OpEd: BP Needs to Tell Whining Americans to Take a Hike

[Ruby the Liberal]

Anyone want to let off some steam? Here is his email: [e-mail]

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

Finally, BP needs to protect its shareholders. So 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.”

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

[Salviati]

1. Again, like I said in an earlier post: Put BP in recievership now to stop the looting.

When the well is capped, seize their assets to pay as best as is possible to mitigate the damage.

[CanonRay]

44. ...and charge the corporate officers with 11 counts of Criminally Negligent Homicide.

That ought to shake them up a bit.

[bluestateguy]

2. I guess they won't be needing any government contracts either then

nt

[Xipe Totec]

3. Somebody give me an onion, I feel the need to cry for BP. nt

[Rex]

4. Better yet, how about BP just fuck off and die

as a company? Sounds like a plan to me, at one time we actually LIKED that idea because it would cause COMPETITION. Guess nowadays if you don't LOVE your corporate master, you are a long haired commie.

[texastoast]

5. Not as reviled as the deregulators who let this happen

BP is just a soulless corporation trying to make a buck. With money as the god, regulation is a must.

Thanks Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Next time, before issuing a permit, think about a requirement in the form of a disaster plan.

Fuckers.

[Ruby the Liberal]

10. No question, and I addressed that in my email to him posted below.

As well as his point on us being the largest consumers of petrol.

That doesn't mean that BP should abandon efforts with a "so long and thanks for the fish (while they were still alive)" salute.

It's utter bullshit.

[marions ghost]

24. yes

the crimes in the Gulf were facilitated by us. If not BP, then it would have some other mega corporation.

[gratuitous]

6. What makes the author think that's not precisely what's going to happen?

After all, business is business. And if BP goes through a packaged bankruptcy, retains everything that's profitable, and spins off all its liabilities to a newly-created subsidiary, then who's to say boo to a goose? The profitable rump gets sold to Exxon or Chevron or someone else, the subsidiary tanks, and all those liabilities just dissolve in a bankruptcy court somewhere. Oh, the mess is still there, needing to be cleaned up, but it won't be BP's responsibility anymore; in fact, it's nobody's responsibility. Which means that the U.S. taxpayer can foot the bill while Tony Hayward gets a hearty handshake and a golden parachute, and BP's former shareholders get taken care of quite nicely.

But let's not hold any of the wealthy perpetrators accountable. That would make them feel sad, and lead to frownie faces galore. And we can't have that. No, far better to watch pelicans and dolphins cooked in the toxic petroleum sludge than for BP or its shareholders to be held responsible.

[Catherina]

7. This is capitalism at its finest

Sucks to be the third world nation at the other end of the capital theft doesn't it?

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. You go girl!

EXCELLENT point!

:applause:

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. Email sent:

You unimaginable prick

Can you be serious? Your advice is for BP to pack up and find another ocean to pollute?

Let me see if I can drag this down to your mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging level of understanding. I am going to guess that you fancy yourself a "free market" kinda guy.

You think that no one but the gulf coast here in the US is going to be affected by this? By September, you will be picking up tarballs from the river Thames.

Your advice to BP is to "(cut) its losses and (get) out now" with the fond farewell of "(s)orry about the oil spill, but so it goes" - and you think any sane nation on the planet would welcome BP to their shores?

Mr. Free-marketer, have you ever heard of corporate responsibility? You know, that thing that is "supposed" to make the "free market" work? The meme that states that companies who do the "right thing" will be rewarded and those who don't will find themselves on the skids? How do you reconcile these two concepts?

I agree with you that the US as a whole is guilty of lax regulation, however this is yet another contradiction. You "free market, shareholders first" (well, shareholders ONLY) types clamor for the government(s) to get out of your business. How do you reconcile these two concepts?

You also noted our use of petroleum products. I can't agree with you more, but there is a SANE way of changing that, and recommending that BP just say FU to the United States and just float back to Merry Olde England on the wings of unicorns as if nothing ever happened is NOT the answer.

People like you simply boggle the mind. May you rot in hell you greedy bastard. The world is too small for people of your mindset to share it with the rest of us.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hafta admit, that felt rather good. :toast:

[laughingliberal]

15. +1 nt

[lunatica]

9. This author is an idiot and not for the obvious reasons

He really thinks it bothers BP to grovel? OF course it doesn't! BP is grovelling because the US is it's biggest customer and they don't want to lose it. Mathew Lynn is a fucking idiot who thinks BP should lose billions just to saves face.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. The contradictions are typical for the "free market" crew.

