Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
nuts

If The Threat To Bp Is Existential

Recommended Posts

It will be the victory of US nationalistic demagoguery over capitalism.

In other words, business as usual.

yeah but BP is a FTSE listed company. bought heavily by pensions, insurance companies etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but BP is a FTSE listed company. bought heavily by pensions, insurance companies etc

Wasn't Northern Rock? Sh*t happens and the conservative investors are getting plenty of warning. They've had ample time to reduce their exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I been saying this for days..................it could finish BP!

It could finish BP profits, thus income

However.................Is BP insured with Llyods?

Will "WE" end up paying out?

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but BP is a FTSE listed company. bought heavily by pensions, insurance companies etc

On second thought... I think you have a point :-)

BP is a big constituent of the Footsie and considering how fubar'd the economy is, perhaps it might act as a major blow to confidence. I have doubts that we are there yet, but it could be the catalyst that triggers a renewed downturn in the UK. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didn't oilman bush limit oil companies damage liabilities in the event of a leak/spill to $75M? http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/96375-dems-propose-massive-increase-in-oil-company-liability-from-75-m-to-10b

On top of this, BP can blame a sub-contractor and will have its own damages insurance

BP are doing all they can to safeguard future operations, but their liabilities are very limited. if they wanted they could turn round, tell obama to ****** off and fix the hole himself, and flounce off to the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The costs and damages - despite the $75m limit which can be retrospectively remove - are unlimited.

BP has a market cap of £100 billion.

BP could be the catalyst...

Edited by nuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What damage to UK PLC ?

( Doesn't look like the top kill is working. )

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6528

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_now_says_top_kill_has_yet_t.html

... edited for better links

I don't think that you are using the word 'existential' appropriately. The word for most people refers to a rather involved philosophy proposed and developed by Kirkegaard, and then by french writers like Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus in the 1960's or thereabout.

If you mean 'does the threat really exist?' it would be less confusing and pretentious to say so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/existential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that you are using the word 'existential' appropriately. The word for most people refers to a rather involved philosophy proposed and developed by Kirkegaard, and then by french writers like Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus in the 1960's or thereabout.

If you mean 'does the threat really exist?' it would be less confusing and pretentious to say so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/existential

Sorry for the jargon. Google "Existential Threat"....

http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=1135

... it may not be perfect grammatically but is commonly understood to mean "a threat to the existence of".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the jargon. Google "Existential Threat"....

http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=1135

... it may not be perfect grammatically but is commonly understood to mean "a threat to the existence of".

Well OK, if you wish to use jargon. I try to avoid jargon since it is fairly well described below, imo, in dictionary.com. Especially see nos. 2, 3, 4, & 5. I disagree that jargon is what something is 'commonly understood to mean'. I certainly would not use jargon deliberately.

jar·gon

1   /ˈdʒɑrgən, -gɒn/ Show Spelled[jahr-guhn, -gon] Show IPA

–noun

1.

the language, esp. the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group: medical jargon.

2.

unintelligible or meaningless talk or writing; gibberish.

3.

any talk or writing that one does not understand.

4.

pidgin.

5.

language that is characterized by uncommon or pretentious vocabulary and convoluted syntax and is often vague in meaning.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jargon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that you are using the word 'existential' appropriately. The word for most people refers to a rather involved philosophy proposed and developed by Kirkegaard, and then by french writers like Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus in the 1960's or thereabout.

If you mean 'does the threat really exist?' it would be less confusing and pretentious to say so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/existential

No, I think existensial is an appropriate term in the context. That is: the Gulf of Mexico situation is a threat to the continuing existence of the entity called BP.

Quite different from the philosophical and artistic genre of existentialism.

As different as material and materialism, or impression and impressionism.

As far as the OP's question: **** knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there are many options open to the US Gov on this.

They can talk tough, but:

1) Many US companies are potentially more liable than BP, especially Halliburton as it appears they may have ignored some pressure warnings

2) They don't want to further de-stable their own economy by beating up one of the country's biggest oil producers

3) The oil industry lobby is a lot bigger than the environmentalist lobby

An indicator is the announcement that they were freezing new licenses in the Gulf of Mexico - but they've apparently carried on granting.

On the existential threat:

a. US is only 30% of BP revenue I understand

b. BP can tar-pit any compensation claims in the US court system for decades

Edited by slacker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a. US is only 30% of BP revenue I understand

b. BP can tar-pit any compensation claims in the US court system for decades

Interesting. My initial reaction to the story was to assume that this crisis would be to BP what the ICESAVE collapse was to Icelandic banking.....that it would destroy the company, because even if not legally liable, their name is associated with what seems to be the planet's largest man made catastrophe to date. Irrespective of legal process, will the US government lean on its friends in an effort to destroy BP?

Noises made by BP haven't helped.

crass sh*t from BP CEO

The statement that the spill was of "very very modest" impact because in volume the amount of oil was much less than the ocean into which it was released must have tempted Obama to alter the targetting parameters for the US strategic nukes. It's like saying a brain tumour has a modest impact because it only weighs a few grams in contrast to a body mass of 80Kg. (edit: or that the World Trade Center was only a small fraction of the land area of the USA).............it's offensive, and I think the words will come back to haunt BP.

Edited by ingermany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+2

I am convinced you are all figments of my imagination anyhow... although why I dreamt up Eric is beyond me! :blink:

I bet the CEO of BP is wishing that his problem were only philosophical.

Think about it... there are folk now suggesting nuking the well to seal it off FFS. :o:o

If the US military get involved you can bet that the outcome will be not at all philosophical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it still exists, at the very least, I expect it will end up being named "American Petroleum" by the time this is all over.

When i was at school, 30+ years ago, we were told that one day nuclear bombs would be used to make vast caverns underground (or undersea), which could be used for mining, storage, etc.. The explosion would vapourise the rock and form a water-tight shell. No idea if it makes any sense. It might have been our biology teacher who told us. He was full of stories (he was in the war, you know).

edit:originally called it "AP" but realised people might not geddit.

Edited by BigPig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that you are using the word 'existential' appropriately.

After years of not understanding what people meant by "existential", I was beginning to think that it was a lot simpler than I thought, and now you tell me I was right when I thought I didn't understand.

A similar thing happened to "systemic risk", which used to mean a inherant, reproducible fault in a system, as opposed to a random or accidental error, but our financial leaders and journalists got hold of it and decided it now meant "risk to the system".

Edited by BigPig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is quite a lot of anti-British feeling on the news media in the US. Talk of seizing BPs assets etc. I think this one will run and run... it is far from over.

Understandable anger - people need someone to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 150 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.