I used to like Obama, instead he is hammering nails into UK industry by making BP the scapegoat for a whole catalogue of industry wide mistakes and failures of regulation and legislation.
How on earth can the intentional murder of 2000+ people in an act of religious hatred compare to an unfortunate oil spill? There are oil spills every year, and always will be.
Yes it is unfortunate that this one was so close to his country, but it is not even the biggest in US history, and not even the biggest spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Sorry Obama, you have lost me here. Thanks for pushing down my pension today buddy
I wish that the most powerful man in the world would think about hhow his empty words effect others.
Yes the spill is a tragedy, needs to get sorted, but lets put some perspective on this....
Ah...yeah, it is the biggest in US history!
Bigger than the Lakeview Gusher?
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/13 … n-20100613
I suggest that you check your history.
We don't know the exact numbers yet, but The Lakeview Gusher was an oil well blow-out disaster that started in March in 1910 near Maricopa, Calif. The Pasadena Star-News reports that the Lakeview Gusher lasted 18 months andspilled 9 million barrels of oil — 378 million gallons.
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico 2010 may have dumped up to 122 million gallons in 50 days. Some experts believe that figure to be much higher.
The Lakeview Gusher blowout flowed at about 48,000 barrels a day. Estimates of the BP oil spill run as high as 72,000 barrels, or 3 million gallons a day. And it ain't over yet...also the gulf oil spill is distributed over a wider are. The enviromental impact alone is unfathomanable at this time.
This spill isn't history yet sir.
So I am right, at this moment in time the 'Deep Horizon' tragedy has a long long way to go to become the worst Oil Spill in US history.
By my calculations the 'Deep Horizon' would have to continue at its current rate for almost a year to become worse than the Gusher.
Come back in 11 months and your history will be correct.
A BP oil rig explodes in the Gulf and collapses, thus causing a disaster of monumental proportion for many coastal cities in the Gulf.
Who exactly should be blamed if not BP?
The numerous other parties involved in the building of the rig and who should be made accountable for at least a large proportion of the liability. I have a hub on this topic if it helps.
You would be suprised just how much blame can be placed on other businesses, and I hope that BP takes them to the cleaners when it has to begin paying its $34bn fine.
One of the businesses was once run by Dick Cheney. The rig itself was staffed by an American company too.
Why not check out my hub, then you will know more about the subject.
Did Obama make that comparison of the oil spill to 9/11?
Wow, to compare this accidental disaster to the intentional murder of almost 3,000 people is unbelievable. Even if the remarks were made about the impact and not the act itself. He gets to garner sympathy for the oil and downplay the terrorists all in one little comment.
He needs to stop talking so much and let the folks who have the means to clean it, do so.
The Dutch offered to 3 days after the explosion and our moron president said no thanks. You have to wonder why.
From what I read, the BP rig was approved by this administration, about 10 days before the explosion by the woman (Elizabeth something) who has now been fired over it.
Really? So the fact that BP only actually owned a 65% share in that well is irrelevant? Anadarko owned 25% of it, a Texan based oil company.
Only 8 of the 165 employees responsible for the rig were employed by BP.
The rig itself was owned by Transocean, an American firm, who were also responsible for staffing. On the night of the tragedy only 18 people were on the rig, the lowest number of staff on a single shift on any records. To quote my hub on this very subject "None of these were engineers, electricians, subsea supervisors or mechanics."
The blow out preventer which failed was made by a firm called Cameron, an American firm.
The cement work designed to 'seal' the well was done by Halliburton - a firm once run by Dick Cheney.
Can you be so sure now?
I have a hub on this topic, you are more than welcome to read it
http://hubpages.com/hub/British-Petrole … ho-Owns-BP
So you don't feel BP had a responsibility to make sure these companies were doing their jobs,(whatever country they are from) to protect their interest?
Maybe you can get them to let you do an infomercial. Oh...wait, they're doing a bunch of those themselves..."We're to blame.etc."
Yes I apportion a large amount of blame on BP, its executives, and even its shareholders.
What I do not support however is the collapse of the business as some sort of 'punishment', enforced by President Obama.
And, as an American citizen, neither should you. (See above comment).
There are two parties who could ultimately fit the bill for this. Either the American taxpayer could fit the bill and seek repayment over a period of time from BP..... or Obama could kill the corporation and the American taxpayer could pay for the lot.
There has to be corporate responsibility. BP has taken responsibility. That should be all that is required, and in fact BP has done a hundred times more than the American government/military in cleaning up this disaster so far.
