Hard to disagree with you, but I think BP was honestly trying to do things "right", not just the cheapest way. As shareholders, we could make valid complaints about that, but as human beings it's difficult to justify not compensating those we have damaged in a reasonable way. It's sad and unfortunate that so many people refuse to acknowledge the effort BP put into paying for their mistake but rather let greed dictate their response. Equally unfortunate is the way the other culpable companies chose not to do the right thing from the beginning. There should be no quandary when it comes to ethical choices.
Seems to be a lot of junk from new posters proclaiming doom and gloom like they've seen it in a crystal ball. "Ignore" doesn't work very well when these slime balls keep changing their identities. What a bunch of losers!
Regards to BP longs - the time is approaching when the Deepwater Horizon incident will finally be behind us. Initial time frame estimates (back in 2010), for a resolution to most of the main issues by 2015, seem to be on track. Fair value is at least $60-65. Corporate strategy appears sound - not without risk, but geared towards near and longer term returns.
The size of each coral colony is estimated at around the size of a tennis court. Compare that to the annual "dead zone" in the GOM around the mouth of the Mississippi which averages around 5,000 square MILES and has reached over 8,000 square MILES in some years. Nobody is pleased that the spill happened (except perhaps some of those "scientists" and others who have made a career out of it) or that some wildlife and marine life suffered damage, but a little context helps to put things into perspective. The damage that is continuously being done to the gulf by agricultural runoff (i.e. the dead zone), other industrial pollution and even natural hydrocarbon seepage far outweigh the temporary effects of the spill, bad as they were.
Trying to alarm board readers or influence their trade decisions by parroting negative reports such as this (which are often biased or otherwise sensationalistic) is the calling card of a troll or a desperate fool (see Vik). Are you one or both?
More: To be sure, the people working on the spill response DID have some health impacts, but the vast majority of those were typical of hard work in demanding conditions. The reported injuries were the common burn, impact, pinch, laceration etc.. The illnesses reported were mostly heat related, exhaustion, and "general" (don't feel good) symptoms. Dermatological illness (skin exposure to oil or chemical) were reported at low levels and none required long term treatment. Respiratory symptoms were reported at even lower levels and rarely required hospitalization or treatment. In fact, most illnesses that were even initially attributed to possible exposure dissipated before the worker arrived at a hospital.
The fact is that some employees/contractors were hurt during operations after the event, and none of those injuries or illnesses are considered "acceptable". But given the "emergency" nature of the effort and the very difficult conditions in combination with generally inexperienced workers being on the job, it's almost surprising there weren't more serious worker injury/illness outcomes.
Then there are the 11 workers who died on the rig - tragedy for those families. There's no getting them back. All that can be offered are apologies and payment (as cold as that sounds, it is the only real compensation that can be given). You and I both know that they died because their employer and others in charge of their safety (who could have been influenced by BP personnel) didn't do everything that should have been done to avoid the disaster.
Vik and others will deride BP for a long time for things that don't make sense. Some have personal vendettas; Some are mentally imbalanced and looking for a villain anywhere; Some hate oil companies as a general rule and some just want to be part of a "popular" trend. These people will remain bitter, disturbed, paranoid, disillusioned or desperate as their case may be. Personally, I think BP has done well through the whole thing.
Hi Bill. The public health impacts of the Fukushima event have been tragic, as indicated by the data you have presented above. In contrast, data collected by health surveillance studies of people living on or near the GoM during and after the oil spill have "struggled" to discover ANY negative health impacts that can be linked to the spill. This has been of particular interest to me from the beginning, and I have periodically reviewed data from the health departments of the gulf states, the CDC, OSHA and NIOSH.
In the first year "of the spill", many dire predictions were made about the public's exposure to toxins (including carcinogens) from the oil and/or the dispersant. It turns out that public health records indicate no more than a tiny blip in rates for doctor and emergency room visits for respiratory illness or other airborne toxin exposure symptoms - the primary concern of health agencies at the time. The CDC and state health departments anticipated needing to perform close surveillance for years after the spill, but the data have shown no significant change in the trends of public health concerns, so they stopped reporting the results (showing nothing) after a relatively short time. Indeed, the EPA's monitoring of airborne toxin levels from the beginning determined they were undetectable or well below threshold levels for public health concern.
