the contribution.
Where liberals and I can agree, BP and big corporations get away with far too much and we aren't done with them by a longshot.
Where everyone else and I agree on, you may remember Obama touting it was his and Congress' (a Democrat-controlled Congress) responsibility to do something to try and clean up the mess before it got to shore. Did anyone see any action until the spill reached the shore? No? That's called a stall tactic. All the yes-people and the believers heard that action would be taken but didn't bother looking for it. So now the Gulf coast is still a mess (and even more so after Isaac) and now as mentioned above, they're milking the cash cow and causing hysteria about environmental impact (see Keystone Pipeline) and all it's doing is hurting us at the pump.
Then again, even if disaster had been more or less averted, it's likely all this would have played out in the same manner.
Can you quote your source that says Keystone Pipeline will have little or no environmental impact and since the pipeline is planned to send oil to our southern state for refinement only to be shipped out elsewhere, how will that affect American gas prices at the pump?
I hope the DoJ hammers BP, Halliburton, and TransOcean. They were lying from day one about the severity of the leak and playing the blame game. Time to pay up.
Remember, the GOP apologized to BP.
Remember Obama on vacation with his 1%er friends refusing the give the Governors of the Gulf Coast States the go ahead to protect the their coast lines or start the clean up on there own.
Remember Obama on National TV trying to take credit for the BP settlement that people are still waiting to receive.
By any standard these actions are example of failed leadership.
what happened - no, actually, I do not remember that exactly as you have described it. Please, do tell how, logically speaking, your rant against Obama is supposed to reduce BP's liability in this case, and make it Obama's liability.
KIngV
Okay maybe you haven' look at it from this point of view. From an economic and from an individual who lived on the coast line at the time, if the Governors had been allowed to block the crude from reaching land, the cleaning up would have been less expensive and done less damage because it would have been done whiile the crude was still in the ocean.
How many days did those clean up ship sit at the docks while crude wash up on the beaches and shore lines waiting for Obama approval for the Governors to put them in service? Once those ships went in to service, we learned how efficient they were.
Logically speaking from a point of common sense. If you reduce the amount it takes to clean up the crude and if you reduce the amount of damage that crude causes by cleraning it up at sea, you not only reduce the liability, but you reduce the suffering of the poeple living along that coast line.
Obama's poor judgement and bad decision making during that crisis is failure by any standared.
@what happened,
Wow, were you somewhere else when this happened.
1) Obama managed to get BP to put $20 billion into a settlement fund almost immediately. That compares to zero for Exxon in the Valdez incident.
2) Obama refused to allow BP to transfer all the responbsibility for the cleanup to the states, which would have saved BP a huge amount of money. Compares to the Valdez spill which was transferred to the State of Alaska and still is awaiting cleanup.
3) BP is still on the hook for damages above and beyond the $20 billion that BP has already given up. And in addition, Haliburton and TransOcean are also still on the hook for billions more even though you dpon't hear as much about them.
The Exxon Valdez spill is an example of a lack of leadership that allowed Exxon to slide out of it with only a mild slap on the wrist and an insignificant amount of fines soon reversed by the Supreme Court. I think you are badly confused.
@what happened
WOW, your point of view is idiotic and you put way too much importance on the president jaja your make the 99% look bad si shut up before you hurt the cause any more thank you chris!
@chris exactly but no if he had allowed the states to come in and clean up the argument would have been Obama passed the burden on to the States and saved his BP buddies tons of cash, damned if he does damned if he doesnt you cant win with these stupid people
I agree with Chris in the fact that this was handled much better than the Valdez spill, but it was still handled completely wrong.
One of their biggest techniques used was to disperse the oil with chemicals instead of trying to capture it. That was their biggest mistake against nature and the people that live or vacation on the coast.
That dispersed oil will come back to haunt us for the next 20 to 50 years. Hurricane Isaac offers proof of that as it washes previously dispersed oil back onto our beaches and if it hits our beaches it also hits our coastal fisheries.
This case should remain ongoing (along with the fines and restitution) until the last remnants of oil are found and eliminated.
Martha Vineyard, golf, BBQ, parties and getting a tan were far more important to Obama than giving the governors go ahead to start the clean up on there own.
