BP Rage: Aided and Abetted by ‘Kick-A**’ Rhetoric? (Plus: A Developing US-UK Relationship Nightmare)
Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds employed sarcastic irony this morning when he wrote that “Obama’s hate speech is promoting violence against BP.” Well, it’s at least clear that the blame game out of Washington isn’t helping the situation.
Reynolds is referring to a report from TV station WREG in Memphis about an incident involving property damage at a local BP station, and other instances that have occurred in other parts of the country (video is at the link):
Bullets Shatter Glass at BP Gas Station
(Southaven, MS) — Windows at the BP Gas Station on Highway 51 at Custer Drive were shot out overnight. Folks who work at the store believe the suspects were expressing anger over BP and how it’s handling the oil spill.
“I believe that would be the reason,” said Alex Saleh. “We don’t have any enemies.” He said nothing was taken from the store after the windows were destroyed.
Incidents of anger spilling over at locally owned BP gas stations have been reported in several areas. In New York City several BP signs have been vandalized. Owners there believe vandals are filling balloons with dirt then throwing them at the signs.
Stanley Morton posted several clips on YouTube, where he’s seen driving to a BP station, then dumping yard waste on the property.
The report also notes that most BP stations are operated by small business owners, so the wrath is often misdirected.
The tone of President Obama’s and his administration’s rhetoric is also drawing objections across the pond, with serious possibilities of further deterioration in what used to be “the special relationship:
Senior Tories today warned Barack Obama to back off as billions of pounds were wiped off BP shares in the row over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Mayor Boris Johnson demanded an end to “anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling” after days of scathing criticism directed at BP by the President and other US politicians.
Former Conservative Party chairman Lord Tebbit branded Mr Obama’s conduct “despicable”. And with the dispute threatening to escalate into a diplomatic row, Mr Johnson also appeared to suggest that David Cameron should step in to defend BP.
He spoke as the US onslaught against the firm became a “matter of national concern” — especially given its importance to British pensions, which lost much of their value today as BP shares plunged to a 13-year low.
British pensions” is a reference to the UK’s Social Security system equivalent, which is primarily based on individuals deciding how their money will be invested. Obviously, many of them, and many mutual funds, have significant BP holdings.
I guess the lesson here is privatized retirement systems don’t work, because irresponsible foreign leaders can wreak havoc on them. (/sarc)
The U.S. press is just beginning to notice that the Brits are really, really unhappy. Here are a couple of paragraphs from a business report this morning (as of 9:58 a.m.; link is dynamic). Note well how others are perceiving the administration’s posture:
The company has found itself caught in a trans-Atlantic squeeze between an angry U.S. administration and unhappy shareholders – some 18 million Britons hold shares or pension funds in the company.
Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said the British leader would discuss the issue with President Barack Obama on a scheduled telephone call over the weekend.
Investors are fretting about the rising costs facing BP after Obama suggested it should also pay unemployment benefits to thousands of oil workers laid off during a moratorium on deep-sea drilling triggered by the spill.
… most market experts also acknowledge that the political rhetoric surrounding the accident is outweighing financial fundamentals.
“We don’t believe BP has a funding issue, but given the overwhelmingly hostile nature of the U.S. government the company may decide to suspend payments until the wells are capped and the clean-up sufficiently advanced to convince the U.S. that it can afford all the costs as well as pay dividends,” said Evolution Securities analyst Richard Griffith. “Unilateral action against BP over its U.S. operations, be it unreasonable or illegal, hangs over BP.”
“Illegal”? Now there’s an angle our watchdog establishment press should pursue — and would be pursuing if a conservative or Republican were in the White House. Don’t hold your breath. This bunch has virtually ignored two known cases of misprision that occurred right under everyone’s nose. That most readers here won’t know what “misprision” is and how it relates to the situation of Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff proves my point.
As to the U.S. economy, nothing feeds the current FUD problem (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) like an administration that continues to sew … fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
(Photo above is from AP/CBS.)
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
I sincerely hope BP can weather this. BP is the only oil company around here that sells ethanol free gas. All the rest sell that crap that ruins engines.
Comment by Timothy A. Jumonville — June 10, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
The more I read about the spill, the less a story of BP incompetence emerges, and more a story of government incompetence and malfeasance merges. It seems whenever a solution was proposed or action meant to be taken. the government got in the way and said no or delayed. And don’t forgot this major screwup:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/05/05/uh-this-isnt-bps-fault/
And people keep talking about this “environment impact” study that skipped BP. That has nothing to do with an oil spill. “Environmental impacts” are supposedly to access the ecological impact of something during *regular* and *normal* operation. The don’t access worst case scenarios (like oil spills) because you don’t need a freaking study to know that an oil spill will adversely affect the environment. As for safety inspections, those are something different. As far as I can tell the Deepwater rig was inspected and passed. Now what this says about the competence of our inspectors (or how that mankind is still subject to Murphy’s Law) but it does not scream BP deliberately (or DeepWater) ducking scrutiny.
Another point I’d like to bring up: I hear a lot of idiots talking about our government seizing BP assets and/or taking them over. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t BP a British-based multinational company? I’m not sure if laws allow our country to take over a foreign company, but I’m pretty sure that’s a no. I also don’t think it allows us to take over a foreign companies operations in our country…correct me if I’m wrong.