[Lilith Velkor]

12. !

[WillyT]

13. Wow... Just... Wow...

:wow:

knr

[Ruby the Liberal]

14. Blows the mind, doesn't it?

:grr:

[joeybee12]

16. Wow, even for the Onion this is harsh satire...oh, wait...

...this is real, from a really sick, sick piece of garbage.

[Ruby the Liberal]

17. It showed up in my twitter feed. I too thought it was a satire

given the bit.ly and tiny.url shorteners where you don't know where you are going until you get there.

I was shocked to see that it was real.

[TroglodyteScholar]

18. This is even more idiotic than it is just on its face...

BP has invested DEARLY in the US market to the extent that there could be no such thing as 'cutting their losses.' They NEED us in order to do "good" business.

[Ruby the Liberal]

20. But no one cares outside of our borders!

Don't you care about the shareholders? They are priority one, dontcha know...

[corpseratemedia]

19. what a cow he is

[marions ghost]

22. yes he's arrogant and inflammatory --

but doesn't he reflect the truth of how BP (and everybody else in Bidness) will be viewing what BP should do: Protect the Shareholders!

And he does have a point about American "Double Standards"--after what we did to Iraq, you really can't say that's not true. We ravaged a whole county...and HOW many have we killed THERE?! And how much do we really protect the environment? And how much do we promote clean energy solutions? Etc etc

This guy is stating the common corporate attitude about this, which we all KNOW is the truth but we don't like to hear it from this British snake. (Of course some American corporate exploiters might be feeling a little guilty about the Gulf maybe, but not enough).

This is the same truth we've been saying around here about the perils of unregulated capitalism. We just don't like to hear somebody out right defending it --with such a naked support of shareholders supremacy.

There are so few protections in this country against this or any other abuse of power or white collar crime, esp after Boosh. Which is why there's so much of it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. No question. The difference is he published it in major media

as opposed to the Goldman Sachs approach, which is to quietly short BP on their internal trading (prop) desk while simultaneously paying commissions and bonuses to their retail brokers selling BP as a solid "buy" to their customers.

Everyone wins (sorta).

[marions ghost]

30. Am I reading you right?

Lynn is openly advocating "Protect the Shareholders" :thumbsdown:

Goldman is protecting itself, screwing some shareholders :thumbsdown:

Not sure I see how that makes Lynn worse...

[Ruby the Liberal]

33. I am referring to the blatant manner in which he did this, but point taken

You are right, I would prefer the in-your-face approach to the sneaky, lying, cheating Goldman method of stabbing people in the back any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Thanks for pointing this out.

I have been in rant/rage mode for hours tonight and you made me think straight. Not that I excuse him, but you put it in perspective for me.

[marions ghost]

45. no prob Ruby

:hi:

Don't worry I understand rant / rage mode--been there myself. This spectacle in the Gulf is enough to do it to ya. When I read the article at first the word "whining" really got to me. That's what makes him a jerk because he's got to know that so MANY people are grieving and so much suffering is going on, and we are mere whiners?--insulting way to talk about the anguished lament of millions. Below the belt, rude. Of course there's some push back going on because of our making BP the sole scapegoat in this...

It's a nasty 'shock and awe' headline, but it got a lot of readers. He'll be happy to see his inbox full.

Americans have a hard time seeing how the world sees us. We are an ego-centric nation, often blind to any sort of criticism from outside. We have to remember that we really did inflict the Bushites and "Iraqi Freedom" :puke: on the world. Our recession has hit them hard. We really are NOT leading the way in energy and environmental solutions. As the biggest consumer in the world, there IS a need to shame us in that. If we wonder why much of the world is not so sympathetic even to our worst environmental disaster ever... :shrug:

The truth hurts--the truth about capitalism unchained--it's a nasty predatory beast concerned only with itself and it's preferred customers.

[Blue_Tires]

25. uhhhh... The USA is their biggest fuckin' market, dumbass

You'd think a columnist from Bloomberg would know something like that...

That's like saying a couple of months ago "Toyota doesn't need this insult from the U.S.!! They can just sell cars in Japan, Italy and South America!!"


He also has an incredible ivory-tower complex...Someone needs to dump all this shit in the English Channel (or better yet the Med) and see if he changes his tune...

[Ruby the Liberal]

27. Sadly, it will be there soon enough.

[dorkulon]

26. The real culprit is our corrupt government and its total abdication of regulatory responsibility.

It's fun to get mad at BP I suppose, but let's not pretend to be surprised that a gargantuan corporation will do whatever they can get away with. Any team will cheat if the ref's passed out on the john.

