OK, does anyone really think that BP is not trying to stop this leak?????

[KansasVoter]

There is NO incentive for them to let the leak continue.

There is a LOT of incentive for them to stop it.

I am sure many of the engineers working on this leak want it stopped as bad as the DU does.

They are not all idiots and not all "greedy" CEOs. Some of them are like you and I and just work for a damn living.

If there was some magic easy way to stop this thing why in the world would BP not stop it????

Maybe they lied about the amount leaking, I can see a motive for that.

Maybe they messed up and did not heed warning signs before the blowout. I can see that being motivated by greed.

Maybe they lied to get the permit, there is motive for that.

But there is NO LOGICAL REASON for them not to try as hard as possible to stop it now, especially when they know their ass is in trouble.

I hate big business as much as anyone at times, but I have no reason to doubt that BP is trying their hardest to stop this leak, for PR reasons if nothing else.

[valerief]

1. If they plug the leak, they plug the revenue resource. nt

[KansasVoter]

2. That might be the dumbest think I have ever heard. How are they making money off leaked oil??

[Kali]

6. I mostly agree with your OP

but drilling is expensive, they could be trying to salvage the well as opposed to simply shutting it off.

[HughMoran]

9. Don't you know, harvesting oil at $1000/barrel and selling it at $67/barrel is good business

:eyes:

People need to think with their heads, not their hearts.

[KansasVoter]

17. Self Delete - Me being stupid!!

[Hav]

20. He was making your point.

I'm no expert but I, too, can't see any advantage for BP for letting the oil leak into the sea like that.
Even if you hate big oil, it would be very hard to argue that they are profitting from the leak.

[nsd]

21. $1000 > $67

I think the rolling-eyes icon suffices as a sarcasm tag.

[KansasVoter]

25. My bad! Thanks!!!

[KansasVoter]

24. I am sorry! Did not read close enough! You are 100% correct!

[HughMoran]

27. No problem, I missed your misinterpretation post

so it's all good here ;)

[KansasVoter]

30. Thanks!!

[valerief]

34. US taxpayers will get stuck with the cost of harvesting the oil, not BP.

BP will get a bailout.

[Bitwit1234]

32. I think you are correct

they are just and anxious to plug this leak as anybody, because it is costing them money, plus the cleanup cost.

I think the problem with them is, they never encountered something like this before and they just did not have any idea what to do. I think all those scientist that President Obama had pressed into service are helping with solutions.

[Xipe Totec]

4. What revenue source?

You really think they can make money by letting the oil leak into the gulf and then picking it up?

That's insane.

[valerief]

35. No. By controlling the flow and collecting it like they planned. There's more oil than what's

leaking.

[Raineyb]

40. Not to mention they weren't planning to sell the oil from this well

in the immediate future in the first place. Their intention was to cap it for later. So whatever is still available if they can manage to salvage the well and have it usable in the future they can still make some money off of it.

Is this so hard a concept to understand? I didn't think so. You don't think so yet it seems to be beyond comprehension for some.

:shrug:

[valerief]

41. I think you're confusing me with someone else. If you check my posts, you'll see.

Is that so hard to do? :shrug:

[Raineyb]

43. I'm actually agreeing with you.

I was just tacking on to what you said.

Did you not read what I wrote in its entirety?

:shrug:

[valerief]

47. Ah, sorry. I misread you. I can understand what we're saying about BP but not when

someone agrees with me!!!! Ha! Thanks.

[HereSince1628]

5. But they can punch another well into the same reserve.

And now there is no doubt that the oil is actually there.

Sure there is a loss of drilling costs that are behind this catastrophe, but then that's just one of those expenses that get taken against revenue when calculating profits, ain't it so?

[uponit7771]

14. After a month and 25 million dollars...yeap...they can

[DevonRex]

8. If they plug the leak then they GET their revenue source rather than

letting it flow all over the ocean.

[uponit7771]

15. Not without spending MILLIONS "unpluging" the leak from what I know

[Hav]

18. Maybe..

But some millions (or the 25 Million you mentioned above) is nothing compared to the cost they had till now and what they will have in the future. It's just almost nothing for them.