Comment by zf — June 12, 2010 @ 3:57 am
#2, on your last point, I don’t think it can be done legally.
And if BP resisted, the sight of soldiers or Guardsmen seizing assets would (I hope) send chills down most people’s spines — even those of some Obama sympaticos.
This Rolling Stone story, oddly enough, may be the most telling:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965
It’s a long read, but the theme is “Bush was corrupt, but Obama didn’t fix it.” Here’s an early paragraph:
Even if one accepts the “Bush was totally corrupt” premise (which I don’t), this is a savage indictment of inaction directed at The One who preaches the “fierce urgency of now,” who had 14 months to do something with MMS.
Comment by TBlumer — June 12, 2010 @ 4:23 am
Obama’s behavior of finger pointing to cover up his incompetence is typical of people who are way over their heads. Rahm Emmanual, the ever calculating opportunist of course is directing the MSM to “emphasize” BP and the environmental damage to cover up Obama’s incompetence. Those phone lines must be burning for all the use.
Comment by dscott — June 12, 2010 @ 7:35 pm
Okay, the point about Obamas inaction is taken, but otherwise that article piece is laughable. I hardly see evidence of the MMS having a “culture of corruption”. One incident does not create a “culture of corruption.” The article repeats the debunked claim that BP used misleading and flawed estimates. I find it hard to believe that within only a span of a few days that the “best science” could somehow amazingly predict a worst catastrophe than Exxon Valdez. That’s a rather bold prediction to make so soon. (And can’t we wait until all is said and to see to see the true ecological impact?) The comment about “dangerous drilling options” is bizarre, deep-sea drilling has been done safely for many years and and one operation is hardly more “dangerous” than the other. Drilling in the ocean is actually quite safe. The claim there were no “environmental safeguards” is wrong. The rig that exploded like every other rig, had many, many safegyards and protections. What happened is that those safeguards failed (most likely damaged by the expolsion) not that they weren’t there to begin with. And saying that BP had the worst safety record of any company is meaningless, since the safety record of the oil companies as whole was exemplary. BP had the one serious incident in nearly 30 years, so I guess that gives them the “worst record.” If that refinery explosion had happened to say Exxon, that would give them the worst record. Once incident does no create a bad safety record. One a pitching staff where everybody is 10-0 the one guy who is 9-1 could be said to have the worst record, but that use of the phrase is misleading.
Plus, the article makes the general errors of basing a whole argument upon one incident, jumping to conclusions before we even know what caused the accident, and making the same tired liberal socialist argument that industries are bad and therefore anything being industry-friendly is bad and those involved are guilty sign of corruption and evildoing. That last bit sounds like the arguments used to bash Bush over his coal company decisions (which Tom here completely destroyed.) And I’m sure all the writers “info” that he bases the idea of the MMS and BP being corrupt and involved in a nefarious scheme is based on far left sources.
Don’t be fooled, left-wing Rolling Stone isn’t criticizing Obama as much as it trying to demonize BP and the oil industry. The whole thesis is regulation and government is good, industry and less regulation is bad. Sorry, the Obama bashing is a smokescreen. Not buying it.
And as for going after Bush, give me a break. Nothing involved with the DeepWater Transocean rig has anything to do with Bushs actions and policies. That was all Obamas doing, in fact was it not his admin that gave the rig a safety award? The article writing is being intellectually dishonest because he is trying to links very general more “industry friendly” policies of Bush with specific “deregulation” taken toward BP by Obama. It’s the same liberal fallacy: to with, that because in one area deregulation didn’t work, so therefore all deregulation does not work. It’s not W’s fault is Obama misused the new regulations.
Comment by zf — June 12, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
Also, there was a story on Hot Air that an aide was saying Obama knew the situation was bad from the start. If that’s the case, it kinda contradicts the idea that Obama was “mislead” by BP.
In regards to that, going over the various press releases I can’t find any evidence that they mislead about the possible severity of the situation. Yeah, they said they they had the “resolve” to limit the accident as much as possible, but that is hardly saying “without doubt, this problem is no biggie.” If you don’t have confidence that you can do the job than you shouldn’t be in that line of work to start with. They made it clear that the problem had the potential to be big and as always hindsight is 20/20. And of course, people like the Rolling Stone types forget that it is Transocean that runs and operates the rig, it is only *leased* by BP. Obviously with Rolling Stones vast experience in the oil industry, their scientists would have accurately accessed the situation, of course.
And besides, it does not in the end matter what BP did or did not tell Obama. By the governments own laws, they are required to be prepared and jump into situations like this *from the start*. They did neither. And it was not BP who failed to pull the trigger on burning the oil when doing so would have helped a lot, it was the Coast Guard.
Comment by zf — June 12, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
#5, My point about the RS piece is that you can discount the aforementioned crap (which reasonable people will see through) and you’re left with the harsh criticism of O’s inaction — by a far-left publication.
#6, that’s the really damning element that deserves further notice.
Comment by TBlumer — June 12, 2010 @ 11:31 pm