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.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (32359)	6/25/2010 2:21:13 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	2 Recommendations Respond to of 103300

The only conflict of interest is between the judge's ruling and odumbo's idiotic policies... GZ

To: Bill who wrote (32359)	6/25/2010 7:48:18 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

BP's Eventual Bankruptcy Is Certain There is no doubt that BP (BP) will not emerge from this oil spill disaster intact. Make no mistake – this is the fatal black swan event in BP's life that is going to take investors by the hundreds down with the ship. Its not going to happen immediately. Much like the slow initial fall and eventual breakneck pace of collapse of a giant tree, the giant oil leak is the event that will catalyze the fall of this far flung and storied company. Here's some food for thought in support of my prediction. I also caveat that statement with the possibility that a 'merger' or 'buyout' will be forced and negotiated out of public view to offset political carnage. Either way, shareholders and taxpayers alike will burn. What they're still touting as the "worst environmental disaster in US history" is quickly growing up into the worst environmental disaster in the history of humanity. With the unprecedented scale and scope of this astonishing catastrophe, BP will likely not survive. There are reasons for this which are not currently part of the mainstream analysis. But the mainstream is reactive, and to some degree compromised by conflicted cross ownership of shares in both big oil and big media. When will the actual rate of flow be known? At this point, it grows weekly. What will be the long-term effect of such a severe and unprecedented change in ocean chemistry within the Gulf? Might this trigger some sort of domino effect that can spread to the rest of the world's oceans? Will the Gulf become a pelagic desert? These are questions that lurk along the outer reaches of a lot of minds of late. With BP now acknowledging that it will likely be at least August before the leak is brought under control, its share price is plummeting, and that makes the 100 year old company both a takeover target and a bankruptcy concern. Never mind any semblance of moral imperative – this disaster has already upset the entire offshore drilling industry, and with the clamor growing around the world, you can bet that serious – and expensive – legislation curbing the industry's growth is inevitable. Besides banning offshore drilling off Alaska and the entire eastern seaboard (which has already happened), the new rules governing the procedures of exploration and extraction of offshore hydrocarbon resources are going to make the commodity and the final product more expensive. We are obviously going to see new safety requirements and probably requirements for substantial contingency funds. But it's the legal and financial exposure that BP is going to be desperately seeking ways to avoid. Its safe to say a good portion of the days of BP CEO Tony Hayward are devoted to ducking responsibility for the event. BP's history is rife with incidents involving collusion, perjury, political interference, and other chicanery. As the price plummets further and further downward in a self-perpetuating cycle that only increases downward momentum, the company might soon cease to exist. What does that mean for the Gulf coastline and the years of damaged economy and ecology? Well first of all, any takeover/rescue deal of BP involving another major oil company is going to involve a negotiation with the United States government to cap the financial exposure and legal responsibility for the cleanup. The acquiring company will argue that the assets and earning power of the acquired BP assets must be unencumbered by any unknowns such as where the limit might be on the actual cost of damages. They will furthermore argue, at precisely the right moment, that the alternative is let the company go completely bankrupt, and stick the American taxpayer with the bill. The full article below: seekingalpha.com GZ

To: Bill who wrote (32359)	6/25/2010 8:46:31 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 103300

Sold stock the very same day.... :) 3rd UPDATE: Judge In Moratorium Case Sold Exxon Stock This Week (Updates with a statement from Judge Feldman) By Tennille Tracy, Siobhan Hughes and Brent Kendall Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES JUNE 25, 2010, 6:22 P.M. ET online.wsj.com WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling sold stock in Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) on the same day he issued his ruling, according to documents released Friday. Exxon Mobil was among the companies affected by the administration's moratorium. It used a rig whose operations were suspended under the ban, according to Exxon spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman White. The judge in the moratorium case, U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman, says he only learned of his holdings in Exxon Mobil on Monday, the day before he issued his ruling. "Because he remembered that Exxon, who was not a party litigant in the moratorium case, nevertheless had one of the 33 rigs in the Gulf, the judge instructed his broker to sell Exxon and XTO [Energy Inc.] as soon as the market opened the next morning," according to a statement released by the judge's chambers. The judge said in a Wednesday letter that he sold his shares in Exxon Mobil before the stock market opened Tuesday, "prior to the opening of a court hearing on the spill moratorium case." The letter was released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on Friday. According to federal law, federal judges are required to step aside from cases that present financial conflicts or cases in which the judge's impartiality might be questioned. But the sheer size of Exxon makes this case less clear, one expert said. Doug Kendall, president of the government watchdog group Constitutional Accountability Center, questioned whether Feldman's stake in Exxon Mobil would technically disqualify the judge, given the size of the company and the likelihood that its stock wouldn't be affected by the ruling. Kendall did say, however, that "it would be better to have a judge who doesn't have any interest in any company that is operating in the Gulf." Spokesmen for the White House, U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment on the issue. The judge bought less than $15,000 of Exxon stock in December 2009, according to the documents. As of the end of 2009, Judge Feldman does not appear to have owned stock in any other company using rigs affected by the moratorium, according to a review of his holdings and a list of such companies provided by staff of Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey who sits on the Senate's energy and natural resources committee. As of the end of last year, Judge Feldman did own stock in other energy companies. Among them are Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. (ALY), an oilfield-services company based in Houston. Allis-Chalmers said in a quarterly filing that its rental-services unit has been "very dependent on drilling activity in the Gulf of Mexico." The company also said it is monitoring the Gulf of Mexico spill "as we do generate a significant amount of revenues from our rental service segment from activities in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico." In 2008, Judge Feldman owned a stake in Transocean Ltd. (RIG), the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon rig, but the documents suggest he sold those holdings in 2009. Federal law requires federal judges to fill out annual disclosure forms that are distributed to the public by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts following a written request. The administration's six-month moratorium, issued in late May, idled operations at 33 rigs, according to the International Association of Drilling Contractors. Exxon Mobil was using one of those 33 rigs and also had to suspend plans to drill a production well, said Exxon's spokeswoman. The lawsuit to block the administration's moratorium was filed June 7 by Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, an offshore oil-services provider based in Covington, La. On Tuesday, Judge Feldman struck down the moratorium, calling it "heavy-handed" and "overbearing." On Thursday, he denied a request from the administration to continue its ban while it appeals the judge's first decision. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said the administration will issue a modified moratorium. Judge Feldman's letter said the drilling moratorium hearing took place on Monday, June 21. The hearing occurred on Tuesday, June 22. A secretary for Judge Feldman said he was not available to explain the discrepancy. The secretary could not comment on a reference to the judge's holdings in XTO Energy, which are not revealed in the financial documents. -By Tennille Tracy, Dow Jones Newswires; Tennille.Tracy@dowjones.com