That is fact and you can try and discredit me because you know its fact and you want to deceive the readers, but people remember Obama poor judgement and bad decision making during that crisis and how after it was over; how he got on national TV and tried to take the credit from the people who actually did the work.
What is surprising is how gullible you people are who tout Obama as a hero in the Gulf Oil Spill crisis when all he demonstrated was that he was a total failure at leadership.
This matter with BP is entirely out of the Presidents hands. BP made assurances with Congress and Senators and below. They did not have a sign contract with President Obama. and how many presidents back have they been here drilling?
So Mr. Holder is using his office to campaign for his boss again. That's new?
get a life.... you are ignorant of facts and reality.
The Justice Department can only go so far -- in that ultimately Big Business pays the salaries of Federal Government employees.
curious timing.
The fact that we still can't eat the fish and Shrimp from The Gulf after Issac is reason enough to keep BP paying until they leave the GULF completely. Obama kisses the Brits economic a$$. They own our banks and our puppets as well. They even own our UN military. What has Obama done to take America back ? Nothing nada and we are worse off , PERIOD ! We should own BP for the damages they cost. GO FIGURE ! They don't have enough money to cover the damage done to our ecology, they care little to none about the environment and leave the world just as long as they can live above the rest. It will cost us dearly in the end and we can blame the bank owners for GW and Obama puppets..
We buy our gas at Citgo (Venezuelan gas), at least Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, cares about his people! And apparently, even cares for the poor in the USA!
Don't let American media bamboozle you!
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3357/hugo-chavez-gives-heating-aid-to-u-s-poor-following-obama-budget-cuts
Sharkface. Your post is undoubtably one of the dumbest, in a sea of dumb posts, that I've seen today. Chavez? Really? The guy that controls all media and sets prices and wages? Cares for his people? Idiot!
Citgo is the company that owns the refinery and they process what ever crude they can get their hands on. It may be a venz. co. but that doesn't mean the crude comes from there.
What should've happened-When the BP exec was testifying,his head should've been blown off by a seal,then talks resumed without a hitch
Is that your "christian" view?
I was just passing by a BP gas station few days ago and guess how much was a gallon of Diesel ?
$5.15 /gallon
Those SOB should pay more than 50 Bil for the damages they created
No matter which side of the argument you're on, logic like the above is painful to witness.
So now how is it that all this is Obama,s fault???? Just more of dumda** remarks from republicans that have no truth in them.
I'm surprised Obama didn't get blamed for trop storm, Issac. Perhaps republicans are beginning to stop the blame game lol....or not.
Talking about failed leadership and to put it in proper economic perspective will only take a couple short sentences..
From the founding of this country untill the end of 2008 the National debt only grew to $10.1 trillion in 236 years.
From the beginning of 2009 until August 2, 2011 the national debt grew to $14.2 trillion in 2.75 years.
From the beginning of August, 2011 until August, 2012 the national debt grew to $16 trillion in 1 year. That's $1.8 trillion added to the national debt in 1 year.
What did the taxpayers get for this growth in our national debt for the past 3.75 years? A debt crisis. An unstable government. Little to no growth in the economy or employment. Attacks on our Constitutional protections. Bad judgement and poor decision making by a standing President.
That's failure by any standard.
How did GWB pay for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Medicare Part D? ANSWER: He didn't!!! The cost for a war of CHOICE (aka IRAQ) and afghanistan were put on the books by Obama.
notliborcon
But its important to know/remember that the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress when all the out of control spending occurred. Its also important to know/remember that Barnanke was/is economy adviser to both Presidents when all that out of control spending occurred.
Connecting these two conditions to to both Presidents, the magnatude of their poor judgement and horrible decision making becomes evident by the destructive forces of the national debt that has been heaped on this country. A destructive force that almost shut our government down on Auguast 2, 2011. A destructive force that has made our government unstable.
@what happened
did u forget GWB blew a giant hole in the defficit by allowing huge tax cuts that effectlvely crippled the country for years to come!? no of course not because you only spea with a shallow pool of one sided facts. Obama hasnt handled it the best way but its not his faul he was giving a bowl of crap and asked to bake a tasty cake with it.
notliborcon - You do realize there is a difference between a budget and spending? The operating expenses are paid at the time they are incurred. There was no book fixing. All of the expenditures made my the federal government are listed here.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/overview.html
Adrain
Until you do two things, your posts are mute. You have to acknowledge that the Democrats controlled congress and were just as responsible as Bush for the mess. Its no coincidence that that same democratically controlled congress under Obama increased the out of control spending.
