Skip to main content

View Diary: White House plans to force BP to set aside money to pay damages (272 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Last year's profits alone (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, oscarsmom, MichaelNY

    would be a reasonable start.

    Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

    by nargel on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 02:42:36 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why are BP's profits in any way relevant (0+ / 0-)

      to how much money it owes on the spill?

      If it didn't make a profit would that mean it shouldn't be liable at all?

      •  Your B.S. claim about 'money (0+ / 0-)

        it does not have' is shown as just that when considered in the light of the huge profits that BP is willing to admit to.  Your refusal to consider facts that run counter to your rhetoric shows just how hollow  your use of 'Scientist' truly is.

        Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

        by nargel on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 08:45:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When did I talk about "money it does not have"? (0+ / 0-)

          BP's profits also have little to do with how much money it has.  If that's the measure you should be looking at cash and cash equivalents.

          You really know absolutely nothing about economics or corporate accounting, do you?

          •  "BP will go through bankruptcy before paying (0+ / 0-)

            money like that, which even it does not have . ."

            I believe was your phrase.  And massive record breaking profits over and over every quarter.  for decades. Might just have a bearing on the 'money which even it does not have . .' and the existence of same.

            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

            by nargel on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 05:01:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Check again... that was some guy called Alba (0+ / 0-)

              However, given that the original claim was that damages could be US$1 trillion, I totally agree - BP's record breaking profits don't add up to anywhere near $1 trillion.

              I take back my point on you not knowing economics or finance.  You don't know arithmetic.  Check out their profits, assume any reasonable interest rate, and then tell us how long it takes for them to pay $1 trillion.

              •  While I'm not claiming that (0+ / 0-)

                BP has a trillion on hand at the moment, I think if/when all the buried stuff is dug up and all the heavy hitters get fined appropriately, the amount will be a lot closer than you currently think.  Multiple billions in profits (admitted alone) over as short a time as ten years plus the cash they were hiding in tax havens.

                Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                by nargel on Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 02:03:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Did you look at their financial statements? (0+ / 0-)

                  Or is this purely coming out of your ass?

                  •  So. juvenile insults (0+ / 0-)

                    are what, in your mind, passes for rational discourse?

                    pathetic.

                    Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                    by nargel on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 06:06:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'll take that to mean that you did not look at (0+ / 0-)

                      their financial statements and that this is purely coming out of your ass.

                      •  And I'll take that to mean (0+ / 0-)

                        that all you can manage is childish insults.

                        Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                        by nargel on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 09:05:55 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, that and looking at financial statements. (0+ / 0-)

                          But apparently all you can do is content free ranting without bothering to look at financial information that is freely available on the internet and that anyone with 8th grade math skills can easily understand.

                          Ooops... my bad... understand why you're defensive now.

                          •  As far back as 2008, BP made 6.4 billion in (0+ / 0-)

                            profits (in just 3 months) and in the quarters after that they consistently have made record breaking profits quarter after quarter and year after year.

                            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

                            I found that with just a couple of moments looking yet, despite your childish insults, you haven't managed to put up a single fact to support your thesis that poor beleaguered BP couldn't possibly have the deep pockets to cover the costs of their criminal corporate negligence.  What's next, Too Big To Fail?  Oh wait, they have already tried the 'poor pensioners' card.  I guess even BP figured asking people to think about the 'poor children' would be  a bit too much to get away with.

                            By the way, your complaints about "content free ranting" are a bit rich considering the considering the typical lack of cites and facts in your posts.  Go ahead, "scientist", show me you are capable of something more than childish insults.

                            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                            by nargel on Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 01:15:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Original claim was paying off $1 trillion (0+ / 0-)

                            I assume you are backpedaling on that because you see that it is nonsense.

                            BP last year had profit of 38 billion.  It would take 25 years for them to pay of $1 trillion, assuming that profits remained that high, which they may well not.

                            BP's market cap before the blowout was about $200 billion.  This suggests an NPV for future income streams of $200 billion.

                            $1 trillion?  Not a hope.

                          •  First, the original claim was that BP wasn't (0+ / 0-)

                            paying anything.  I responded that a few years of profits would be a worthwhile start.  You started with your childish insults at that point.

                            At this point BP's largest debt is owed to the Gulf shoreline residents.  I think if you start adding in fines to upper management and capitol equipment forfeiture in leu of cash, you will get a lot closer than $200 B.  Which, I believe, was my original statement, 'scientist' boy.

