Strategic Advice for BP America: Just Move On (asap)

[marions ghost]

...like a strong, dominant Global Corporate rapist should. Lynn does have a point about American complicity and double standards. So is this the end game scenario for BP?--BP will be "reviled" in America anyway (as GWB was in Europe he points out), so just...Move On...and protect your shareholders. Seems to me this is kinda premature while the well is still spewing, and right out of "Exploitation for Dummies." Payback time. Takes two to tango. Adios. C'est la Vie. :thumbsdown:

The writer ignores the possibility of criminal charges. There's a case for fraud about how much oil is spewing to begin with. But Lynn seems to argue that BP can easily walk away.

Is this The Naked Truth or is there hope for something better?
--------------------

BP Needs to Tell Whining Americans to Take a Hike: Matthew Lynn

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a3hdg31PUmp8
Commentary by Matthew Lynn

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- Ever since oil started gushing from its well in the Gulf of Mexico, the British energy company BP PLC has responded precisely the way you’d expect from a massive corporation caught up in a terrible mess.

It has sent its public-relations staff out to grovel abjectly on television. It has run around trying to make it look like it’s doing something, even if it is only stuffing old socks into the leaking well. Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward has been wringing his hands at every available opportunity.

But this is a catastrophe on a whole new scale. Traditional responses won’t work. In fact, there are no words BP can use to apologize sufficiently for the damage the leak has caused. Whatever it says, it’s still going to be the most reviled company in America.

Instead BP should try a different tack. It should tell the U.S., and everybody in it, to go take a hike. In reality, the U.S. is guilty of the most appalling hypocrisy. It’s too late to rescue BP’s reputation now; all it can realistically hope for is to salvage as much money for shareholders as possible.

(snip) Points out US Double Standards (snip)

"So, (BP) sell your assets in the U.S. to one of the other energy majors while you still can. Just remember there’s a big world out there, with a lot of oil and cars in it. Your job is to look after the owners of the company, not make yourself acceptable to a country that doesn’t want you anymore.

Of course, doing this really will make Hayward the most-hated man in the country. But then, who cares? George W. Bush was the most-hated man in France, but since he wasn’t looking for any votes in Bordeaux, it didn’t count for much.

BP’s image in the U.S. matters only so long as it tries to do business in the U.S. If it cuts its losses and gets out now, it can carry on fine in Japan, France, Argentina and all the other countries where no one is really that bothered by what happens in the Gulf of Mexico.

Just say: “Thanks for everything guys. It was good while it lasted. Sorry about the oil spill, but so it goes. Goodbye and goodnight.”

It’s the only strategy that’s going to work now."

[Statistical]

1. I just don't see another major buying BP American assets.

1) you will have substantial retail overlap
2) future liabilities issue
3) all our oil companies are already massive. Anyone think an Exxon-BP merger or Chevron-BP merger will be approved by regulators?

My guess is is the brand gets too toxic BP simply ends the BP retail brand. BP sells oil/gas in the US but it will be like Saudi Arabia. Anyone seen a Saudi gas station lately? No. So where is all that Saudi oil going. oh yeah into every gas station in the country. No reason BP needs a retail presence to sell oil in the US. Just look at natural gas. Do you have any idea who's natural gas you burn? Not the utility that pipes it to you but the company the utility bought it from.

[AnArmyVeteran]

2. I think the OP was talking about rigs & other assets in the US

I agree with you about the overlap but BP could sell everything and get out before the US can get them to pay. BP is bigger & more powerful than most nations. If BP decides to take all of its toys and goes home what legal options does the US have to force them to pay? Nothing that I can see.

I've suggested using our military to seize every BP asset they can. What in the hell is our military for if we can't use it to protect our country. And BP is an ecoterrorist, much worse than any Al Qaeda terrorist. They have a long history of eco-carnage and they are allowed to continue their assaults against people and environments. If we keep allowing corporations to become more and more powerful there will be no countries to stop them. They will be in control of every facet of our lives. Hell, we're already near that point.

So my suggestion to use the military is not a radical idea. We should seize every BP asset and arrest every top executive at their soulless, corrupt company.

