Hmmmm....lets see. $20B that would ahve been profit....now it's not. Yeah, that was probably their plan. I don't know why all the corp.'s aren't doing it.:innocent:Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
Printable View
Hmmmm....lets see. $20B that would ahve been profit....now it's not. Yeah, that was probably their plan. I don't know why all the corp.'s aren't doing it.:innocent:Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
KTT - I scan the headlines a few times a day and then research those items that peak my curiosity or interest. I seek out conflicting thoughts on a subject so I can see both sides of the issue. If I read an article that is in favor of banning deep water drilling then I also look for one that supports it. If I have a strong opinion on a subject then I look for strong opinions counter to mine. I think it's dangerous to only look for documentation that supports your line of thought. How can you learn from that? You can only have a real opinion once you've examined all sides of an issue and understand the pros and cons.
The other thing you have to do is think through the issue. Early on I read that BP might spend upwards of $20B on this spill. I wondered what they expected to net this year and how that would impact their bottom line. It isn't just BP that gets impacted, it's also shareholders, you and me. I was surprised to find analysts projected a $20B profit this year. Then I was curious how they would set up the pay out since no company would want to wipe out their profit margin. On the same day, they announce a four year pay out ($5B per year) and they cut dividends. Actually, pretty brilliant on their end to negotiate that type of payout since the time value of money means they pay out less each year considering inflation. They aren't paying out $20 Billion in today's dollars. Add to that the fact that cutting the dividend payout means they hold on to all the cash they would have paid out. Coupled with tax right offs that are into the Billions almost ensures a profit this year. On top of the country's largest environmental disaster!!! So now watch three things....deep water drilling ban, which I've already said will be lifted in the near term, punitive damages, and BP advertising. Those are the three things I'll be looking at ongoing.
That's a bit how my thought process works. Just try to see both sides of the issue so you can understand it and think through what it means when you read X. Then research it.
Thank you for that outline, Rick. Educational and clear about where things stand at the moment. I do hope people absorb it, think about it and keep an open mind before they start shedding tears for BP and the end of life as they only know it.
I'm honestly not worried about BP. I do however want them to be profitable in order to pay all real claims and clean-up costs. Right now it is the shareholders that are taking the hit. Many of those shares are held in retirement accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
Same here....I just hate seeing people ignore the gov'ts mis-handling of this disaster, and the results of their actions. They are either incompetent, or they have an agenda. If you look at who can really gain from this mess, it paints an ugly picture. (And it ain't BP.):innocent:Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
I know...it was all masterminded by pelicans in order to get a free bath.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit
Crash, check out Rick's post #271.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Doesn't sound like the retirement accts. are in any imminent danger. As for shareholders, well that's the risk you take when you invest in anything.
No doubt about it, 2D. They mishandled it in a big way and stupidly refused all help that was immediately offered. No excuses there. NONE.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit
Pension funds investing in BP and individuals that rely on dividend payout are taking a hit. Not doubt about it. BP reached a high of 62.58 in January and they are trading at less than $32 today and now BP is not paying a dividend. My reference was that BP would not be dipping into their pension funds to pay for the clean up. Not in the U.S. anyway. I probably should have clarified that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
Quote:
Dutch to Provide Assistance in Clean Up of Gulf Oil Spill
Press release | 28 May 2010
At the request of U.S. authorities, the Dutch Minister of Transport, Camiel Eurlings, has offered three sets of sweeping arms (6 arms in total) and auxiliary equipment to be used to collect oil spilled from the Deepwater Horizon incident, in the Gulf of Mexico.
Complete Press release,Quote:
The U.S. and the Dutch are working closely together on water related issues. Immediately after Hurricane Katrina and Rita struck, the Netherlands provided assistance in battling flood waters in New Orleans. Senator Mary Landrieu and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently visited the Netherlands to discuss these issues. The Dutch and American collaboration continues to evolve and makes the Netherlands the U.S. go-to partner for water management solutions, working together on flood protection in Louisiana and other states, mitigating the impact of rising sea levels on America’s coastlines and developing partnerships that prepare our economies for short and long-term water challenges.
http://dc.the-netherlands.org/News/P...Gulf_Oil_Spill
Yeah, but did you miss the part about them offering ships already outfitted with those booms, (and a bunch of other help.) three days after the explosion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case
Yes, I know, I just seen this PR and thought I would share it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit
Oh...good.....for a minute there, I thought I might have to Gibbs smack you. LOL (You know...Gibbs.....NCIS.)LOL:innocent:Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case
Debunking the Fox News Obama International Aid Oil Spill Lie
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-international-aid
So the Dutch officials lied about it, as did many other sources. And we are supposed to believe this because some guy named Jason Easley, said so......with out any supporting evidence.......while blogging on a site calledQuote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case
Yeah.....OK.:innocent:Quote:
Politicususa
Real Liberal Politics
LOL,, It is what it is :innocent:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
I have posed the question of BP's future in Alaska on another forum that has a lot of Alaska oil patch members. If they file bankruptcy or are forced in same, or if they are so asset depleted (cash poor) after the Gulf experience, they will not be growing and expanding in Alaska.
There are other companies with a much better record who'd be chomping at the bit to replace BP if need be. We won't be seeing the end of drilling in our lifetime, I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sourdough
Want to hear something scary? BP has been fined by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) 760 times. By contrast, oil giant ExxonMobil has been fined only once.
As The Stock Masters say: How is BP even allowed to operate?
Let's take a look back at BP's horrid track record, courtesy of ABC News:
* Back in 2007, a BP pipeline spilled 200,000 gallons of crude into the Alaskan wilderness. They got hit with $16 million in fines.
* "The Justice Department required the company to pay approximately $353 million as part of an agreement to defer prosecution on charges that the company conspired to manipulate the propane gas market."
* In two separate disasters prior to Deepwater Horizon, 30 BP workers were killed and more than 200 have been seriously injured.
* "According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by OSHA"
* OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.
After examining the facts, we're inclined to agree that BP probably shouldn't be operating here in the U.S. considering its horrific safety record.
http://www.businessinsider.com/bp-ha...-safety-2010-6
Regardless of their record, B...the administration still gave them special exemptions.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19027
"Last year the Obama administration granted oil giant BP a special exemption from a legal requirement that it produce a detailed environmental impact study on the possible effects of its Deepwater Horizon drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico, an article Wednesday in the Washington Post reveals.
Federal documents show that the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) gave BP a "categorical exclusion" on April 6, 2009 to commence drilling with Deepwater Horizon even though it had not produced the impact study required by a law known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The report would have included probable ecological consequences in the event of a spill.
The exemption came less than one month after BP had requested it in a March 10 "exploration plan" submitted to the MMS. The plan said that because a spill was "unlikely," no additional "mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources." BP also assured the MMS that any spill would not seriously hurt marine wildlife and that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."