Oil Slick - the implications

obi_waynne

Administrator
Staff member
Moderator
Points
1,157
Location
Deal, Kent UK
Car
A3 1.4 TFSI 150 COD
What do you see the implications being from the oil slick off America courtesy of BP!

Do you think prices will rise as off shore drilling becomes more risky,expensive?

Will BP survive this crisis in your opinion and what will the ramifications be for other oil producers?

Has this disaster affected your view of BP as a company?
 
price will go up, esp if its going to be december before they can plug the hole.

wasted oil
environmental clean up
and fines
BP will recover them through the customer
 
Prices will go up as ,unfortunately for BP, the spill happened off the US coast, there have been countless spills off the coast of less developed countries, where the big companies get off scot free.
 
bp cant be allowed to go into recevership as lots of uk pensions are tied to the company.

And that is a very very good point. Whether there is any funding left to deal with pensions is a different matter.

I doubt that BP will go into voluntary liquidation over this problem alone.

Whether it should be allowed to do so is again different.

Company pensioners are not at the top of the creditors list. Nor are current staff who may be owed salary.

Gordon B set a precedent by bailing out banks. The high court of appeal might well see thing differently.
 
they are estimating costs to run as high as USD30billion (including fines etc....) and seem comfortable to cover this. Note that the US govt is really behaving like a small child though, they shld be working hard with BP to find a solution not continuing to grandstand to try and gain points by saying its BP's fault and they will have to pay. Ok, so it is, and they will, but at the moment just stop the damn hole from leaking.

repercussions. oil price will increase, reduced willingness by the US govt to let foreign (as believe they will still let US companies) drill offshore in their waters - at least with the current administration in power. The greens will be out waving their windmills at everyone saying "told you so" and pushing govt's again to consider alternative energy.
 
BP Surely have enough to cover through this as James Cameron "The Creator of Avatar" Offered His Subs to BP to help in this mess and after a long chat BP Turned him down!

So BP must have a plan to help Pervert them from Spreading but is getting worried as the Oil was seen 7 Miles from Flordia where 1.5million Tourist come every year, if this manage to hit the beach then BP Will be in a hell of a mess
 
the current rhetoric from the Obama administration is now being aimed more and more at Britain by his continual xenophobic attitude and references to 'british petroleum' which isnt even the name of the company (any longer). either his advisers are complete morons for not knowing this or else he is trying to make a dig at the Britain.
Therefore, the implications are:
1) The US administration are trying to hide their own incompetence.
2) They are trying to centre the blame on BP and ignore that Transocean and Halliburton (who they favour for their contracts) were involved.
3) The price of BP will go so low it will make it a takeover target for a US oil major.

Only solution, stop buying oil/petrol from any US company (do we actually have any marketed in the UK) and do not support these arrogant imbeciles in their continual plight for world domination.

(perhaps this would have been better in the rant thread but seemed to make more sense going here).
 
To clarify BP is still British but it is just not called 'British Petroleum', it is called BP.

In the UK a number of other smaller companies now like Dana Petroleum, Wood Group (iirc) etc....

(and no companies produce oil, it is extracted, :toung: )
 
the current rhetoric from the Obama administration is now being aimed more and more at Britain by his continual xenophobic attitude and references to 'british petroleum' which isnt even the name of the company (any longer). either his advisers are complete morons for not knowing this or else

A lot of people, including myself, do not know that BP is now just BP and not British Petroleum. I also remember a company called Shell Mex and BP.
 
Last edited:
indiaman: would have thought that the 'all-powerful' US govt would be able to get their facts straight before making these kind of statements demonising specific companies and individuals. Although, seems that 'mis-direction' is the order of the day from Obama - seems he has been watching 'Swordfish' too much.
 
Here is an interesting bit of news I got today Re: the oil spill.

We are turning down help with the oil spill
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...est=latestnews

Jones Act Slowing Oil Spill Cleanup?
June 10, 2010 - 5:41 PM | by: Brian Wilson
Foreign companies possessing some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships say they are being kept out of efforts to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf because of a 1920’s law known as the Jones Act -- a protectionist law that requires vessels working in US waters be built in the US and be crewed by US workers.

Joseph Carafano of the Heritage Foundation has been studying the matter and wonders, “Are we accepting all the international assistance in the maritime domain that we can, and is the Jones Act an impediment to that?”

The Coast Guard and the Administration are quick to point out that some foreign technology is being used in the current cleanup effort. Including:

- Canada’s offer of 3,000 meters of containment boom

- Three sets of COSEQ sweeping arms from the Dutch

- Mexico’s offer of two skimmers and 4200 meters of boom

- Norway’s offer of 8 skimming systems

But that is largely technology transferred to US vessels. Some of the best clean up ships – owned by Belgian, Dutch and the Norwegian firms are NOT being used. Coast Guard Lt. Commander, Chris O’Neil, says that is because they do not meet “the operational requirements of the Unified Area Command.” One of those operational requirements is that vessels comply with the Jones Act.
"Yes, it does apply,” said ONeil,“ I have heard no discussions of waivers.”

Waivers to the Jones Act were granted by the administration of George W. Bush in the days following hurricane Katrina. And today, the Obama White House said waivers might again be considered.
“If there is the need for any type of waiver, that would obviously be granted,” said White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs. “But, we've not had that problem thus far.”

Democratic Senator Bill Nelson is not so sure about that. He’s hearing from the folks back home in Florida, where they want all the skimmer ships they can get. He sent a letter to Admiral Thad Allen today which read in part:
“Admiral, I believe the orange mousse of oil that is now in Florida’s waters is more than enough evidence that we need to take advantage of every appropriate global resource. Please advise as to whether we are taking full advantage of the offers of assistance from other countries.”

When asked about this by Fox News, Admiral Allen said, “If it gets to the point where a Jones Act waiver is required, we're willing to do that too Nobody has come to me with a request for a Jones Act waiver.”
After 50 plus days of oil flowing freely into the gulf, the question could be asked: Why do effective and proven foreign clean up ships remain on the sidelines? Carafano believes it may have something to do with the Obama administration’s close relationship with labor unions.

“Cause this is a big thing for unions,” Carafano said. “The unions see it as … protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that. So … are we giving in to unions and not doing everything we can, or is there some kind of impediment that we don't know about?

If the Obama Administration needs an example of what can happen when global assets are allowed to tackle a massive oil spill, they need look no further than Saudi Aramco’s clean up of a massive wartime spill off the Kuwaiti coast in 1991. Aramco summoned every available ship to assist in the cleanup. The company claims it recovered 900,000 barrels of oil in roughly three months. The industry views that effort as the gold standard in oil spill cleanups.
____________
 
so not only are we the British getting the blame for it they arent allowing outside help unless it can be fitted to their ships.

so they are saying its one of the worst catastrophes to happen in recent years but not willing to get it cleared up quickly because of an act that favours US workers.

mmmm is Mr Obama getting worried about the mid term elections in 5 months
 
nice, must be near the time to buy BP shares as if they can prove this in a US court then suddenly the damages charges could be significantly reduced.
 
BP shares are very appealing at the moment as long as the company recovers fully. I'm thinking that a failure of BP would have such major repercussions that it would not be allowed to happen but look at Enron....
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
obi_waynne The massive implications of electric cars General car Chat 3

Similar threads


Please watch this on my YouTube channel & Subscribe.


Back
Top