So what did BP get in exchange for all of their cooperation today?

[Duer 157099]

Look we know this didn't come freely.

What did Obama promise BP in order to get them to agree with what they did today?

[lamp_shade]

1. What do YOU think? Come on... tell us what YOU think.

[Duer 157099]

6. I'm scared to even let my imagination run down that path

But I'm curious to read what others think.

[WCGreen]

2. Maybe he just promised not to do everything in his power to

put up road blocks to prevent them from doing business in the US...

[NotThisTime]

36. Maybe BP doing something RIGHT will raise their tanking stock prices OR perhaps they're hoping they

won't add to their already anticipated legal bills... after all, the President could make their lives complete hell.....

[elleng]

3. Thanks

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. BUSTED: BP CEO Caught Smiling After Leaving Meeting With Obama

Classic. Here's BP Tony Hayward -- fresh off of disgorging $20 billion and agreeing to drop his company's dividend -- smiling after he leaves The White House. You can see him try hard to suppress it as he walks closer to the camera.

Video at http://www.businessinsider.com/busted-bp-ceo-caught-smiling-after-leaving-meeting-with-obama-2010-6

[JuniperLea]

12. Ever been to a board meeting...

Wherein one member was raked over the coals? It truly is SOP to make sure you look unscathed and rather pleased with yourself. That's what you do. Been there, seen it, advised others to behave accordingly. It makes everyone wonder, doesn't it? That's the plan. There are IR concerns, you know.

[Ruby the Liberal]

43. Yes, and understood. That is where rumors get triggered that can cause market fluctuations.

As noted below, this isn't a he-said-she-said though - BP is GUILTY. They do not deny this. This meeting was supposed to be a come-to-Jesus meeting and no one on planet earth expected anything less.

"Expressionless" would have been my card of choice.

[tnlefty]

14. Interesting.

Wonder what he has to be smiling about?

[emulatorloo]

18. Because he knew there were cameras there, and if he frowned his stockholder would dump their stock

[tnlefty]

30. If you say so. I was merely pondering. If I were the CEO of a

multinational corporation who had just been called out as reckless, I don't think I would've been smiling. I think I would've been either expressionless or somber, especially in light of the disaster the recklessness caused.

But then I'm a rather straight up person not prone to playing games.

[Ruby the Liberal]

42. "expressionless"

Thank you. That is the word my mind was looking for.

[tnlefty]

49. Glad to be of help...

stonefaced also comes to mind. Smiling in light of the reckless behavior of BP just seems odd to me.

[JuniperLea]

48. bingo... this is all about investor relations eom

[tnlefty]

50. So Tony Hyward is still a callous, cold hearted

POS. Got it.

Just glad that I don't play those games and can't understand a POS who would.

[babylonsister]

24. So smiling now means what? nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

44. Happy with the outcome? Happy it wasn't worse?

Happy the Administration bit on the bait BP's lawyers said to toss out there?

I am not a Conspiracy Theorist, it just seemed rather inappropriate.

That said, I know bupkus about British culture and cultural norms. Smiling at media adversity/tension may very well be considered polite.

[JuniperLea]

51. It only means...

Never let them see you sweat... if he'd come out visibly sweating, shaking, angry, showing anything like that, it would wreak havoc with BP stock.

Investor relations... ugh...

[berni_mccoy]

5. Why don't you share with us what you believe they got?

[Duer 157099]

9. As I said above, I'm scared to guess

I've got a pretty good imagination

[TexasObserver]

7. Not to begin criminal investigations.

Perhaps.

He likely told them "I'm going to publicly spank you, and you're going to be publicly contrite. You're going to suspend dividends and set up escrowed funds for claimants, and I'm going to give you cover after that by thanking you for being responsible."

[grantcart]

8. i assume that they got a cap against further civil penalties

[Laelth]

23. Impossible. The Courts get to decide civil penalties, not the President.

The President can't control the Courts. Only a BP bankruptcy would limit the amount of penalties a Court can assess, and the $20 million in ESCRO, theoretically, protects the people from that bankruptcy a little.

However, Obama does control the FBI and Justice. He may have promised them not to push for criminal prosecutions if they agreed to his terms.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Angry Dragon]

31. Your last sentence does consern me

I do not feel that corporations will change if they are not held to the same standards and laws as people.
Bp through a standard practice of skirting safety regulations has caused the death of at least 26 people, maimed or injured close to 200.

