How was Obama able to "safeguard the survival" of the BP?
BP Must Have Strong, Stable Future After Spill Costs, U.K.'s Osborne Says
By Gonzalo Vina
U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said BP Plc needs to have a strong and stable future after it meets the costs of plugging the biggest oil spill in U.S. history, along with the cleanup and compensation.
The comments follow a meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday on the sidelines of the Group of 20 meeting in Toronto in which both leaders agreed on the need to safeguard the survival of the [BP] company. Osborne said the need to fix the spill remains the top priority and that BP’s senior management understands this.
“At the same time we have got to recognize the economic importance of this company, not just to Britain but to the United States,” Osborne said in an interview with Bloomberg Television at the G-20 meetings today.
“We want BP to have a strong and stable future ahead and I think everyone understands that,” he said.
Cameron said earlier this month that BP wants certainty about the level of compensation it will have to pay over the oil spill. The oil company has spent $2.35 billion to clean up oil spewing into the Gulf, according to its website. The spill began April 20 after an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig.
Since when in a free-market capitalist society is the government supposed to picks the winners and losers, before a court of law decides?
Now just how was President Obama to accomplish that agreement with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron to "safeguard the survival" of BP and still preserve "equal protection under the law" for all the parties involved?
When only one party in litigation is "safeguarded" the other parties are at a disadvantage.
You can't have it BOTH ways and that's the issue that has never been properly addressed.
In this country if a judge agreed ahead of time to "safeguard the survival" of one party the opposition attorneys would rightfully ask the judge to be removed from the bench.
Obama had no right under the laws in this land to agree to "safeguard the survival" of BP before a court of law even had a chance to review the case.
Sigh. "Safeguard the survival" is a reporter's paraphrase of a comment by George Osborne. There's nothing in the story to suggest that Osborne (let alone the reporter) was even in the same room when Cameron and Obama met, and there was no communique´. Any "agreement" is your own invention.
Making stuff up so you can adopt a pose of moral indignation isn't the worst of habits, but it's a bit silly (what a saddo). If this is the worst thing you can find to say about BP (why would an important person like you waste time on trivia?), then they can't have done very much wrong.
People, theya re tal;king about the fictitious claims from the compensation fund, not the penalty from the pending court case. With the compensation fund paying claims not relevant to the spill; at least one lawyer piling on fictitious claims; and an apparent poorly drafted open-ended agreement for this to continue, BP needs to limits its losses there.
They aren't supposed to but they are #$%$ it. BP is being hit way too hard by criminal lawyers in cahorts with Gulf state governments. To add insult to injure the Feds plan to fine BP into insolvency, just because a few hardworking oilfield workers hit a high pressure gas pocket in the Gulf? Common, the Southern states have already made out like bandits. Enough is enough. Why do millions of retired people have loose there retirements. Government should back off, prosecute the criminal lawyers and their fraudulent clients. If a few government workers make mistakes, should all government retirees then lose their pensions? No of course not.