Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (255156)	6/17/2010 9:39:53 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 306849

Five Questions for BP's Tony Hayward _____________________________________________________________ by Robert Weissman Published on Thursday, June 17, 2010 by CommonDreams.org BP CEO Tony Hayward today faces what is sure to be a tough inquisition before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Here are five questions Hayward should be forced to answer under oath: 1. Do you agree that the Deepwater Horizon disaster could have been averted if BP had exercised a greater degree of concern for safety? In advance of the hearing, Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Bart Stupak sent Hayward a detailed letter elaborating five separate cost-cutting and corner-cutting decisions made by BP. Had BP made a different decision in any of these and other instances -- prioritizing safety over profit -- it is likely the Gulf catastrophe could have been averted. The Committee is sure to focus on these issues. 2. If you believe that the Gulf gusher is simply an unfortunate accident, rather than the result of BP's negligence and recklessness, do you therefore agree that deepwater drilling is too risky and dangerous? 3. Even if this disaster could have been prevented if BP had not been so reckless, doesn't the scale of the gusher and the fecklessness of BP's response mean that deepwater drilling should be abandoned? It is evident that the gusher is having a devastating effect on the Gulf's ecology, but no one knows how serious it is or will be. This disaster has far outpaced scientific knowledge about the deep sea. The disaster has also shown that, while oil giants do have the technology to drill a mile below sea level and miles into the earth's core, they do not have commensurate capacity to handle an oil geyser a mile below the ocean's surface. There is not even a serious capacity to control oil on the surface. 4. After the explosion, BP claimed 1,000 barrels a day were leaking into the ocean. The government now estimates 60,000 barrels are gushing a day. Some experts believe the amount may be more like 100,000. Some skeptics have understandably raised questions about whether BP's initial public statements on the size of the leak were made in good faith. Will you release all internal estimates and related documentation on the size of the oil gusher, and continue to release such information publicly as you generate it? More generally, will you presumptively share publicly all materials you are now generating related to capping the well, capturing oil and cleaning up the ocean and shore? Information about BP's operations in this regard can no longer be considered proprietary and nonpublic, if it ever should have been. BP is now performing essentially public functions in trying to address the gusher. BP remains in control of the remedial process only because the government does not have the technological capacity to take over. 5. You have agreed to pay $20 billion into an escrow fund to pay victims of the oil gusher. You have also agreed to suspend dividend payments for this year. But BP's liabilities may vastly exceed $20 billion. Do you pledge to make available the resources of the entire BP corporate structure to satisfy these liabilities? Behind this question: There is good reason to be concerned about BP trying to isolate liability in one or more subsidiaries, and then either entering the subsidiary into bankruptcy, or manipulating the corporate form in an attempt to pay all of what it will owe. For Tony Hayward and BP, the hard questions are just beginning. *Robert Weissman is president of Public Citizen, which is calling for a BP Boycott

To: Les H who wrote (255156)	6/18/2010 2:31:58 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 306849

A Bad Day for BP and Mr. Barton _______________________________________________________________ Editorial The New York Times June 17, 2010 It’s hard to imagine anyone having a worse day than Tony Hayward, BP’s embattled chief executive, who spent Thursday in the cross hairs of an angry Congressional committee and turned in a mind-bogglingly vapid performance. But he got a run for his money from Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, who inexplicably decided to call the escrow account agreed to by BP and the White House a “$20 billion shakedown.” If Mr. Barton was trying to be supportive of Mr. Hayward, who looked like he had not slept in weeks, he failed. Mr. Hayward delivered an opening statement full of contrition for the immense damage his company has done. He then faced Henry Waxman and other veteran interrogators armed with truckloads of documents suggesting that BP had behaved sloppily at best and at worst sidestepped safety precautions to save money. Mr. Hayward insisted that he had never heard of any problems in drilling and completing the well that is now spouting 60,000 barrels of oil a day. He further confessed that he did not even know his company was drilling the doomed well until the day it hit oil. “I had no prior knowledge of the drilling of this well, none whatsoever,” he told Representative Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican. “With respect, sir, we drill hundreds of wells a year around the world.” To which Mr. Burgess shot back: “That’s what’s scaring me now.” While the final verdict on this disaster is not in, BP’s boss should at least be prepared to concede what everyone else in the world knows: BP was utterly unprepared to handle a blowout at 5,000 feet below sea level. As Mr. Waxman put it, “There is not a single e-mail or document that shows you paid even the slightest attention to the dangers at the well.” BP’s cause was hardly helped by “Smoky Joe” Barton, a reliable friend of big coal and big oil and no stranger to rhetorical excess. His “shakedown” remark was too much for some of his Republican colleagues, especially those from other gulf states. Jeff Miller of Pensacola, Fla., said Mr. Barton was “out of touch.” Even John Boehner, the House minority leader, who normally cannot resist a partisan roundhouse, said “BP ought to be held responsible for every dime of this tragedy.” Apparently chastened by these and other reprimands, Mr. Barton later apologized for his apology to Mr. Hayward and said he regretted using the word “shakedown.” He was not entirely convincing.