You have to stop trying to deceive people by talking about the deficit when the Nation debt is the threat to this country. A deficit can't shut down our Government, debt can as we learned last July when it started getting reported that the national debt was going to shut down our Constitutional Government on August 2, 2011.
You apparently forgot that Obama supported, pushed for and got those same Bush Tax cut to the rich extended in 2010 rather than implement his job creating tax reform. so why are you complaining about the Bush tax cuts to the rich? Obama supported then and made sure they didn't expire. How gullible are you?
1. I will not acknowledge that Democrats are equally responsible for Bush's war. Did you not hear us protesting and trying to stop it? The system of government power is set up in a way to check and balance itself but Republicans won on a technicality and the war went forward. Democrats as a whole were very against the war and you know that. That's why were trash talking Bush right now and Republicans are getting real quiet about what happened the last two terms and didn't invite ya boy GWB to the RNC this year.
2. I won't speak on your second demand because unlike you, I admit when I don't know what I'm talking about and no part of that second runon sentence/paragraph or whatever it is, makes sense.
mindyabusiness
Why not. None of that would have happened if the democrats hadn't supported it. The Republicans, after all, didn't have control of congress, did they? So the reality is that the democrats had to support Bush in order for it to happen.
You want to live in denial and a fantasy world, okay by me. But one day you will be forced back into reality as a result of the democrats actions. Who know, you might like it and if you don't, you can create another fantasy world to live in.
I'm sorry that you haven't bother to learn the difference between a debt and a deficit and what impact they have on an economy.
Actually the Government is very stable it's the people that aren't.
This is literally the stupidest thing I have ever responded to. I have never met a Republican who flat out denies their part in the war in Iraq. Your party started it and our party moaned the whole way to end it. Did you live under a rock after 9/11? How were you the only Republican who didn't see the Democrats opposition to the war? What about our pot-smoking, flower power, make love, not war persona makes you think we would co-sign a war??
I know this will be as effective as trying to teach a pig to sing, but here goes:
To What Happened
"From the founding of this country untill the end of 2008 the National debt only grew to $10.1 trillion in 236 years." To answer your name I'll ask you a question - how did you feel when Saint Ronald ran up more debt than all previous presidents combined? Answer - I bet you thought, along with Dick Cheney that "Reagan taught us deficits dont matter."
But now you forgot the lesson. You've been reading from the Jude Wanninski primer for Republicans called "The 2 Santa Claus Theory" (look it up, I'm sure you remember there are places where facts can be found on the internets.....)
Further, the debt ONLY grew to $10.1t in the BushII 8yrs? Starting from a >$5t surplus, the US burned through over $16t! Add to this the fact that 2 wars and Medicare Part D were unfunded and off the books! and you wonder why the debt continues to go up?
And of course my favorite Republican trollism - The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in Obama's first 2 years. It took over a year to seat Sen Franken, which, when counted with Sanders and Lieberman, two independents, finally gave the Democrats 59 votes. (I forget who but there was a Democratic Senator who was out those years with serious health issues.)
Never before have we had to have a supermajority to close every debate, but there it was, in Obama's 2nd year, 59 votes. Of course, you remember that Lieberman was independent in name only, he spoke for McCain-Palin at the '08 convention. And you remember the senators from Nebraska, Montana, Indiana and I think Missouri (Blue Dogs) who vote more with the R side but cant get elected as Rs because they are too "moderate" (a bad word to today's neo-cons). So there never was a way to break the misuse of the filibuster at any time from 1/09 to the present.
So my question to you - does trolling pay by the word? How much exactly do you get paid to display intentional ignorance?
Now how is all this Obama's fault? Failed leadership, did you forget just who left this President with a huge debt???
cajun, No, but I remeber who doubled a debt in just under 3 years that it took 70 years to create. Any guess?
La Cajun
No I didn't, but apparently you don't know who did. The Democrats controlled congress when all of the out of control spending occurred. The democrats could have, should have stopped Bush, but they didn't.