                            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                            by nargel on Thu Jun 17, 2010 at 12:45:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes... well, I also think it will (0+ / 0-)

                            be a cold day in Hell before you see that much.

                            The legal entity that managed Deepwater Horizon is the one at actual legal risk.  Maybe BP North America.  How much liability do you think it would take before BP decides to just abandon its US business?

                          •  Well, we already know that they (0+ / 0-)

                            have already ponied up $20B and have shown signs (unforced) of being ready to go higher if necessary.  BP main corporate has already publicly admitted responsibility and liability, trying to shell off it's U.S. business would not alter that by a smidgen.  Nice try but no dice kid.  Current information and actions have already rendered your point moot.

                            By the way, at the current moment BP has at least 2 or more other high value rigs with their buts hanging in the breeze due to failure to follow regulatory safety laws (including the Atlantis rig).  That is not only a large chunk of expensive equipment but a lot of profitable potential oil as well.

                            I suppose you expect them to "just abandon that business" as well?

                            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                            by nargel on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 02:51:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They haven't yet ponied up the $20 billion (0+ / 0-)

                            And have they said which company it will come from?

                            BP main corporate has already publicly admitted responsibility and liability

                            Did they admit liability at the top level corporate?  I doubt it - their lawyers and their insurers would have cows.

                            trying to shell off it's U.S. business would not alter that by a smidgen.

                            Are you sure about that?  Do statements in press conferences bind you in court?  I'm pretty sure they don't - they're not contracts so no consideration.

                            Even more important, do they bind you in a British court when you're one of England's top companies and the mainstay of millions of British pensions?

                          •  Tony boy's boss has done the admitting and I (0+ / 0-)

                            would think that comments made in his 'little people' global press conference would count as on the record.  The big question has seemed to have been based not on where the money was coming from but rather who would administer the escrow account.  I notice that you are conveniently ignoring the other rigs that they have at legal risk as well as the tasty profits they could be making.  For a company that was able to post over $6 Billion in profits in just 3 months in what '06 or '08?  I doubt that the $20 Billion starting stake is causing any sleepless nights.

                            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                            by nargel on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 11:54:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, yes, other rigs at legal risk (0+ / 0-)

                            Who owns those rigs?  Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean, not BP.

                            So at most BP has some leases at risk, not rigs.  But they can't drill anyway.

                            BP's got a lot at stake in the US - there's no denying that.  But the entire company's value world wide before the spill was only US$200 billion.  How much of that value is in BP US?  I don't know and I doubt you do either.

                            But at some point when the liabilities begin to exceed the value of the business the obvious solution is to amputate the diseased limb so the rest of the business can survive.

                          •  Atlantis IS a BP rig for one and the same (0+ / 0-)

                            whistleblower at BP is the one pointing at other rigs with the same legal problems so they are likely to be BP owned as well.

                            I doubt your $200B number includes materials, equipment and tax sheltered money at the moment and that assumes that number is even accurate.  Based on past corporate behavior (not just BP but large corporations in general) I strongly doubt so.  In this case, they have been so strongly self convinced that they are above the law for so long that they are quite likely to have taken few if any real precautions to properly hide the stash.

                            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                            by nargel on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 08:33:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're 56% right (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.rigzone.com/...

                            It's 44% owned by BHP Billiton cutting BP's risk in half right there.

                            I doubt your $200B number includes materials, equipment and tax sheltered money at the moment and that assumes that number is even accurate.  

                            YEEARGH!!  Do you enjoy being willfully ignorant?  Have you even bothered to look up BP's numbers?

                            http://finance.yahoo.com/...

                            BP's market cap before the disaster was $200B.  That includes EVERYTHING because it's the value of the whole damned company on the public markets!

                            Based on past corporate behavior (not just BP but large corporations in general) I strongly doubt so.

                            What specific past corporate behavior are you referring to?  Are you saying that you have found a pattern of big publicly traded companies low balling their value to investors and trading below actual value?  Please, tell us more... this is fascinating information!  I mean most of us thought the problem was that these companies hide losses and exaggerate gains to make themselves look more valuable.  If instead they are underselling themselves that's fascinating new result!

                          •  Willfully ignorant? BPs numbers? (0+ / 0-)

                            I provide you with a link to multiple charts (annual AND quarterly) and a link to the database they were derived from and you are so lacking in intellectual curiosity you couldn't be bothered to look beyond the first chart.