I'm a veteran and it seems we always use the military to fight against countries that never threaten us. So why don't we use the military TO PROTECT US?

[Statistical]

3. I just don't see other oil companies wanting any of BP assets.

It is like saying all AIG had to do is unload a hundred billion of toxic assets and they would be fine.

Unload to who?

You have people talking about seizing assets and you think Exxon wants to buy the assets you are talking about seizing? Really?
Give the money to BP only to have people turn their attention to seizing the "BP" well that Exxon now owns.

BP is here to stay. Count on it. The only thing that may (maybe 1 in 3 chance) happen is BP simply shuts down their retail side of the business in the United States. Retail ops aren't really that profitable they are mainly used as a hedge and oil price volatility. ever notice how gas prices lag changes in oil prices kinds smooths out the revenue which investors like.

You buy oil from 2 dozen oil companies you have never heard of every day without ever knowing it.

[marions ghost]

5. The article seems to argue

that BP doesn't even need the American market.

They can just screw America and leave us a bit...thirsty?

[Statistical]

6. Nobody "needs" the American market....

however the American market is very profitable.

We have low taxes on gas and massively subsidized car culture.
This means lots of consumption and that consumption is "dense".

The oil companies aren't here because they need to be here. US is 25% market so obviously rest of world is 75% however we are so addicted to oil, and stupid huge vehicles that we are insanely profitable for any oil company.

I just don't see BP giving that up.

Once again Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Canada, even Iraq (prior to Gulf War) all sold lots and lots and lots of oil here and were very profitable without any retail gas stations.

[marions ghost]

8. So, you'd say that

you basically agree with the article that insulating/detaching from the disaster--in order to ensure future profitability--IS the way it will play out for BP, and there's not much we can do about it?

Still seems premature and unspeakably arrogant to even suggest this while the well remains out of control...

Can the government do anything to stop BP morphing itself in this country?

[Statistical]

10. Not exactly.

I think BP will end up paying a lot for this disaster. Maybe not as much as everyone would want but certainly in the tens of billions.

After that the point becomes is the BP "brand" in US salvagable? Not necessarily BP operations but BP brand. If they feel they can salvage the brand (some greenwashing maybe) then they will.

Another option is they make a new brand and transistion that as the face of the company.

The third option is that they simply get out of the retail biz and still feed the oil beast that is the US from the production side of the house.

I may be completely wrong but I think it is very very very very very unlikely that BP abandons the US market completely. The taxpayer gets about 10%-20% of oil revenue in the US. The global average is 80%+ (Nigeria takes 97%). US oil is extremely valuable because our govt doesn't protect the oil wealth. BP isn't going to give that up unless forced out.

[marions ghost]

11. thanks for those statistics--I didnt know that

"...the taxpayer gets about 10%-20% of oil revenue in the US. The global average is 80%+ (Nigeria takes 97%). US oil is extremely valuable because our govt doesn't protect the oil wealth. BP isn't going to give that up unless forced out."

So therefore my question is--CAN BP be forced out? Are there any realistic ways that can be done by the government? How about not protecting the oil wealth--any chance that could change?

(serious questions--I haven't finished "Big Oil for Dummies" yet. You seem to know a lot).

[Statistical]

12. I am not sure.

On forcing BP out. I am not sure the legal & political ramifications of that action. UK is one of our closest allies and major trading partner. If BP pays all damages I doubt the govt can seize their assets. Then again I am not a lawyer.

As far as protecting US oil wealth. Sure no reasons we can't raise taxpayers "cut" of oil take. Hell we could even renegotiate existing contracts (Obama could say it is in light of catastrophic costs in the Gulf). The question is will we ever get anyone in Congress who is willing to do so. I would say at a minimum it should be a 50/50 split.

[marions ghost]

30. Seems like raising taxpayers cut

would be a good start. Was the cut ever higher?

[Statistical]

33. I remember reading somewhere that prior to 1980? it was roughly double what it is now.

Remember oil was also cheaper then. So oil companies paid more for less profit per barrel. Today they pay less for far more profit per barrel.

