PDA

View Full Version : Environment BP CEO Out


Cave Johnson
06-18-2010, 01:35 PM
Not entirely surprising, given his craptastic performance thus far.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_bs2709

Donger
06-18-2010, 01:36 PM
Not entirely surprising, given his craptastic performance thus far.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_bs2709

Svanberg is taking over PR duties?

LMAO

HonestChieffan
06-18-2010, 01:38 PM
Now if we could fire Obama for his mismanagement of the federal response....

chiefforlife
06-18-2010, 01:40 PM
Svanberg is taking over PR duties?

LMAO

Seriously...ROFL

petegz28
06-18-2010, 01:42 PM
Now if we could fire Obama for his mismanagement of the federal response....

What do you mean? This should stop the leak in a matter of hours.

HonestChieffan
06-18-2010, 01:47 PM
What do you mean? This should stop the leak in a matter of hours.

Id like to stop the bleeding. BP can plug the pipe

chiefforlife
06-18-2010, 01:59 PM
What they need to do is put a wedding ring on that pipe and it will stop putting out...:D

HonestChieffan
06-18-2010, 02:05 PM
REP

blaise
06-18-2010, 02:09 PM
He's probably elated. Who the hell would want that job right now?

RJ
06-18-2010, 02:18 PM
The cool thing about being a CEO is that no matter how bad you screw up you can still walk away a millionaire many times over and later get another CEO gig making just as much money as you did before. You just have to get your foot in the door that first time.

Cave Johnson
06-18-2010, 02:42 PM
He's probably elated. Who the hell would want that job right now?

Dude looked pretty checked out at yesterday's hearing.

mlyonsd
06-18-2010, 02:46 PM
He finally got his life back.

BigMeatballDave
06-18-2010, 04:49 PM
He finally got his life back.ROFL

BigChiefFan
06-18-2010, 05:07 PM
Good. He had the personality of a turd in a punchbowl. He was so vague and unaccountable. I can't believe they pay someone like that, the kind of money they do.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2010, 06:21 PM
Quote
Here are the facts:
After the Exxon Valdez disaster off Alaska in 1989 had been cleaned up and nearly paid for by Exxon, the oil companies lobbied the Congress for liability limits — maximum amounts that they could be held to pay for in the event of a disaster.

[Answer] A Republican Congress and President Clinton together made it the law that oil companies would be limited to pay $75 million for cleanups and the taxpayers — that would be you — would pay the rest. In return, the feds would be able to tell the oil companies where to drill.

In the case of BP, it asked the state of Louisiana if it could drill in 500 feet of water and Louisiana said it could. The federal government vetoed that and told BP could only drill in 5,000 feet of water.

Never mind that no oil company had ever cleaned up a broken well at that depth and never mind that the feds had never monitored a broken well at that depth and never mind that BP only needed to set aside $75 million in case something went wrong. The feds trumped BP's engineers and the feds trumped the wishes of the folks who live along the Gulf Coast and the feds decided where this oil well would be drilled.

LMFAO watching Stupidpak blame it all on BP. Mirror mirror on the wall who is most unaccountable of all—govt politicians. Yeah, the govt is really our savior! Hip hip! Horray! The CEO lost his job.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594783,00.html

Taco John
06-18-2010, 06:33 PM
I wonder what his GP looks like...

orange
06-18-2010, 06:46 PM
Here are the facts:
After the Exxon Valdez disaster off Alaska in 1989 had been cleaned up and nearly paid for by Exxon, the oil companies lobbied the Congress for liability limits — maximum amounts that they could be held to pay for in the event of a disaster.

[Answer] A Republican Congress and President Clinton together made it the law that oil companies would be limited to pay $75 million for cleanups and the taxpayers — that would be you — would pay the rest. In return, the feds would be able to tell the oil companies where to drill.

Wow, what a neat trick. Tell me, who was President in 1990 - when the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (http://epw.senate.gov/opa90.pdf) was passed?

BucEyedPea
06-18-2010, 07:31 PM
Wow, what a neat trick. Tell me, who was President in 1990 - when the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (http://epw.senate.gov/opa90.pdf) was passed?

So you'd prefer me to point out that there was a Democratic majority in both houses then instead? That's even worse. ROFL



Approval was unaminous. No difference. Both parties voted for it.

orange
06-18-2010, 07:40 PM
So you'd prefer me to point out that there was a Democratic majority in both houses then instead? That's even worse. ROFL


Note: That may have been passed then but I am not sure there weren't any changes to it later for Napolitano to have said that.

Considering it passed unanimously - and was signed by a Republican President among much glad-handing all around - I don't think there's much point trying to assign it to either party.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2010, 07:47 PM
Considering it passed unanimously - and was signed by a Republican President among much glad-handing all around - I don't think there's much point trying to assign it to either party.

I wasn't assigning to either party. What part of "a Republican Congress" that Napolitano stated do you not understand?
What part of my writing "govt politicians" do you not understand?

My point was Stupidak acting like our govt had no culpability and his pompous talk showed a level of responsibility of a five year old.
You, sir, had a knee jerk reaction due to a guilty conscience because you believe govt can save use from such things.

cdcox
06-18-2010, 08:46 PM
No difference.

You're starting to get it.

prhom
06-18-2010, 11:49 PM
Did anyone honestly expect him to come out and say "Yeah we did reckless things and went full-speed ahead into what we knew was going to be a disaster"? I was a little surprised they gave in to the $20B escrow fund, but I'm guessing that was more a PR call than the opinion of their legal counsel. The only way we'll ever get the real answers is when there is a lawsuit and they talk to all the people who were actually on the rig. My guess is that whomever was directly responsible for managing that drilling operation is the only one that knowingly made risky decisions. Anyone higher than that won't get the full story from the people on the rig. Anyone lower wouldn't have had the stroke to prevent it from happening, they would probably get fired for suggesting that it was too risky.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2010, 01:08 PM
You're starting to get it.

I've been saying that for quite awhile about both parties. ( like on Iraq and even NAFTA) So I think you're just starting to get it yourself.
( as regards my true stand) I just don't feel that statist solutions you like (more leftism) are always the answer but more often make things worse. That's the difference between you and I. Remember, I was critical of Bush too.

JohnnyV13
06-19-2010, 01:48 PM
My understanding is that the 75 million was a strict liability limit, meaning its the limit injuried parties could claim without establishing negligence on part of the oil company.

Once the total amount of claims goes over 75 million, you have to prove negligence.

That 20B fund isn't done out of the goodness of BP's heart. Or for "PR" value. They probably know its a foregone conclusion that gulf coast juries find them negligent.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2010, 02:32 PM
My understanding is that the 75 million was a strict liability limit, meaning its the limit injuried parties could claim without establishing negligence on part of the oil company.
Yes it is. This does not go to clean up.