They should, meaning the execs that run the company should be tried for these crimes. If you did this you would be tried.

edit: removed a word

[Laelth]

34. I agree. Heads need to roll. I think it is very unwise for Obama to fail to prosecute.

Those who might, in the future, destroy our environment need to be shown that they will go to jail for a long time if they do. There's no other way to effectively reduce the chance of this catastrophe recurring.

:dem:

-Laelth

[grantcart]

38. Absolutely not true. Consent agreements are filed all of the time by the DOJ

There are frequent huge consent agreements in similar situations, Microsoft for example had a

When the federal government believes that a company has broken the law they approach the company with a dollar figure in mind as a penalty.

If the company agrees then a consent agreement is filed with the courts which is held for 30 days for public comment and then is accepted or rejected by the Court.

here is an example of a recent action by the DOJ

WASHINGTON—A Texas-based pipeline company has agreed to pay a $450,000 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it failed to prepare and maintain proper facility response plans to deal with spills and environmental accidents at eight of its oil storage terminal facilities in Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska.

NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership LP of San Antonio, Texas, has also agreed to spend an additional $768,000 on a supplemental environmental project to install and operate tank volume monitoring and alarm systems at several of its facilities, according to a consent decree filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska in Omaha.

Nustar’s affected facilities include those in LeMars, Milford and Rock Rapids, Iowa; Hutchinson and Salina, Kan.; and Columbus, Geneva and Norfolk, Neb. The eight facilities have a combined storage capacity of more than 71 million gallons of oil.

The Clean Water Act requires facilities that store large quantities of oil to develop response plans that outline procedures for addressing "worst-case" discharges of oil. By being prepared and by conducting required response drills, facilities are better situated to prevent environmental harm from such releases.



Consent agreements are rarely, if ever, not accepted by the courts and in those rare cases the court accepts the framework of the consent agreement but may wish to add additional modifications, especially if it calls for future action.

The consent agreement could be limited to only the civil penalty part of the action and not for additional actual liability.



For the record its $ 20 billion not million.

[Laelth]

46. Sorry for the typo. It is, obviously, $20 billion.

But the civil penalty Microsoft paid did not shield them from individual suits. That only settled the suit of the U.S. vs. Microsoft. The U.S. can agree to limit the extent that it wants to seek civil damages, but it can not make an agreement on behalf of individuals who are affected and sue.

:dem:

-Laelth

[grantcart]

52. agreed that's why I specifically said civil penalties - brought by the federal govt

and said that civil liabilities would still be open for litigation.

[Laelth]

54. Yup. Sorry. I mis-read your post. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[wackywaggin]

53. I agree with the criminal prosecution waiver theory;

however, I feel more strongly than ever that the smirk of BP executives was due to their walking away with paying perhaps 1 or 2 billion with the rest coming from increased prices at the feul pump for you and I. Look at it this way, if they raise the gasoline prices intermitently 10-20 cents a gallon throughout the year this will more than cover their contributions to this fund. That's why they wanted to spread out the payments, to fool the American citizen into believing BP is actually contributing, when in fact the American taxpayer pays when fuel prices rise, as they did 20 cents in the last couple of days. Mark this post for 2 years down the road, and guage the flucuations in fuel costs with BP's contributions, one will see this will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Heretic Wack

[Laelth]

55. They certainly could do that, and they may. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Hubert Flottz]

10. That the GOPers in the senate will give all the BP workers free knob jobs for life?

[emulatorloo]

28. LOL n/t

[truebrit71]

11. No criminal prosecutions most likely..

.

[Laelth]

13. He didn't have to promise them anything.

And there's not much he can give them, honestly. He controls Justice and the FBI, though, so I assume he told them that he wouldn't press for criminal prosecutions if they agreed to his terms.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Tansy_Gold]

32. he would basically have to grant them pardons before the fact

in order to protect them from criminal liability. I'm no lawyer, but I believe corporations per se are effectively protected from criminal prosecution anyway. Whether the individuals -- from CEO and COB on down -- are protected from criminal prosecution is beyond my sphere of knowledge. And of course any employees, such as drilling supervisors, engineers, etc., who may be ultimately found criminally liable, :shrug:

It does appear, however, that IMHO BP is getting off fairly lightly. The cost of clean-up alone is going to run into the many billions and that will come out of the fund. I haven't seen where the $20B is a cap, but it's beginning to appear that way. So states and counties and parishes and individual communities may end up being compensated for the costs of clean-up, but the costs to the environment, the costs in terms of long-distance health issues for residents of the Gulf area and so on will probably never be addressed.