I don't have a link though. Maybe someone else has seen that comparison.

[marions ghost]

34. that is interesting

so it was undone by Raygun then...?

They probably really wanted to get it down to zero...:grr:

Thanks, I will try to find some info.

[dipsydoodle]

4. So you're going to send your military

in to get their assets in Russian and China etc ? Good luck with that venture.

[AnArmyVeteran]

7. They can seize all of the assets in our country and our surrounding waters

I'm not advocating a world war. That is a bit silly. But if we can't use our military to protect us from REAL threats what are they good for? I'm tired of having my military and my brothers and sisters in the military dying needlessly in countries that never threatened us, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just what is so special about corporations where everyone wants to protect them? I just don't get it. Corporations are like floating countries that can roam all over the world buying governments, writing laws and then plundering the resources of the people. We should be able to protect ourselves from them.

Osama Bin Laden made a big mistake. If he had only came to the US and made Al Qaeda a corporation he would be totally protected from any personal liability. Corporate law virtually ensures any CEO or top executive can do whatever they want, kill people or destroy the environment, and get away with it. They even get to keep their ill-gotten fortunes. What is worse, random and scattered attacks by suicide bombers or a giant eco-terrorism organization like BP that can pollute entire bodies of water, kill 11 workers & billions of sea creatures and destroy the livelihoods of millions of people? Frankly, I'm tired of corporations being allowed to run amuck corrupting my government and destroying my country.

I'm a veteran and I believe the greater threat to my country are corporations like BP who have no allegiance to any country and have zero regard for the people of those countries. What's ironic is that even Al Qaeda is motivated by 'principles', while BP is void of them. And Al Qaeda has no regard for personal wealth, while corporations like BP are obsessed with greed, one of the seven deadly sins. Yes, I know, Al Qaeda's principles are evil and distorted, but at least they are not driven by greed like BP is. It's sad how even the evil organization like Al Qaeda is more principled than BP. They do have one thing in common. They are both led by sociopaths.

[dipsydoodle]

15. I understand what you mean now.

However - in this instance taking their assets would yield you less than letting things run given the sheer level of trading profits their overall assets yield on a day to day running basis in their hands.
As far as I'm aware they have already faced up to the damages claim being at least US$25 billion having spent c. US$1.2 billion so far.

:hi:

[marions ghost]

17. Yes it is a twisted mentality at the top...pathological, certifiable

I agree with that.

But if BP and the govt are now bedfellows, and BP makes the rules, why would the govt use the military to seize anything? In this compromised position, all the military can do is help mitigate the horrible aftermath. Am I wrong?

:shrug:

[AnArmyVeteran]

31. If president, I would go on national television and list every recipient of BP money

Yes, even myself :) President Obama needs to start calling people out like he said he was going to do. But in his latest interview he said he was studying the situation to see whose ass he can kick. It sounds like he hasn't figured out how BP, Halliburton and Transocean were all at the scene of the crime that they are guilty of willful neglect. Frankly, I am tired of minced words and safe talk. I'd like to hear him get tough, followed by decisive action.

In any other criminal case indictments would already be issued and arrests would already be made. But since this is a 'godly' corporation and leaders of corporations act like they are more powerful than even the president I can see why there is so much foot dragging going on. I sure wish we had leaders in government with courage and with conviction.

I'm an Obama delegate, but I have no idea who that man is in the White House. I worked for a year to get him elected and all I've seen him do is cave into the right wing and corporations. I didn't work tirelessly to elect a 'Bush-lite'. I worked to get a leader into the White House to enact real change. But so far Obama's actions have been too little and too late. He caved on the public option and allowed ignorant and illiterate tea baggers outsmart him. I know Obama is a smart guy, but to let the stupidest people in the country outfox you isn't very smart.

[marions ghost]

32. Foot dragging...

Thoughts that come to mind:

I'm wondering if Obama HAS found the limits of his authority when it comes to corporations, especially those as entrenched as BP (and the insurance companies, for that matter).

