Has US bloodlust for BP gone too far? The oil spill could be down to BP's failings, but bankruptcy would destroy livelihoods and pensions on both sides of the Atlantic Andrew Clark / June 10, 2010 As each day goes by, the disastrous _oil_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil) spill in the Gulf of Mexico becomes more gruesome. Oil-drenched birds and turtles wash up along the shoreline, pristine beaches are polluted by balls of tar and an oily slick laps at Louisiana's ecologically fragile marshland. Understandably, Americans are livid. But has the bloodlust directed at _BP_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/bp) gone too far? Egged on by catch-all protest coalitions, a "seize BP" campaign is organising demonstrations in major cities calling on the US government to snatch the British company's US assets. A "boycott BP" action group advocates shunning BP service stations. Placards abound with slogans such as "God bless America – go to hell BP" and "BP – billionaire polluters". The wife and children of BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, are under police protection following threats. Urged by political strategists to act more angrily, _Barack Obama shed his uncharacteristic cool_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/10/bp-shares-plunge-gulf-mexico) this week and declared that if it was up to him, BP's boss would be fired. The White House now wants BP to pay not only for cleaning up the Gulf, but also for the cost of jobs lost on 33 other oil rigs because of a government-imposed six-month moratorium on offshore drilling. And the US department of justice is threatening legal action to halt BP's dividend payouts to investors. _Anthony Weiner, a usually sensible Democratic congressman, declared_ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/08/anthony-weiner-bp-defende_n_604445.html ) : "Whenever you hear someone with a British accent talking about this on behalf of British Petroleum, they are not telling you the truth." With something close to relish, financial pundits are mooting a BP bankruptcy. A New York Times columnist, _Andrew Ross Sorkin_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/business/08sorkin.html) , guessed that the cost of the gulf disaster could reach a staggering $40bn (£27bn), making corporate collapse a real possibility (calmer industry experts put the cost at $5bn to $15bn). A prominent, albeit retired, oil analyst, _Matthew Simmons_ (http://www.neurosoftware.ro/finance/insurance/economy/matthew-simmons-bp- wont-last-the-summer-and-theres-another-big-hole-7-miles-away/) , has been touring television studios to declare that the oil spill was "entirely BP's fault" and that the company will be bust within months. Predictions of doom are self-perpetuating in business and BP's stock price has duly plummeted by 40%. The company's market value has fallen by nearly £50bn, even though BP makes a profit of more than £11bn annually. Perhaps it's time, though, to pause for breath. It isn't yet clear exactly what happened on the _Deepwater Horizon platform_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill) in the hours leading up the catastrophic fire on April 20 that sent the rig under water, killed 11 people and left BP's Macondo spewing oil. This accident may well be down to BP's failings – but shouldn't we wait until we know for sure before we become not only judges but executioners? Of the 126 people working on the Deepwater Horizon, only eight were BP employees. BP had a 65% share in the well, while a partner, _Anadarko_ (http://www.anadarko.com/Home/Pages/Home.aspx) , had 25%. The rig was owned and operated by a US firm, _Transocean_ (http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Home-1.html) . A failed blow-out preventer was made by another US firm, Cameron, while Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Dick Cheney, carried out cement work that was supposed to seal the well. BP was calling the shots on the project – and it is tempting to rush to judgement on the British firm, given its dismal US record. Neglect and lax safety oversight caused an explosion at _BP's Texas City oil refinery_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Refinery_explosion) in 2005, killing 15 workers. The following year, poor maintenance prompted BP's pipelines in Alaska to spring a leak, sending oil gushing into the Arctic wilderness. There have been allegations, as yet unproven, that BP was cutting corners on the Deepwater rig – perhaps by filling the well with unstable water, rather than drilling mud. Nevertheless, there are plenty of questions outstanding. Just this week, a US congressional committee asked Transocean to explain apparent poor staffing on the rig on the night of the gulf disaster. There were 18 employees on shift that evening, the lowest number in a fortnight of records, and there were no engineers, electricians, mechanics or subsea supervisors. BP isn't allowed to suggest that others might share responsibility – that amounts to "finger pointing", which prompts howls of political outrage. Irrespective of liability, it is worth pondering whose interests a BP bankruptcy would serve. Although based in London, the company has been effectively Anglo-American since its 1998 merger with Amoco – it employs 80,300 people, of whom 29,000 are in the US. Some 40% of its shares are held in the UK, while 39% are held in the US. A collapse of BP would destroy livelihoods, damage pension funds and wipe out savings on both sides of the Atlantic. For critics of "big oil", that's hardly a cause for tears. But BP's failure wouldn't dent America's reliance on fossil fuels even slightly. Ironically, the real beneficiaries would be other big oil companies. The US government isn't likely to let a Russian, Chinese or Middle Eastern buyer pick up the assets of a crippled BP. The richest, most likely buyer of valuable remnants would be _ExxonMobil_ (http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/) , which, lest we forget, is a company that defines hardline. Until very recently, Exxon spent millions funding groups that deny global warming. Of all the major energy companies, it has been the slowest to invest in renewable energy – in 2007, it made a profit of $40bn but put just $100m into a research project on wind, solar and green technology. And before the Gulf of Mexico disaster, Exxon was the worst oil-spiller in US history. BP hasn't done itself many favours. Initially, the company woefully underestimated the scale of the spill. And BP's chief executive has produced a string of cringeworthy remarks. The company was ill-prepared for such an unprecedented disaster but has finally made some progress in plugging the leak. Yet BP has consistently promised to foot the bill for cleaning up the gulf and to meet all valid compensation claims. Many will argue that BP deserves to die, and anger is entirely understandable. But critics should be careful what they wish for. America is a nation with a tradition of due process and everybody – even "big oil" – is entitled to a fair trial.
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: Centroids@radicalcentrism.com http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