[Ruby the Liberal]

28. I am no where NEAR as mad at BP as I am about this cavalier "protect the shareholders" attitude

as displayed in this article.

My agreement on those two points are addressed in the copy (posted above) of the email I sent the author noting HIS hypocrisy on said points.

[dorkulon]

29. BP is legally obligated to maximize gains and minimize losses on behalf of their shareholders.

It's naive IMHO to expect anything else. And, in fact, had they been drilling in another country, they'd have been required to take measures (including a pre-drilled relief well) that would have meant the leak would have been over within days. That's because other countries have laws that make some kind of fucking sense and aren't the sad aftermath of the wholesale prostitution of American government.

This author is a bit of a reprehensible prick, to be sure, but it's good advice from a business perspective. He's right that no amount of advertising or PR work can save them now. And it's a cinch that BP sees this whole disaster as nothing more than a big liability on their ledger. They'll do whatever they can to avoid paying for it.

My point is that it's just silly to expect "corporate responsibility" from any corporation, and the very notion of it only serves to perpetuate the asinine idea that these industries can regulate themselves. In a twisted way, BP might even be doing us a favor by showing us just how erroneous those ideas are.

[marions ghost]

31. Yes regulation is absurdly inadequate at this point

but if such a thing as ethics (whatever you want to call non-exploitation in business) was demonstrated to have value as good business strategy (and reinforced)--then could we expect some degree of "corporate responsibility?"

Re. business--"Everybody does it, just don't get caught" seems to prevail--so we need more regulation than ever.

So you're saying that everybody would be bad--if it weren't for punishments--so there's no value in being good? Whatever you can get away with is therefore "good" in business terms.

[Ruby the Liberal]

32. I do not disagree. By law, their obligation is first and foremost to the shareholders but

in the name of the "free market", this guy has no leg to stand on.

THAT is my issue, and not unlike the Grover Norquist (drown Gov't in the bathtub) and drill baby drill idiots - they can't have it both ways.

F'in pick one or the other. You either want no government interference/regulation or you want to lay blame square at the feet of the government.

The whole thing makes my head spin.

[Jamastiene]

34. The Guardian, a newspaper I normally love, claimed the other day

that Americans were expressing anti-British sentiment because we are pissed off at BP. I got no problem with the people from Great Britain, but BP can still kiss my fucking ass.

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. Hopefully just an "if it bleeds it leads" sensationalism

I hold zero ill will against Britons or their government and have not encountered that sentiment online, in person, in the news or even in various OpEd pieces here in the US.

[Jamastiene]

41. I have no ill will toward them either.

That is why that article title shocked me.

BP hives off 'toxic' Gulf spill operation to dilute anti-British feeling in US

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/04/deepwater-horizon-leak-bp-criticism

[inna]

42. I was similarly shocked when I heard something of a kind from a British friend of mine

(currently living in the UK and quite progressive and informed on most topics).

He basically said that, quote,

"America is going for BP's throat - I think thats a mistake because it could have just as easily have been another oil company like Exxon. I feel that's in part because BP is not an American company."

I tried to explain to him that I have never encountered any evidence of anti-British or zenophobic sentiments with regard to BP, but he wasn't convinced at all. He thought that people wouldn't be just as outraged at an American company and he felt that BP was scapegoated in some way. Also, interestingly, apparently BP doesn't behave nearly as badly in the UK and is not allowed to act with complete impunity there; it even has somewhat of a clean, pro-environmental image. :shrug:

[dorkulon]

47. To be fair, they reported that claim, made by BP. They didn't claim it themselves. /nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. I'd like the Rude Pundit to publish a rebuttal.

[Ruby the Liberal]

37. Good idea! I'd like to read that too. Email him?

[GreenPartyVoter]

38. Good idea! Here's his email and facebook

rudepundityahoocom

http://www.facebook.com/rudepundit

[GreenPartyVoter]

39. Ok, done!

[Ruby the Liberal]

40. Cool!

Lee can rip 'em a new one like none other.

:toast:

[Blue_Tires]

43. ttt

[TheWebHead]

46. there is a danger of banging down BP

to the point where they either do what is recommended here or file bankruptcy, reducing much of their liabilities. I think toning down the rhetoric is the better choice here. BP's liabilities can be stretched out so that they can continue as a going concern rather than trying to butcher them up for immediate $. Not to mention this is beginning to damage or relations with the UK. Bluster and threats aren't going to fix the problem.