[DevonRex]

19. Billions in revenue vs millions in unplugging? Peanuts. nt

[valerief]

36. Exactly! nt

[slackmaster]

12. If they plug the leak without compensating for the pressure of the oil and gas first,

The whole thing will blow out again and make the situation worse.

[Phx_Dem]

39. No. They can tap it again through the relief well they're drilling.

As it stands now, this oil well is not a source of revenue. They can't capture and sell leaking oil.

[valerief]

42. Right. They can sell what hasn't yet leaked if it's contained.

A painfully obvious revenue resource.

[Teaser]

48. You know nothing.

The well is fucked. Their engineers know this. Everyone in BP knows this.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. President Santorum!

:tinfoilhat:

[gateley]

7. Initially I was suspicious that they wanted to find a way to "save" the oil, but now

there's way more incentive for them to fix it. Even their stockholders are suing them. So I think they are doing what they can to stop this, and that they're hoping as fervently as we that the top kill works.

[FrenchieCat]

10. THe longer it takes them, the less likely that they will be drilling again

for a long time. The only thing that they are successfuly doing is turning the public
against the idea of offshore drilling....although of course the polsters are still there
to help BP not believe that this will happen in large enough numbers anytime soon.
I think they would be mistaken. I think they know that each day that passes without an end
to the gurgling oil giant mess the more money they will lose both in the short and in the long run.
If nothing else BP executives understand money very well. This disaster will also help end
oil company subsidies ...which I'm sure is not welcomed news. Obama proposed ending Oil
company subsidies in his 2011 budget, and now it appears that this too will happen.

[phleshdef]

11. No one with half a business mind would think they don't want to stop it.

The PR costs, the cleanup costs, the lawsuits, the total fallout. No amount of oil left in that reserve is going to make up for all of that.

[uponit7771]

16. Like Exxon? Jus sayin, past history is on BPs side

[uponit7771]

13. Not now, but when it blew they had EVERY reason to let the oil flow IMHO mainly cost

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Yeah, there are really people that dumb here.

Like the Bobby Jindal and Rand Paul apologists, the place is lousy with them.

[ShortnFiery]

23. No, but they should call out for and permit OTHER oil tankers to come to the area in order

to skim much of the already leaked oil out. However, I suspect BP is so damn stingy they wouldn't want to share their oil. BUT oil tankers sucking up all this excess RIGHT NOW could make a world of difference with regard to preventing destruction of wildlife refuges.

Why are there NOT more oil tankers skimming the oil instead of those TOXIC dispersants?

[chill_wind]

26. I don't question that they are anxious to stop the uncontained leak, BUT

I certainly do condemn their shortcuts and safety priorities that have been reported which led to their clusterfuck. I have questions about a company and its competence so craven about profits, it can't be bothered to even know what sea and wildlife dwells in the habitats in which it drills. And while I think it's in their interest to stop the disaster, in reality, it's cost them immense PR-- but very little in pure profits so far.

Four days of pure profits.

Long term, our lot is a LOT more desperate than theirs.

1. On May 10, BP said it had already spent $350 million as a result of the Deepwater Horizon accident.

2. By contrast, in the first three months of this year, BP made $93 million per day in pure profits. This does not include the huge salaries and perks of its executives that are considered “costs,” not profits. Thus, BP has spent what might seem to many people to be a big number on the accident ($350million) but it is only equivalent to 4 days of pure profits for BP.

3. BP has a market value (BP’s assets) of $152.6 billion.

4. So far, BP has only paid 295 claims out of the 4,700 claims made against the company for damages and losses incurred from the Deepwater accident.

5. JP Morgan Chase Bank owns almost 30 percent of BP’s common stock.

6. BP is the largest producer of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. Citigroup analysts have formally advised investors not to worry too much about “the likely costs to the company .” The Citigroup analysis notes that punitive damages against Exxon for the Exxon-Valedz oil spill in 1989 were originally set by the courts at $5 billion but reduced by 90 percent when the case reached the Supreme Court in 2008. The total cost to Exxon was $500 million in compensation damages and $500 million in punitive damages. The total cost imposed on Exxon after 20 years of litigation amounted to only $1 billion, or the equivalent of just 12 days worth of BP’s pure profits ($93 million per day) in the first three months of this year. Because of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, BP and any other oil company that is responsible for an offshore oil accident is not legally required to pay more than $75 million in damages above the oil recovery costs. Thus, the government’s response to the Exxon Valdez accident was to actually protect the Oil Giants by limiting their liability and risk exposure in the event of a catastrophic accident. Again, the $75 million limit is less than 1 day of BP’s pure profits in 2010.