Obama may achieve some sort of strange moral victory through the death of BP, but try telling that to the 96000 people who subsequently struggle to feed their families or pay their mortgages. And don't moan when the collapse of the third largest Oil provider results in the remaing 5 'supermajors' bumping up their 'gas' prices as a result.
Ryan I did not say the British are to blame. I said BP oil is to blame.
Saying that the country is to blame for the screw ups of a company that originated there is insane. I have never thought of BP oil belonging to the UK any more than Tyco or Boeing belongs to the USA.
No you are quite right, you didn't. But it is the UK which stands to lose the most from Obama's inaccuracies, the shares are listed on the UK markets. That is a significant proportion of 61 million people who stand to lose large proportions of their retirement funds as a result of Obama's failure to acknowledge external involvement in this tragedy in favour of making constant reference to 'British Petroleum', a company which no longer exists.
Our government is finding itself under increasing pressure to become much less diplomatic, as Obama moves towards making this a diplomatic issue over a corporate one. And the issue is a corporate one. Thus far he appears even unwilling to acknowledge that BP is now Anglo-American, instead placing the focus firmly on the 'Britishness' of this not very British corporation.
He is protecting his own markets at the expense of the British markets. That may seem attractive to some Americans, but protectionism is not the way forward - a stronger UK government could potentially cause just as much damage in return. There are a LOT of US interests in the UK.
The collapse of the UKs biggest company, as a result of Obama's continued bad publicity, would - I fear - create a fair bit of anti-American sentiment. This would not be good for the business interests of American or British people.
I am becoming increasingly annoyed with Obama and his unfair spin, that is as far as my opinion stretches really. There are strong statements appearing that suggest that the next tragedy could quite easily come from an Exxon-Mobil rig. And to be honest, if there has to be another tragedy, that may not be a bad thing to knock Obama down off of his perch.
"instead placing the focus firmly on the 'Britishness' of this not very British corporation."
The collapse of the UKs biggest company, as a result of Obama's continued bad publicity,
So is BP a British company?
I have a hub on this subject.
40% of the business is owned by British individuals and institutions.
39% of the business is owned by American individuals and institutions.
It is Anglo-American in ownership structure. Yet it remains, by virtue of the value of that 40% (pre-spill), the biggest British company.
And yes that does make full sense, its not my fault if you can't understand the principles of international business.
BP actually employs 24000 people in America, 10000 people in the UK. The headquarters are in the UK.
Ask yourself whether America can afford to lose 24000 more skilled and highly paid jobs. Probably not. Neither can the UK afford to lose that 10000.
If they do, blame Obama. Enough said.
Just repeating your words sir...so your saying that BP is actually better America then for the UK.
I don't have to understand the principles of international business to realize there is plenty of blame to go around.
That being said, it is those of us who live here in the South that are going to have to deal with the ecological impact...so don't expect us to be too worried about BP's financial future...at least not right away.
You live in West Memphis, please don't make out that you are going to walk the beaches saving birds. I would if I could afford it, there are some real victims out there sweetheart - but I'm not so sure that somebody from Arkansas could really paint a picture of themselves being one.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the situation. I have walked beaches and helped to deal with the aftermath of oil spills before. I have absolutely no denial whatsoever that a tragedy has occured on a massive scale, and that the tragedy needs to be dealt with.
Ask yourself who is going to pay for the clean up if BP goes under. A business with annual revenues of $200bn+ per year could pay for it in the long run.
The collapse of BP would result in the bill being picked up by the American taxpayer, in other words you. By looking at the bigger picture, I am sure that you will be able to see the bigger picture.
Sure thing, watch BP go under, Exxon Mobil wouldn't be paying the price - you will darling.
Screw BP. They've lied through their teeth about the damage being done since day one.
Screw Dick Cheny. He is the antichrist.
Screw Republicans. This is what happens when we "drill, baby, drill."
Screw Obama. Off-shore drilling was your big concession to the right. We were right. This is what you want more of.
Screw the gulf coast. Oh, wait, we already did.
I just love all the experts on this crisis...
I think I'm going to ban myself from the forums for a while.
some very disheartening threads here recently.
So, are you saying that you disagree with my thread? And that 9/11 does indeed bare striking similarities to an oil spill?
There are families of 9/11 victims who are voicing their strong dissaproval of such a comparison, as you can see via the links that I posted.
Try telling them that my thread is worthless.