Cynic that I am, I would probably be looking more at what did BP promise Obama rather than the other way around. BP is in control of the situation because they have the ability to walk away. BP is a corporation, remember. It has no feelings, no family, no concerns for the environment. There are the stockholders to worry about, but there are ways to placate them, too.

BP always has the threat of bankruptcy. They can pay out dividends -- US public opinion be damned -- and essentially liquidate themselves, thus freeing themselves from liability. A reorganization as another corporate entity isn't impossible theoretically. Sell the leases to a new entity for pennies on the dollar, escape the liability claims, and just start pumpin' that crude into new bank accounts.

Airlines did it to get out of union contracts. Even Thomas Kinkade did it. BP does not exactly have a record of being honest and honorable in its operations.

So while I'm glad there are specific steps in place for some compensation to be paid out of BP's pocket, I'm not breaking out the champagne. $20B seems like a bargain.



Tansy Gold

[Tansy_Gold]

35. CORRECTING MY OWN POST re the $20B cap on pay-outs

I had read this earlier and forgot it, and I apologize.

The statement from the White House says there is no ceiling or floor implied by the $20B, so one assumes that if government costs -- fed, state, parish/county, local -- exceed $20B there will be additional funds provided. What the mechanism for that is, I dunno.

Also, BP's direct costs -- cleanup to this point, dispersant spraying, etc. -- weren't addressed, so not sure if that will be included as part of the $20B.

As I said before, it's a start. It's more than just talk, and I'm happy to see action.


TG

[Laelth]

37. Theoretically, a corporation protects its shareholders from liability.

Individual corporate officers are not protected from criminal liability, nor from civil liability. The corporation, itself, is not subject to criminal liability at all, in the sense that you can't throw a corporation in jail, but it is subject to unlimited civil liability, and the Courts get to decide that, not Obama.

He can't do anything to cap the company's civil liability. The corporation, on the other hand, could file for bankruptcy. That would protect it from a lot of liability. The $20 billion in ESCRO, if it ever gets put in ESCRO, will be available to pay claims. In that sense, it works as a cap on liability. But $20 billion is better than nothing.

:dem:

-Laelth

[blindpig]

40. Better than nothing? Is that like lesser of two evils?

I'm sick of that shit.

Expropriate without compensation

[Laelth]

47. If BP actually does establish the $20 billion ESCROW account, that will be better than nothing.

Nothing, of course, binds them to this agreement. The President personally guaranteed that BP would do what they promised they would do. I guess we'll see how strong the President's personal guarantee is in time.

And I am sick of this too. The President of the United States should not be negotiating with BP as if they were a foreign nation with nuclear weapons. It makes the United States look very weak.

:dem:

-Laelth

[seabeyond]

15. " we know.... " do we? or is this just propaganda for agenda, nothing more. nt

[Duer 157099]

17. "We know" based on prior experience

We've seen what Obama was willing to give the Rs in exchange for their "cooperation" on various Bills, so we know he's a negotiator, not an ultimatum-giver.

No point in paying attention to history if it doesn't inform the present and future.

[seabeyond]

41. no. we do not KNOW. that is simple fact. you can guess, you can

have expectations that there are, but no.... you dont know. i dont know. and the op does not know.

[AndyA]

16. Did you know that the money will be paid out over 3.5 years?

They don't have to come up with it all at once.

Sounds to me like Obama got on his knees to the BP execs. No wonder why they were smiling as they left!

[spanone]

19. pffft

[kenny blankenship]

20. A ceiling to their liabilities, probably of 20 billion US

This for a company that clears 20 billion net, a year. They have 18 billion in yearly cash flow from investments alone.

[Laelth]

26. Impossible, as I said above.

The Courts get to decide civil liability, not the President. Most likely he promised not to push for criminal prosecutions.

:dem:

-Laelth

[babylonsister]

27. The admin stipulated 'no ceiling'. nt

[WeDidIt]

21. That question was just asked in the presser

the answer was, "nothing."

[emulatorloo]

22. Why do I feel like DU has turned into Glenn Beck's big green chalkboard?

They promised BP cookies and coffee from the White House chef.

[Uzybone]

39. +1

this far internet "left" madness sounds just like Becks rantings.

[sixmile]

25. They get to keep printing money through the stock exchange

The billions will be paid by selling securities to investors on the NYSE and through the liquid, stable bond markets in the U.S.
That is power.

[MineralMan]

29. A wake-up call, I imagine.

[Beetwasher]

33. Their Pick Of All The First Born Children Born In The Gulf For The Duration Of The Escrow Fund

:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

45. Perhaps he agreed not to put their ass in receivership in return for continued co-operation. nt