White Collar Crime--it doesn't work the same way as other crimes, esp at that level. There seems to be no real procedures that are dependable (well, look at the Justice Dept). Once in a while there's something so bad (Enron, etc) they have to clean house or they'd have no cred. But they don't prosecute unless they absolutely have to. And the people & environment matter much less than the stockholders.
Yes, I hope they bring criminal charges and make them stick, but so many get off. Maybe this is too big. White Collar Crime--seems to me just a game of chicken. No disincentives. No teeth. No hard time.

I guess I never saw Obama as being able to magically change things overnight. The damage done by the Bushites is like what BP has done to the Gulf...many years to turn around. Look at the congress Obama has to work with. I think his intentions were good going into office but he has run into a lot of resistance. Nothing he wins will be won easily. He's made mistakes IMO, but did you not know that he would be fought to the death on everything?

I still think that Obama may not have much to lose in trying, re. BP. Public outcry is growing. We Liberals are not really represented too much in government. So the call for him to act has to come from other sectors as well.

[AnArmyVeteran]

36. PASS FORFEITURE LAWS FOR WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS NOW!

PASS FORFEITURE LAWS FOR WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS NOW!

There are laws that empower the government to seize all property, bank accounts, automobiles, essentially all possession of a person who is caught dealing even a small quantity of drugs. So why are there no equivalent laws to strip away all the possessions of white collar criminals like Ken Lay, Bernard Madoff, BP, Halliburton, Transocean and thousands of others like them?

"We the People" need to FORCE our government to pass forfeiture laws to strip away every dime from any white collar criminal who steals more than $100,000 or damages the environment.

Let's pass a law that would seize every possession of any white collar criminal. Take their mansions, fleets of luxury cars, yatchs, jewelry, bank accounts, stocks, bonds, even their family dog. Take EVERYTHING from them AND their families! And then we should never let them amass more than $12,000 a year for the rest of their lives so they can learn to experience what it means to be one of their victims.

But of course conservative republicas love it when corrupt businesses screw people. In 2000 Bush said "Businesses MUST be allowed to regulate themselves!" Republican deregulation has destroyed our country.

Call your representatives and DEMAND they pass a White Collar Criminal Forfeiture Law!!!!

[marions ghost]

37. OK

that seems specific--forfeiture law. Yes, they should have their assets removed. As far as not letting them amass any more than 12K, well that might be a bit low. (& let their dogs visit them at Camp Fluffy). But they ARE repeat offenders so they would have to be controlled some way. These days they walk right out and do it again after the wrist-slap. It's all about legalities, when there is no morality. The laws must be much stronger, and enforced.

I agree with you that white collar crime is destroying this country. It's rampant at local, state and federal levels. There needs to be a revolution in how this country deals with white collar crime. it would go a long way toward bringing about some of the major changes we all want to see.

White Collar Crime is very difficult to address because the guilty are protecting each other right and left. It's even hard to get statistics on it. Many people don't realize how vulnerable they are, and how it's hurting us in so many ways. Maybe this BP example will sensitize people to realize how it's all connected, if they don't know this already.

I am with you all the way on this, AAV. :thumbsup:

[AnArmyVeteran]

38. You know what's weird?

Our US Coast Guard can fire one, arrest and seize any boat in the ocean if it has a certain amount of drugs on it. Then everything that person owns can be seized by the US court system. Why can't and why hasn't our Coast Guard seized all BP assets and rigs? They should have at least treated the BP disaster site as a crime scene.

I just don't get it. A boat carrying a small amount of drugs can be seized, even though their harm to the country is zero. But BP can kill 11 workers and destroy most of the Gulf of Mexico and still no arrests or seizures!!!!! I don't get it!!!

We need someone with a damned pair to go after the criminals at BP.

[marions ghost]

39. About prosecuting environmental offenders

This is interesting from a legal firm called "ClientEarth":

Dangerous leaks in legal safeguards around extractive industries

Today the US administration announced that it was launching a ‘criminal probe’ into the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Criminal sanctions cannot provide the answer to corporate negligence

Ben Bundock, company law expert at public interest law organisation ClientEarth, says: "Criminal prosecutions under existing law will not stop events such as the Deepwater Horizon disaster from happening in the future. The problems that allowed this spill to happen are systemic: they go beyond the decisions or actions of any one individual in the company, and specific individual actions that contribute to these kinds of disasters are often outside of the reach of the criminal law.