Is it a coincidence that the out of control spending continued after Obama was elected with that same democratically controlled congress. Obama could have tried to stopped them, but he didn't.
That's failure by any standard, especially with the speeches Obama had been making about the economy and getting spending under control as the only responsible thing to do as President.
Bush democrat.
Your figures are wrong or the all the News Media of the world's figures are wrong becasue they've been reporting..
When Obama took over the national debt was $10.1 trillion.
On August 2, 2011 the national debt was $14.2 trillion.
its a year later and the national debt is a little over $16 trillion. The national debt grew $1.8 trillion in one year.
That's an increase of 63% in the 3.75 years years Obama has been President.
I perfer this site; justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp
Their facts slam everyone, so I tend to believe them with the list of references and sources they use.
Liberal logic ehh why was it GW's fault ? Is one man running our country for us, is this what you are saying ? Why do we blame Obama ? Why do you blame GW , look in the mirror . It is you playing the blame game , mockery is painful ehhh LaLa..Obama promised across the aisle bipartisanship and now look where Obamacare is..are you better off with Obama stealing the show ?
No. I blame Bush. He was an idiot. He deregulated jerks like BP. He started two wars based on lies then used false accounting so that it LOOKS like Obama increased the deficit.
The only excuse for the GOP's policy is that they wanted government to look incompetent so that people would grow disillusioned with it.
Incompetence. The GOP's STOCK IN TRADE!
We blamed the whole cabinet dude. Do you ever turn off Fox news or talk to your Democrat friends? This summary of what we believe and stand for drives me crazy. We were equally as upset with Cheny, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and the rest of those guys as we were with Bush and your bashing Obama on an MSNBC comments section can't change that history.
Are we really surprised by all this? The question is will we the people and BP allow this to happen again?
Are we really surprised by all this? The question is will we the people and BP allow this to happen again?
I think we can all agree that oil companies are dorkfishes.
break out the corn dogs! lets catch them sob's
The oil spill ruined the Gulf Coast. No amount of money can repair the damage done. We live on a very small planet and it is the only one that supports life. I understand enough to know that Big Business's like B.P. worship a God called Profit-they do not care about safety, they do not care about the planet and they certainly do not care about you or me. Republican's worship at the alter of Big Business & the God called Profit. They always have and they always will.
Obama/Biden 2012
The spill was bad. But, your statement that it "ruined" the Gulf Coast is preposterous. We've been buying gulf shrimp for the past two years(as before). They are great. Tourism is at new levels along the gulf coast. Nature has recouperative powers that you libs don't seem to get.
Well then sell your house and your car. Quit your job and move (by foot) out of the city. Live in a cave and grow/hunt your own food.
Otherwise you are being a hypocrit.
found something for you.....there were 3 large Corp. directly linked to this oil disaster, BP-British Petrol, Halliburton, and Tra.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/reports/Letter_from_Fred_Bartlit_to_Commissioners.pdf
Apply the $25 billion to the national debt immediatly upon receipt. Don't spend it on wasted projects.
Accused of "gross negligence"? By Eric Holder's DOJ. I bet they worked "fast and furiously" to come to that conclusion.
What happens to be so conveniently forgotten by all revisionists like "what happened" who site our growing debt under Obama, is the fact that GB failed to account for the cost his 2 wars in a way that was reflected in the national debt. Obama made sure the 2 wars were reflected properly and as such are the single largest addition to the debt under his watch.
As for the additional accumulated debt, much is still GW legacy, as he gave multiple tax breaks at a time of war, largely to the investment class who have move trillions off shore and out of the US economy; an absolute contradiction with the notion that the wealthy would drive economic growth through their altruistic investments. Lets face it, this is a scam by the global elite and their sycophants primarily in the Republican party, to hedge their wealth agains the relative decline of US dominance in the face of growing power in China, India, Brazil and other regions. And the Orwellian nature of the beast, is that they now use the concept of continued American Exceptionalism to sell their agenda to completely ignorant jingoists.
The biggest problem here is we are not being told what exactly is the basis for claiming negligence. The well had the required blowback preventer. The fact is was destroyed in the blowback is not BPs fault. Sure, a second preventer may have helped...but their is no requirement for 2.
Was it negligent in drilling water so deep? Well, thats the only place the govt is allowing offshore drilling, so that would be back on the feds.
