I was interested to see a few people make reference to 'BP Plc' being a British controlled organisation. Some even lowering themselves to anti-British sentiments.
I thought it proper to offer a little clarification. Firstly, the busines previously known as 'British Petroleum' was renamed 'BP Plc' to represent a swing from British control to a more globalised business. In other words, ownership being thrown out onto the open markets.
The ownership structure currently stands like this:
Rest of Europe 10%
Rest of World 7%
That is no British company. The idea that BP should be 'thrown out of American waters' as suggested by one particular hubbers seems to look a little silly when considering that 25 US institutions and 14 US individuals have significant stakes in the business.
No doubt Buffett is one of those. BP Plc is a 'global' business, not a British business. Neither the UK or USA have a controlling stake.
There are also 22,800 employees of BP in the States, and if the dividend is not paid it will deprive US savers of $4 billion a year
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen … 147794.ece
Kicking BP into the long grass is going to harm the US, just as much as it does the UK.
What happened is a huge environmental disaster and a tragedy for the people who live in the area as well as the wildlife, but destroying BP won't make it better.
I grew up on the south west coast of the UK at the time of the Torrey Canyon (American tanker) disaster, so know what it is like to find tarballs on the beach, see slicks of oil in the sea and across the sand and see footage of birds covered in oil and fishermen losing their livelihoods every night on the local news. Anyone who can help should help, including the US government - the inquest can wait until later
Indeed, and the British government too.
In fact I agree fully, i suggest American and British military efforts, with a view to charging the full cost to BP Plc over a period of time once (and only once) the issue is remedied.
The blame lies with the corporation, they have even admitted that. The debt should lie with the corporation, with various stakeholders (such as the American government) staking their claim for compensation and reimbursement only after the problem has been fully resolved.
It is clear that a completely un-nationalised business is not the direct responsibility of any government. What is also clear however is that we have a huge environmental catastrophe on the cards and whatever it takes to remedy is necessary immediately.
The issue of cost and regulation on future BP Plc can be discussed later.
It's an all hands to the pump situation - clean it up and then look at ways of ensuring it will never happen again. BP have always indicated that they would pay for the clean up and compensate people for loss of business.
It is easily achieved too. All the American government has to do is place a levy on American profits recieved for the next 10 or 20 years. Say an extra 5 cents per $1 until repayed. If the British get involved, although that may not be necessary, then they just have to do the same with British profits. There are US and UK subsidiaries, no complication there.
It is no different from bailing out the banks. BP would lose a lot more money if they dont manage to clear it up quickly. Done.
they were discussing those figures yesterday on some show or something I read. regardless of ownership, they made many mistakes, MMS wasn't doing their job with enforcing regulations and we see the results of our addiction to oil. it's up to everyone to correct the mess. we need to cut down our consumption of oil. boycotting BP gas stations does nothing to the pockets of BP who only own very few of those stations. it hurts the families who own the businesses. BP adds its additives to big box store fuel tanks. They're more about drilling and collecting oil, not owning gas stations.
if you didn't see this article on another thread, I'll post it here. it covers the bases more than we've seen on tv or in the local paper. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … how_page=0
as far as the President making the remark about kicking $#%, that was nothing but political posturing. the public wanted him to be angry. it was, IMO, a gaffe, he shouldn't have said it.
by Castlepaloma5 years ago
We all need licenses and insurance for a car, or home, even our dog and many of our jobs needs license and none were design to kill.About 80% of Americans own guns, but that's not enough. Do we really need more guns in...
by CMHypno7 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's...
by Kathryn L Hill5 years ago
by kerryg7 years ago
Go ahead, boycott BP. Not only do you get to send a message to the company that has proved incapable of stopping the undersea gusher unleashed on April 20, but (unless you live in a one-gas-station town) you can do it...
by Thomas Byers3 years ago
Its really sad that we as Americans let the Democrats and Republicans pull games on us and keep our minds off the really important issues that face us as Americans. How can we not demand real solutions to the...
by MechanicGuy58568 years ago
Concerning the situation with the missionaries in Haiti, I believe that they are innocent. That is my opinion and while others may have their own opinions on this topic, this is not the primary issue. The American...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.