“Criminal punishment imposed after disasters can play a role in moulding and regulating corporate behaviour to avoid events like these in the future, but today’s announcement can’t hide the fact that there has been a fundamental failure to enforce already weak regulation. This has been the case in the United States’ jurisdiction: it is also the case in many more jurisdictions across the globe, where criminal liability holds even less dissuasive power.

“There is a lack of regulation and accountability in the extractive industries. But even if sufficient regulations are in place, terrible risks will continue to be taken if they are not rigorously enforced. The disparity between regulation and enforcement is real, and it’s very significant. The enforcement gap needs to be closed in the day-to-day monitoring of these companies.

“We also need to find other ways to improve how companies manage risks, not least by looking at the laws that determine how companies communicate their environmental and social impacts and risks to shareholders and investors."

[marions ghost]

40. This is the group

http://www.clientearth.org/

"a fundamental failure to enforce already weak regulation" in the US...

[AnArmyVeteran]

42. Laws need to be changed to imprison corporate executives for life sentences.

I know there have always been two sets of laws, one for the average Joe and one for the rich. A CEO gets all the benefits, but none of the risks on their corporations. No matter what they do they are virtually insulated from personal liability. THAT MUST CHANGE. A sociopathic criminal like Tony Hayward should have every dime of his fortune seized and should be left a pauper. He should be sentenced to a lifetime of walking up and down the Gulf coast picking up tar and oil. He should be forced to work at least 12 hours a day of hard labor. But we all know if you're rich you are accountable to no one. Laws have been crafted to protect the rich because the wealth and corporations buy our politicians to protect themselves from any liability. How is that justice?

The only way to change our unjust system is through tough campaign finance reform to STOP the purchasing of our elections. And I wish people would stop their practice of blindly voting for one of the two major political parties and vote for third party candidates. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Given that definition most of the American people are insane, or at least extremely stupid.

[marions ghost]

43. I think this BP Oil Spill

is a good example of corporate criminality. America has been deluded into thinking that white collar crimes are not crimes of violence, that they are crimes resulting in monetary losses. In fact, they cause deaths every day. Corporate crimes often kill directly, as we see in the Gulf unfolding disaster, Bhopal and other places around the world. But they also kill indirectly. In this case the outright deaths on the rig will be joined by the injury & deaths of thousands later, not to mention the damage to the Gulf and it's creatures for a long time to come. No amount of damages paid to settle will ever be enough. Punishments of perpetrators would help bring some real reversals of this kind of insane risk-taking.

Agree w you about campaign finance reform. I don't agree so much about third party candidates in America. It's not realistic--the system doesn't support it. I would only vote for a third party if we had proportional representation like in much of Europe. We NEED more parties, but minority parties should be represented in government. Otherwise they will never have a chance. Change that, and then I'm ready to support a third party.

[AnArmyVeteran]

44. We need proportional representation. The winner takes all system leaves too many unrepresented.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marions ghost]

46. The system is corrupt

no doubt about that. $80 million for a gubernatorial primary. :grr: And then efforts to level the playing field for other candidates are squashed. This is the way the corporate oligarchy rules.

But I don't think third party efforts make sense in our exclusive, winner take-all 2 party system. I don't believe in "sending a message" by voting third party. Helped to give us GWB, remember. And the Green Party is nowhere after the Reign of the Bushites. We need proportional representation. It's the only way a third party has the chance to be taken seriously and make a difference.

