US and UK agree nothing to gain from damaging BP

**soloman** · 27-06-2010, 11:30 PM

Surely we were telling Obama that weeks ago? Is this new assurance likely to make any real difference?

U.S. and UK agree nothing to gain from damaging BP* - Yahoo! News UK

**Midas** · 28-06-2010, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by soloman

Surely we were telling Obama that weeks ago? Is this new assurance likely to make any real difference?

U.S. and UK agree nothing to gain from damaging BP* - Yahoo! News UK

Probably not, certainly as long as America continues to (apparently) take no notice of the fact that BP weren't the ones who were doing the actual drilling and that they had no part other than a consulting one in the day to day operations, and it was two of their own US-owned companies who were. As I understand it, if it weren't for a few clauses in the underlying exploration leases which BP own, their legal liability for the accident and consequential damage would have been zero. At least Obama seems to have stopped calling the company British Petroleum!

**Don** · 28-06-2010, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Midas

Probably not, certainly as long as America continues to (apparently) take no notice of the fact that BP weren't the ones who were doing the actual drilling and that they had no part other than a consulting one in the day to day operations, and it was two of their own US-owned companies who were. As I understand it, if it weren't for a few clauses in the underlying exploration leases which BP own, their legal liability for the accident and consequential damage would have been zero. At least Obama seems to have stopped calling the company British Petroleum!

BP knew the contents of the lease contracts when they signed them and accepted the liability. It's rather laughable to say; "...if it weren't for a few clauses in the underlying exploration leases which BP own, their legal liability for the accident and consequential damage would have been zero." Too bad we can't actually use such a silly excuse whenever things go south. Bottom line is those clauses and BP stepping up and declaring their liability is what matters.

I do agree that it does no good for this Administration and Congress - they are not "America", by the way - to demonize BP or BP's officers, in fact it is counterproductive and does absolutely nothing to help solve the problem, which, at present, should be the only priority.

**Midas** · 29-06-2010, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Don

BP knew the contents of the lease contracts when they signed them and accepted the liability. It's rather laughable to say; "...if it weren't for a few clauses in the underlying exploration leases which BP own, their legal liability for the accident and consequential damage would have been zero." Too bad we can't actually use such a silly excuse whenever things go south. Bottom line is those clauses and BP stepping up and declaring their liability is what matters.

I do agree that it does no good for this Administration and Congress - they are not "America", by the way - to demonize BP or BP's officers, in fact it is counterproductive and does absolutely nothing to help solve the problem, which, at present, should be the only priority.

Of course BP knew the lease terms, and I wasn't even hinting they try to use that as some excuse. I was simply pointing out that the sooner Obama and the US media generally recognised and gave publicity to the fact that is wasn't BP who caused the accident, but the American rig owners and operators, the sooner a lot of the damaging pressure would be off BP. As you rightly say, they have indeed stepped up and accepted legal liability for the consequences, if not liability for the causes.

Incidentally I used the word 'America' in its widest sense as a nation - government, people and media - as seemingly not taking any notice of the direct involvement of Transocean and Halliburton.