I was amused to see that one study found substance abuse showed a minor uptick among younger people for a short period after the spill (cops were busy doing other things), but the overall assessment of the mental and psychological wellbeing of gulf coast residents showed no impact from the spill. There has been no increase in long term dermatological disorders, no increase in cancer of any type (other than long term, previously-identified trends), no increase in birth defects, no increase in anything that could even be remotely linked to the spill. The spill just didn't have an effect on public health, period.
Replies like this one from Vik make me wonder if it's running for office or something. It will be a challenge given that every town in La. already has a few locals running for village idiot.
Hi retiredbill. I'm wondering if there's some sort of communicable disease that's spread throughout the bayous which causes the "criminality" part of the brain to become more active? Mind you, it may have already spread to Illinois, California and some other spots around the nation, but I suspect that ground zero is smack dab in the middle of Louisiana. Humble apologies in advance to the uninfected and upright members of the Louisiana population. No disrespect intended towards you.
blimey1960, blathering idiots who flail at a keyboard while foaming at the mouth and eating Twinkies have no time for answering such questions. Vik may only be asked questions regarding things it has loudmouth opinions about, but little or no knowledge of. Then and only then will Vik produce the punch lines you seek.
Not a lawyer here, but tort cases generally require two things at a minimum - liability of one party and damages to another. In this case, there is demonstrable damage suffered by the plaintiff companies, but the cause of those damages was a moratorium implemented by the U.S. Government, not by BP. It seems a stretch to say that BP's accident "required" that the moratorium be enacted. Moreover, that enactment was certainly not under BP's control. The moratorium was enacted more as a response to public outcry than anything else. To say that the moratorium was mandatorily pursuant to the accident would be hard to substantiate in my opinion.
Having said that, not many of the proceedings with regard to the Deepwater Horizon have been conducted according to previously defined and accepted standards. In other words, the crooked a-holes (government and judiciary) will try to screw BP and will likely get away with it, at least initially. It will be an interesting decision, but I do not anticipate fairness being much of a factor given how things have gone up to this point. The initial ruling will be appealed either way.
Hi, Bill. Thanks for the post.
I think it will be a long battle to recoup the overpayments, perhaps costing nearly as much in legal fees as the potential returned amount, but it is certainly justifiable from a fairness standpoint. I see the federal judiciary as the culprit in the overpayments to begin with. Perhaps the amount of overpayment should be deducted from the impending fines - let the feds go after the individuals they let skate with extra millions.
Of course, that is a dream and will never happen, but just as hetedrol calls for punishment of the chiseler lawyers and an obviously biased judiciary, I cannot help but think the federal government should be held accountable for their failings. They started with bungling their responsibilities during the spill and exacerbating the impact on tourism through the media hype; They prevented the use of equipment and methods which could have reduced the environmental impact; They threatened a company that was doing all they could to mitigate the effects of the accident; They needlessly enacted sanctions (e.g. drilling ban) which harmed the local economy and they conspired to distort the terms of a settlement agreement to allow fraudulent recovery (in whole or in part) by thousands of people and businesses.
Unfortunately, this is a country who's current administration is perfectly willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, perfectly accepting of incompetence and perfectly ignorant in too many instances of the concept of right and wrong. ...exhale.... Have a good one.
Best-o-luck, nad. I'll be riding BP a while longer after a brief period of indecision. It will either take us above the clouds or we'll be feeling like Slim Pickens at the end of Dr. Strangelove. I believe it will be the former.
So sell and enjoy your profits, but.... BP is still regarded by many as one of the best investment choices in the sector with a future strategy that is geared to shareholder return. They are better than their competitors at replacing reserves, they have a good technology portfolio and they have sloughed off underperforming assets. The "cost of the oil spill" has been priced in according to most analysts, and the company is enjoying positive buy ratings. But hey, it's your money - hope you don't have seller's remorse when it goes to $60.
So they deleted my reply with a "disguised" link, but you can get there easily. Go to the BP website, then to investors/share information and lastly to ownership statistics. The last available data is end of 2012, but I seriously doubt that the % owned by institutions has fallen from 82 to 12 since then.
Another simple way to the page is to go to the BP home page and search for "ownership statistics" - then choose the very first link.
According to the BP website, stock ownership breaks down as follows:
U.S. Owners: 38%
UK Owners: 36%
The rest: 26%
95% of ordinary shares are owned by individuals or institutions holding 1,000,000 or more shares (includes JPMorgan Chase - approved depository of ADS shares).