[AnArmyVeteran]

47. The Green Party didn't defeat Gore, Gore beat Gore

In any state where Bush was supposed to win big anyway there were big pushes to vote for Green candidates. But those drives weren't held in close states. The person who lost in 2000 was Gore. I could have debated Bush better. And Gore was terrified to allow Ralph Nader into the debates. Since Gore was unwilling or unable to out Bush for the dolt and corrupt thug he was, Ralph Nader would have, if he was allowed to debate. Hell, the Commission for Presidential Debates, made up of one democrat and one republican excluded Nader because it was just another corrupt organization to keep the power in the hands of the two corrupt major parties. Nader would have completely destroyed Bush in a debate and the beneficiary of that destruction would have been Gore. If Nader was allowed in the debates then Gore would have won by enough votes the election couldn't have been stolen.

And if Gore had just asked for a state-wide recount he would have probably have won. But that was another blunder. I remember all my friends at that time scratching our heads during the entire election and wondering if Gore was trying to intentionally lose. It all looked like the insiders had already picked a winner before the damned election. Gore made so many blunders, like agreeing with Bush during a debate that it's is no surprise he lost. No one goes into a debate and agrees with their opponents. That was so laughable, especially when you're debating a dunce like Bush.

Nader didn't give us Bush. Gore did. Like I said, I could have debated Bush and destroyed him. But in one so-called 'debate' Gore just sat there agreeing with everything Bush said. Gore is a smart guy, but he sure isn't a good debater. I truly believe a high school debate student could have done a better job than Gore did.

We do need proportional representation. And you know which party champions that idea? The Green Party. And the Reform Party was responsible for sending a message to Washington to balance the budget. That surplus under Clinton wouldn't have happened without the pressures brought on by the Reform Party. And all through our country's history third parties have been the ones to enact big changes. We don't have a two party system. We have a one party system with two heads. Any 'third' party would actually be a 'second' party since both the Rs and Ds are so filled with corporate prostitutes.

I agree the system is corrupt, but it will be impossible to change it through the two major parties. Until we have REAL campaign finance reform we will continue to have a revolving door of whores going to Washington. No honest person can ever rise up through the ranks of either major party and win. But they can in third parties.

[marions ghost]

48. The way the system is now

without the changes in financing, proportional representation, etc, no third party has a chance. Anyway the Green Party is nowhere.

Gore was a great candidate who almost won. Two factors prevented it--1. election theft all over the country, and 2. The Green Party.

I see you know a lot about this and I respect your POV, but I don't think Nader could have boosted Gore enough to avoid election theft. It worked the other way around. The Green Party brought the numbers down to the point that election rigging worked.

As for what would have happened in any debate with Nader...from what I've seen it might not have been a plus for the things we care about. Nader had his day--he needed to rest on his laurels. He was at his best as a pontificator, not as a candidate. You'll never get me to see any pluses about the presence of Nader. :shrug:

[truedelphi]

29. Exxon - BP merger has already existed.

Examine the real facts behind the Valdez spill. Just who was in charge of cleanup there? Why BP, of course. (Under a different company/conglomerate name - all various divisions of any major corporation have names for the many offshoots of their brand. Alaska Oil Spill cleanup had BP's Alaska Oil Spill clean up division in charge.)

So this is really the SECOND time in thirty one years that BP has screwn us over because they do not have a legit play book for cleaning up oil spills.

It is too bad that no one anywhere paid attention to this fact. Even Mr Envrionment himself, Al Gore,
seems to have struck out on paying attention to the need for REAL substantial Oil Cleanup legislation.

But then I have always been a tad suspicious of Al - it was his vote during in his reign as Senate President that dis-allowed for meaningful pesticide reform. And who of course lies behind pesticides? Big Oil itself...

[marions ghost]

35. And

Al Gore gave up politics as a career after the stolen election. I don't think we can say what he would have done in office. He certainly has done more for the environment than most. :eyes:

I do agree that oil company abuse goes way back, but look what happened in the 80's. They got what they wanted. Valdez was 1989. 1990--Hey, look over there...why, it's a...Desert Storm!

[blindpig]

9. What an asshole

He does have a perfect understanding of capitalism though.

[Catherina]

16. And for that, I gave it a rec.

People need to understand what capitalism and corporations are about. We leave ourselves at the mercy at our peril.

[BeFree]

13. What a mess

First off BP has sunk a gulf full of money into its US retail marketing.
Remember all the BP ads we used to see?