                            Interlocking directorates, shell companies and even something as simple as skimming profits are all well known ways to keep assets out of view of governments, not to mention shareholders at times.  I'll just follow your lead and claim that all BP's upper management are pure as Ivory Snow, nothing to see here!  Large multinationals that have spent decades acting as if (not to mention convincing themselves that) they were beyond the law.  Running corporate malfeasance at some high level eventually?  Pish!  Such thinking about the Saints of the Boardrooms!  'Tis not to be born, I say.

                            Feh.

                            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                            by nargel on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 02:26:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, so now we're accusing BP management of (0+ / 0-)

                            embezzling not millions but billions?

                            Interlocking directorates, shell companies and even something as simple as skimming profits are all well known ways to keep assets out of view of governments, not to mention shareholders at times.

                            Keeping assets out of sight (and reach) of governments makes sense.  But why shareholders?  These guys are paid primarily in options.  They want to drive UP the stock price, not down.

                          •  You ask for SPECIFIC (0+ / 0-)

                            examples of corporate maladministration and when I provide a few examples (taking care to note that I am not specifically charging BP execs with them) and your first response is to charge me with that.  Slick logic fail there skippy.

                            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                            by nargel on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 01:08:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not true and no you did not (0+ / 0-)

                            Your claim:

                            I doubt your $200B number includes materials, equipment and tax sheltered money at the moment and that assumes that number is even accurate.  Based on past corporate behavior (not just BP but large corporations in general) I strongly doubt so.

                            My challenge:

                            What specific past corporate behavior are you referring to?  Are you saying that you have found a pattern of big publicly traded companies low balling their value to investors and trading below actual value?  Please, tell us more... this is fascinating information!  I mean most of us thought the problem was that these companies hide losses and exaggerate gains to make themselves look more valuable.  If instead they are underselling themselves that's fascinating new result!

                            Your response:

                            Interlocking directorates, shell companies and even something as simple as skimming profits are all well known ways to keep assets out of view of governments, not to mention shareholders at times.  I'll just follow your lead and claim that all BP's upper management are pure as Ivory Snow, nothing to see here!  Large multinationals that have spent decades acting as if (not to mention convincing themselves that) they were beyond the law.  Running corporate malfeasance at some high level eventually?  Pish!  Such thinking about the Saints of the Boardrooms!  'Tis not to be born, I say.

                            You ask for SPECIFIC examples of corporate maladministration and when I provide a few examples

                            If you think these are "SPECIFIC" examples then you don't know what "SPECIFIC" means.

                            Once again, I challenge you to provide evidence of large publicly traded companies lowballing their value for investors.

                          •  You want numbers? (0+ / 0-)

                            Try these: http://www.oilwatchdog.org/...

                            BP is shown as pulling in 10, 15, even $20 billion per quarter for years.  Not exactly going in the tank if required to put a couple quarters profit (even a couple of years) into staying out of jail.

                            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                            by nargel on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 08:58:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you know the difference between annual and (0+ / 0-)

                            quarterly?

                            Title of the chart says it all:

                            Big Five Oil Companies’ Annual Oil Profits

                            Teh stupid is giving me a headache!!!

                          •  There's more than one chart (0+ / 0-)

                            there, idiot.

                            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                            by nargel on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 01:27:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Number Fail (0+ / 0-)

                            BP is shown as pulling in 10, 15, even $20 billion per quarter for years.  

                            Chart on Page 1 shows annual numbers and BP at a bit over $20 billion in 2006.  All other years are less.

                            Chart on Page 4 shows quarterly numbers and BP at ~ $10 billion in 2008 Q4.  All other quarters are less.

                            So either you can't tell the difference between annual and quarterly or you can't tell the difference between $10 billion and $20 billion.

                            Which is it?  Inquiring minds want to know!

                          •  First I had to find the charts (and the data (0+ / 0-)

                            base) for you, then I had to point out that there was more than one chart there and now I'm supposed to teach you how to read charts?  Hell with that.  You are as much a 'scientist' as a bought and paid for climate change denialist.  

                            Go ahead and continue to defend the poor oppressed profit-above-all upper management of BP and their 'right' to lawyer up and continue to clutch their parts in their criminal company in whatever pieces you seem to think would would absolve them of liability.   It's a stupid position to take but whatever floats yer boat.

                            Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

                            by nargel on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 12:57:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My mistake... I didn't realize that (0+ / 0-)

                            knowing the difference between $10 billion and $20 billion and between annual and quarterly made me a bad guy.

                            I just thought it showed I wasn't stupid.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site