Re: OT: Barack Obama's attacks on BP hurting British pensioners



"White Spirit" <wspirit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:huqmtt$oa0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 10/06/2010 13:33, RichL wrote:

You can't be naïve enough to believe that Obama's comments are
responsible for BP's fall from grace.

I don't believe that his comments are responsible but I do believe that they are having an unnecessarily adverse effect and a detrimental influence on the public.

CEO Tony Hayward's disastrous comments to the press have been sufficient
to sink the company on their own. BP would be wise to stop the
out-of-control and fictional spinning of the Gulf episode, quit
attempting to dodge responsibility, fess up to their numerous errors,
take their well-deserved whipping, and attempt to carry on.

It seems to me that is precisely what he is doing. The comments that have drawn criticism were in response to Obama's provocation.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Among BP's unforced errors:

-- Denial of the existence of "plumes", which are fine underwater suspensions of oil that can be as large as tens of miles long and wide and several hundred feet deep: now independently confirmed by several university and government research teams

-- Severe underestimates of the amount of oil gushing from the "leak": BP's original estimate was 1,000 barrels a day, later upgraded to 5,000 barrels a day. Independent estimates now range from 20,000 to 40,000 barrels a day and larger. And the amount being collected now by BP is upward of 12,000 barrels a day.

-- BP's initially trivializing the possible environmental impact of the leak

-- Hayward's moaning in an internationally broadcast press conference that he wishes he "had his life back".

That's just a smattering of BP's public-relations fiascos.

p.s....What do you suppose the initials 'BP' stand for, anyways?

They no longer stand for 'British Petroleum' and have not done so for many a year.

Ah, so they stand for nothing. How appropriate!

.