BP Chief Tony Hayward Sold Shares Weeks Before Oil Spill

polaris_x

OutOfBreath wrote:

That is only true to a point. This disaster has made it way too clear that business can't go on as usual. That's political suicide for any politician supporting the status quo now...

So I think the political pressure will trump the lobbying here...

Peace
Dan

this is a america dan ... george w. bush wiped out decades of environmental laws in his first week of office ... the oil industry controls the gov't ... do you think exxon-mobil is going to sit and have new rules and regulations cut into their profits? - no way ... and at the end of the day - the reality is that there truly is no pressure ... most people vote based on the letter next to the person's name (assuming they vote at all) ... any changes will be done for PR purposes ...

a similar spill happened in the same area 31 years ago and there were no consequences then ...

OutOfBreath

polaris_x wrote:

this is a america dan ... george w. bush wiped out decades of environmental laws in his first week of office ... the oil industry controls the gov't ... do you think exxon-mobil is going to sit and have new rules and regulations cut into their profits? - no way ... and at the end of the day - the reality is that there truly is no pressure ... most people vote based on the letter next to the person's name (assuming they vote at all) ... any changes will be done for PR purposes ...

a similar spill happened in the same area 31 years ago and there were no consequences then ...

Well, I'm not so doom and gloom about it this time. Such regulations can be quietly dismantled and disregarded, as long as effects are either long term and gradual, or limited in scale. This one is very immediate, humongously huge, and with the entire media circus all over it drooling over who to blame. Politicians are probably gonna overbid eachother in bitchslapping the industry in general and BP in particular. (see my post above) This cat is thoroughly out of the bag right now. Regulations may slide back again over time, but it'll take a pretty long while, given the scale and prominence here. This is not just a tanker filled with oil that empties, it's a guzzling oil well completely out of control. And given that the regulation might now get a bit over the top as well, the reverting may not go further than where they should have been before the accident.

Also consider that for years to come there will be ruined coastal lands in the south to testify the need for beefed up security and control. So I'm quite optimistic on that something will have to change and most likely for the better.

Peace
Dan

polaris_x

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, I'm not so doom and gloom about it this time. Such regulations can be quietly dismantled and disregarded, as long as effects are either long term and gradual, or limited in scale. This one is very immediate, humongously huge, and with the entire media circus all over it drooling over who to blame. Politicians are probably gonna overbid eachother in bitchslapping the industry in general and BP in particular. (see my post above) This cat is thoroughly out of the bag right now. Regulations may slide back again over time, but it'll take a pretty long while, given the scale and prominence here. This is not just a tanker filled with oil that empties, it's a guzzling oil well completely out of control. And given that the regulation might now get a bit over the top as well, the reverting may not go further than where they should have been before the accident.

Also consider that for years to come there will be ruined coastal lands in the south to testify the need for beefed up security and control. So I'm quite optimistic on that something will have to change and most likely for the better.

Peace
Dan

it's not so much doom and gloom as it is a response based on the reality of american politics and environmental regulations ... this is a country where someone who works for industry can be appointed head of the EPA ...

you would think that changes would be done - but there has been no precedent in the last decade or so to show that anything will be done ... as disastrous as this spill is -climate change has already turned out to be far worse in its consequences - there just isn't the visual bomb associated with it ... and the US (along with Canada) have shown no substantive progress on that front ...

OutOfBreath

polaris_x wrote:

it's not so much doom and gloom as it is a response based on the reality of american politics and environmental regulations ... this is a country where someone who works for industry can be appointed head of the EPA ...

you would think that changes would be done - but there has been no precedent in the last decade or so to show that anything will be done ... as disastrous as this spill is -climate change has already turned out to be far worse in its consequences - there just isn't the visual bomb associated with it ... and the US (along with Canada) have shown no substantive progress on that front ...

Well, the "problem" with climate change is that it's gradual and an assessment made on averages with big swings either way year for year. This is substantial and in people's faces. You can't have an academic disagreement about the fact of this spill. There is no fig leaf to hide behind.

Just saying, factoring in how it seems the dirty business of lobbying and politics works, this can't be ignored. Besides, Bush isn't in the office anymore, so they at least dont have "their own guy" in there. Obama seems pissed, as do several senators, lawmakers and the general population of at least the southern states. This is shaping up to be "the perfect storm" to bypass lobbiers this once.

Peace
Dan

polaris_x

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, the "problem" with climate change is that it's gradual and an assessment made on averages with big swings either way year for year. This is substantial and in people's faces. You can't have an academic disagreement about the fact of this spill. There is no fig leaf to hide behind.

Just saying, factoring in how it seems the dirty business of lobbying and politics works, this can't be ignored. Besides, Bush isn't in the office anymore, so they at least dont have "their own guy" in there. Obama seems pissed, as do several senators, lawmakers and the general population of at least the southern states. This is shaping up to be "the perfect storm" to bypass lobbiers this once.

Peace
Dan

don't get me wrong ... i hope that you are right ...

but ... there is no difference between republican and democratic administrations when it comes to issues such as this ... obama signed off on the waivers that basically allow these rigs to go unregulated ... and since the spill he has signed off on additional waivers at other sites ...

this has simply become a publicity stunt and public relations exercise ... sure, obama may be angry but what can he do about it? ... any changes has to go through congress and that is about the most inept group of people you can get ... by the time they iron out something and the lawyers get their hands on it ... it'll be watered down (no pun intended) and by then any public pressure will have dissipated ...

i suppose we will have to wait and see - but history is not on the side of reform ...

redrock

g under p wrote:

Mr Hayward, whose position is thought to be under threat, risked further fury by continuing plans to pay out a dividend to investors next month.

These dividends do fill the pockets of rich investors but a vast amount of money also forms part of the meager pensions of our retired. In the UK about 1/7 of the money in pension funds is from BP. Dividends in the US are worth billions. The US government trying to stop BP paying out dividends is a bit ludicrous. BP has PLENTY of money to be able to pay for the mess (clean up, compensation, etc.) and pay their dividends.

Also... trying to make a story (and a certain link) out of Hayward selling shares is ridiculous.