8. BP is using carefully crafted language to imply that it may cover all the “legitimate” costs and “legitimate” damages (and they would presumably be the entity to determine which claim is legitimate) and that this amount will surpass the damage cap of $75 million set by the Oil Pollution Act. States BP’s executive vice president David Nagel, “A $75 million liability is not where our head is at this moment.” The most important three words of Nagel’s quote is “at this moment.” The law, as written, entitles BP’s executives to be the deciders of whether to pay or not to pay any damages above the $75 millioncap. Right now the company is under the glare of global publicity and it can say whatever it wants to suggest that it is taking full responsibility.

9. BP has a long history of safety violations and reckless behavior. They chose not to equip Deepwater Horizon with an acoustic trigger, a last-resort option that could have been activated from a remote location triggering the well to shut down even if it was damaged badly. This piece of equipment is required in several countries, but not in the United States. Though BP does employ them on their rigs offshore in England, they choose not to in the Gulf of Mexico. This piece of equipment costs $500,000 – an amount they make in pure profits in less than 8 minutes (based on 2010 earnings). BP also chose not to install a deep-water valve, which could have served as another last-resort option for cutoff. BP has been fined many times by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and is the recipient of their largest fine ever. OSHA Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Jordan Barab has this to say about BP: “BP has systemic safety and health problems.”

10. Unless there is an asset seizure and the placement of those funds in a trust to provide for full compensation and relief for the harmed people and the damaged environment, BP and its executives will avoid real responsibility to remedy the suffering and damage caused by their reckless and greedy search for super-profits. In fact, if BP and Big Oil is left untouched by government intervention the whole Deepwater catastrophe could turn out to be a source of more profits for Big Oil. A Citigroup analyst report states: “Reaction to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak is a buying opportunity.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8413624

[eleny]

28. They said they were prepared when they got the lease

We want them to succeed today. But if they don't then it's time they admit that they can't if that's the truth.

[Unvanguard]

29. You are exactly correct. They have the incentive, and they probably have the expertise, too.

The problem here is not incompetence or lack of will; it is the physical difficulty of what they are trying to do--an excellent reason to oppose off-shore drilling, but not for fury at the insufficiency of the response. Sometimes doing all you reasonably can isn't enough.

[KansasVoter]

31. Great point. The point of this mess is not allowing drilling below where it is safe.

[retread]

33. Probably knew before they sunk the first drill at this depth how difficult it would be to stop

a leak. Didn't stop them from cutting corners and taking every short cut they could.

You should delete your three maybe's, without them the sentences ring truer.

[Silent3]

37. Thank you for that.

That's not to say that BP might not have some institutional reasons for being ineffective at finding the best solutions, and I'm not sure I trust their choice of dispersants, but yes, thinking BP simply doesn't care, or even crazier, that BP actually wants the oil to keep gushing into the ocean, is the kind of thinking that helps earn the political left more of a moonbat reputation.

[Phx_Dem]

38. Seriously. It's beyond ridiculous.

BP is losing millions every day in oil not too mention millions or billions in cleanup and lawsuits. The longer the oil flows the more money they lose and the greater the chance they will fall into bankruptcy, which doesn't bother me as long as they pay up first.

[besdayz]

44. a

the only qualms i have is bp had multiple priorities. limit liability, clean up oil, find problem...
while they want to clean the oil b/c its tied to liability, they are also at a point where they know it will be a bad judgment on them in the courts regardless....so it would be reasonable to assume that now conceal damning information is also a priority.....

[niceypoo]

45. Here is my theory:

Republicans and BP officials have secretly agreed to let the leak continue unabated to damage Barack Obama.

[BR_Parkway]

46. Wow, logic without a knee-jerk "all business is evil" emotional response

Posts like that are becoming more and more rare around here - thanks for keeping it alive