See all the BP signs still on the roads?
Those signs will become collector items, that is the signs that don't get burned by angry mobs.

Obama needs to just take posession of BP before it does just walk, which it will do.
After Obama owns all of BP in America, it can then sell off the pieces and buyers will be safe from, what is the word, indemnity?

It's like when the govt. takes over houses. They sell and there is no need for a title search.

Whatever, BP, in any American sense, is dead as a viable retail business. BP signed gas station owners should all be suing BP for damages. And putting the BP signs in storage, away from the angry mobs. <grin>

[marions ghost]

14. Give me a precedent

for the US govt taking over BP... I'm dumb on economics history.

As pointed out upthread, BP can likely still sell us the oil, even if BP brand is dead. So it would seem we need a mechanism to prevent or discourage that (skimming their excess profits better than they skim oil?)

[BeFree]

18. precedent

Is there one? I doubt it, except for us owning GM, which was unprecedented, eh?

Basically what we are seeing is a massive loss in stock value - 70B already.
Almost 30B of that was lost by Americans. Those stock owners need to be reimbursed.

Then we are looking at another 70B in cleanup costs and payments to injured parties.

Before BP falls over flat, and with it the movement of the oil, Obama needs to protect us from further financial losses, impediments to distribution and the coming British finger as BP walks away.

The money saved in lawyer fees alone would be amazing.

[marions ghost]

19. So we need to get 100B at least,

prevent "impediments to distribution" & avoid further losses.

Would that do it for us then, theroretically? As far as settling our grievances?

So you say we need to pre-empt BP's reneging & walking, by seizing BP? By what mechanism?

[BeFree]

20. Liens

Obama places liens on all BP real property.

If someone comes and works on your house and you don't pay them, they put a lien on your property, and your property can be sold to pay that lien.

[marions ghost]

21. Something I read

over at Daily Kos on this lien question:

"If EPA entered an enforcement order, the US Attorney could go to court the same day to seek a lien on BP assets. That might force some quicker action by the company."

--IF EPA entered an enforcement order...maybe they are saving this threat if BP renegs on promises?

(deal, in other words)...

[BeFree]

22. well

the only friends BP has are the neo-cons. and cheney's people have polluted EPA.
Not only polluted but actively worked to destroy EPA.

[marions ghost]

24. Right, what I thought, so if

the EPA has to act before liens are possible, then that door may be closed?

[BeFree]

26. Obama

With my audacious hope for change, I believe Obama can break down the door.

[BeFree]

27. So, I wonder

What the hell is Obama waiting on?

Mr. Obama, Tear down that door!!

[marions ghost]

28. maybe for the money

ie. the billions, to start coming in on the BP evil tide? ...

I hear ya, but he is compromised by his support of them and them of him. I guess that's why it would be all the more powerful.

[truedelphi]

41. You don't seem to understand this - BP owns

President Obama.

Obama cannot even think of this nation owning BP.

[KharmaTrain]

23. Yep...Then Sneak Back In Later...

I expect BP to "rebrand" itself and there's some posts here that say that's happening already. BP stations changing their names to Arco...different name same boss. It's "brand name" which was never that strong is dirt now...and it makes "business sense" to cut losses rather than face all the legal messes and years of badwill this disaster is sure to bring. The stock will continue to tank as long as the oil gusher is shown on split screen. The writer hits it when he says BP should cut its losses.

And yes there are competitors who are salivating over picking up the business...especially the billions in military contracts that BP currently holds. I think the President should immediately void that contract based on BP's criminal negligence in this disaster and let's see who jumps to fill the need.

While the SCOTUS thinks a corporation deserves the rights of an individual, that only goes to them being able to buy politicians, not be held responsible for this incredible disaster. They can close shop here...wait a couple years and buy their way back in. Welcome to the age of the "global" economy on steroids.

[marions ghost]

25. Don't we

have to get our money of of them before we cut off their arms and such? I ask because you said "immediately"...

:think: just pondering, no challenges--I don't have enough insight to really challenge anything about business/legal matters--just trying to understand...