Last August, Loren Steffy wrote an article in the Houston Chronicle headlined "ATP claim over bankrupcy doesn't hold water". In his article Steffy pours scorn on ATP's (Bulmahn's) claim that the Obama Administration's imposition of the post-Macondo drilling moratorium was to blame for the company's bankruptcy. So far, so good. Anyone who has followed this company ought to know that, although undeniably wounded by those unfortunate events, its wounds were far from fatal.
Steffy concludes his piece with the statement, "The moratorium definitely made things worse for ATP, but it merely exacerbated long-festering financial problems. Ultimately, the cause of ATP's bankruptcy wasn't much different from most others: too much debt. For that, the company doesn't have anyone to blame but itself."
This conclusion is both ultimately true and ultimately uninteresting. It's like saying, "Ultimately, the adventurer died of over-adventurous activity", or "Ultimately, the rock climber died of too much rock climbing". It doesn't tell you anything you didn't know, does it? I mean, describing the circumstances of a death is not the same as describing the cause of death, is it? Anyway, how much debt is too much debt? You only know it's too much debt after the event, the event being the destruction, erosion or non-appearance of the revenues intended to support that debt. Identify that event or those events, and you will identify the real killer of ATP Oil and Gas Corporation.
Does anyone have any suspects? |