We get the distinction. But the remarks were in very bad taste to link the spill at all to intentional terrorism. It is just further proof that he doesn't understand the depth of what 9/11really means to Americans.
Correct. I personally don't think that anybody other than those directly affected by 9/11 is in a position to justifiable make that comparison, it is just bad taste. There are plenty of direct and indirect victims of 9/11 who are more than welcome to make that comparison, around the globe in fact, although I am sure that none of them would!
I have been strongly annoyed with Obama since the day he took office. That is not a popular opinion on this site and I will likely be raked over the coals by more than a few Obama supporters for saying it but the truth is the man is not qualified to perform the job he was elected to do and the not so color blind U.S. citizens that voted him into office are the ones truly responsible for the failings of this administration. I am not a racist though I will likely be called one for this but the facts are that so many US voters anxious to show the world how socially advanced we are as a nation failed to take into account that the man is unqualified.
This oil spill is a real nightmare. The worst part is, it was preventable.
However, it doesn't compare to 9/11. There was no deliberate attack on the US.
The aftermath is bad, bad, bad, for this oil spill. It is so harmful, so unbelievably harmful, that I don't really blame the Obama man that much for his casual comparison. I don't think it's valid, but I don't blame him for making it. He's naturally upset.
Just what the man needs is another major problem, right???
Keep cool Ryan hon.
You know ryan your thread is going over heads. It's become US v UK and really quite silly.
In a nutshell - ignore the B in BP. The 'British' part means jack. The company retains its name/logo due to branding (look it up) and not because it's a British company.
It's an international one. Simple. Ryans point is the fact that the US President is pointing fingers (of blame) at the UK - which is irrelevant as Britain does not own BP. It ain't rocket science trying to see his point
I would just like to point out to people that all I want is for Obama and BP to work together to solve the crisis, which BP has taken responsibility for.
The blame game, the verbals, the accountability, the costs, they can come afterwards. Obama is not scooping up a single barrell of oil by pointing fingers at this stage.
It is in everybodies interests if he concentrates on working with all parties to solve or help the problem, before taking an axe to BP.
The collapse of BP will not make the oil dissapear, in fact at current it would make the clean up even more impossible.
The truth is, the president needs to win back some of his popularity and I'm afraid throwing BP to the wolves may be part of his plan. After all, he does want what all other 1st term presidents want.
How does that saying go again about the speck in the eye?
To be honest I haven't followed this story in too much detail, however I have noted on several occasions how the emphasis here is on BP, not the other companies that where on the rig. BP has accepted responsibility because it had little choice in the matter, however considering the fact that the RIG was, built, owned, maintained, and staffed by other companies, at the discretion of the rig's owner, not BP, it does seem a little bit strange to me that BP has been hit with the blame here.
However considering the fact that both the US government and the British Governent have both now publicly stated that our special relationship no longer exists, it may be interesting to see how it proceeds.
Yes Obama is incompetent concerning the oil spill, but that is only one of the issues he is incompetent on. The man is in so far over his head on everything.
He taught constitutional law at U. of Chicago, but he is no expert on the constitution.
He always says he has called in the best minds to help find an answer. Who are these people?
by theirishobserver. 8 years ago
Good afternoon,Today I am travelling to Louisiana with President Obama to review the efforts currently underway to respond to the massive oil spill and to lend support to the region. The Administration's efforts have been relentless from Day 1, and I know the President is eager to return to the...
by SparklingJewel 8 years ago
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/0 … capping-2/ Scroll down on above site and look at these ! GREAT YouTube's on Oil Spill. 1. Please Check it out. . . 2. ARTICLE by Dr. James...
by James L 8 years ago
Is anyone else seriously worried about the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico?I've been staying on top of all the news reports and findings as well as researching the effects of previous oil spills and it seem the more I learn the more unsettling this whole situation becomes.
by SparklingJewel 8 years ago
World Affairs Brief, June 18, 2010 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief ( http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com ) BP GULF DISASTER--EXTINCTION EVENT OR MEGA-SPILL?Getting to...
by KFlippin 8 years ago
"Red tape keeps prized oil-fighting skimmers from Gulf, coastline"Published: Monday, June 28, 2010, 10:29 PM Chris Kirkham, The Times-Picayune Excerpts from the Article (Link to full article below):"As oil oozes inland, tainting marshes and fouling beaches, local...
by Don W 8 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the regulators were in bed (figuratively and literally) with those regulated. Whereas...
Copyright © 2019 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|