Negligence in shortening the cure time for the slurry mix? Perhaps, except BP sent in a waiver request and it was approved by the Government.
It's easy to throw out a "negligence" claim...especially in the election season when your trying to garner votes in the areas affected. Unfortunately our government is NOT telling us what the basis of the claim is, so we have no way of knowing if this is political grandstanding or if BP actually did something criminal.
If I was BP I would be defending myself that Obama failed to act at the beginning of the crisis. His failure, his poor judgement, his poor decision making, his negligence to act is what caused the liability to become so horrific.
I would win. Because once the clean up started we learned how efficient it was when it was done out at sea.
what happened - under that logic can we try Bush for "failing to act at the beginning of" Katrina too? No we cannot. You do realize what is in the scope of a presidents job, right? he doesn't oversee environmental concerns. that is the job of the people he puts in charge of FEMA and various other departments. You've gotta stop attacking Obama like he is the reason everything is wrong in the world. His cabinet may but lay off Obama himself. This was outside of his jurisdiction and dude... WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT POLITICS. we're talking about a corporation that screwed everybody over. It's not a republican/democrat issue. It's a humanity issue. Show some maturity.
mindyabusiness
You don't have to convince me how bad Bush was. Until Obama I rated Bush as the worse President in this country's history. Now its Obama because of his poor judgement, bad decision making and his actions which tell me he lacks leadership.
Case in point; Who was Bush's economic adviser and head of the FED? Who is Obama's economic adviser and head of the FED? Barnanke is the answer.
So Obama slams Bush and Barnanke in a speech for the economy problems of the country and then makes Barnanke his economic adviser and keep him at the head of the FED and then follow the same economic policies as Bush. As far as I'm concerned, that demonstrated poor judgement and bad decision making at the highest level.
Not all agree with me, but many do. That is why so many people are abandoning Obama. If you don't have the ability to make good judgement and good decisions, then their is no way you should be president of the Country.
if this is true then they must charge obama with gross stupidity
Wed. 9/5/12 My very own Representative DON YOUNG stated in public that "This is No Big Deal" Mother Nature will Clean this up within the next 20 years.
But of course B P is a great contributor to the DON YOUNG Campaign. But here is the most amazing situation.
Alaskans RE-ELECT DON YOUNG year after year decade after decade.
Independent Un-Declared Voters are the Majority in Alaska. 53% But guess what ? These Un-Declared Voters
DO NOT VOTE They chose NOT to particitpate in Democracy. They are neither Republican or Democrat & actually believe that They are "Morally Superior" to All other Alaskans. & that's How DON YOUNG continues to Get Re-Elected in Alaska, that is how Alaska remains a "Red State"
Exxon & British Petroleum have PROVEN THEY CAN NOT BE TRUSTED Time & Time again & again. But yet we continue to Do Business with Them.
SPW in Soldotna,Alaska
Well who do you recommend would be honest in the oil industry? I know Haliburton
Whatever they get fined, the Public will have to pay..
James011
Whatever they get fined, the Public will have to pay..
So I guess what you're saying is let the corporations rape and pillage (legitimate rape & pillage?) because if we try to stop them they will charge us more.
Gross ignorance of how business works. Lets say BP pays a $100b fine and then tries to pass that to the consumer. But Exxon doesnt pay, Shell doesnt pay, etc. Ya think they will raise their prices? (Yes I know oil is a traded commodity, but Im trying to keep this simple for the simple arguments that take place here)
If you think thats how business operates, you need to take an Econ 101. Either that, or just go lay at the doorway to any major corporation and let the CEO wipe his feet on you as he walks into his gilded palace.
These charges are completely true!!!!
Boycott BP and all its subsidiaries(especially and including ARCO, here in California)! In addition, it is completely unpatriotic and disloyal to patronize a foreign-based company such as BP!!!!
ARCO is just a brand on a store and the buy/get supplied from the nearest Refinery,by whoever owns that. Buying gas is not like buying, say, a cerial product to help boost it's sales because it's you favorite. Gas/Fuel on the other hand is like there are 20 different stations in your town. All the brands of all the different stations comes to them from the same Refinery. The crude itself comes in from all over local wells to long trains of tankers from where ever.