Talk of nationalizing BP in order to cover potential 1 TRILLION in damages ...

[elehhhhna]

Guest Post: The Cover-up: BP's Crude Politics And The Looming Environmental Mega-Disaster
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/06/2010 13:25 -0500

Crude Crude Oil Florida Geyser Guest Post John McCain Mexico national security New Orleans Obama Administration White House


We have been informed by sources in the US Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Florida Department of Environmental Protection that the Obama White House and British Petroleum (BP), which pumped $71,000 into Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign -- more than John McCain or Hillary Clinton, are covering up the magnitude of the volcanic-level oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and working together to limit BP's liability for damage caused by what can be called a "mega-disaster." Obama and his senior White House staff, as well as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, are working with BP's chief executive officer Tony Hayward on legislation that would raise the cap on liability for damage claims from those affected by the oil disaster from $75 million to $10 billion. However, WMR's federal and Gulf state sources are reporting the disaster has the real potential cost of at least $1 trillion. Critics of the deal being worked out between Obama and Hayward point out that $10 billion is a mere drop in the bucket for a trillion dollar disaster but also note that BP, if its assets were nationalized, could fetch almost a trillion dollars for compensation purposes. There is talk in some government circles, including FEMA, of the need to nationalize BP in order to compensate those who will ultimately be affected by the worst oil disaster in the history of the world.

zerohedge.com

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. I read that on ZH earlier today. Interesting, but how would we even nationalize a foreign corp?

Rec'd you back to 0 in hopes of getting more input on the article.

[elehhhhna]

3. You confiscate whatever's on your property. See Hugo Chavez. ...

i.e., they may have their HQ on Grand Cayman, etc. whatever, but their oil drilling leases, rigs, rights, and refineries can't very well be moved there, can they? You cop whatever they have on your soil or in your Gulf.

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Where does "US territory" end in the gulf? 200 miles from shore?

Theres really nothing left to seize out there. It is a twisted heap of metal at the bottom of the sea.

Thats why I didn't fully understand his/her argument.

[elehhhhna]

12. Bp doesn't have just one well in the Gulf.

[FBaggins]

7. This isn't Venezuela

You can't just "confiscate" things. Trying it would have devastating electoral consequences.

What you CAN do is sue them for damages, possibly sending them into BK, but their liability is apparently limited.

[elehhhhna]

9. lol right. Nationalizing would essentially fasttrack the same result at suing ...

and force a liquidation. Just happens quicker, that's all. Could be the smoothest way -- not hostile, but negotiated.

[FBaggins]

15. "That's all" ???

If you think that PR from taking over failed financial institutions and auto manufacturers is bad, just wait until the US tries to seize a foreign company in violation of our Constitution.

[Fumesucker]

10. Civil Asset Forfeiture..

Happens every damn day in the land of the free and you don't even have to be convicted of a crime.

Confiscation in everything but name.

[elehhhhna]

14. Yep. Like Soylent Green, Corporations are people. Ask the USSC.

[FBaggins]

17. You don't have to be convicted of a crime?

Sure... but a crime has to be involved. And the law allowing such a seizure has to already be in existence (as with a boat involved in drug smuggling).

[Fumesucker]

20. No, you don't have to be convicted of a crime..

Indeed, people have property confiscated on a regular basis with no evidence of any crime being committed by them.

[FBaggins]

23. Did you read the rest of the post?

Can you give an example where no alleged crime is involved?

[JoeyT]

26. Yep. They abuse that law often enough that finding examples isn't difficult.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n4_v25/ai_14171968/

http://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket

Are three links to blatant abuse of the law enough? I could go on for a few pages.
Sure the people can sue to get their money back (sometimes) but it usually costs them more than was taken from them. And they don't have to be convicted or even accused of a crime. Again, you just have to have more money (or jewelry: One example I remember was a guy that got his Rolex watch seized. No charges filed, of course.) than the police think you ought to have.

[FBaggins]

29. Your first link doesn't mention asset forfeiture

The second lists a drug-related seizure that was returned when it was demonstrated that the police screwed up. The third appears to as well.

Both the 2nd and 3rd, while constitutionally questionable, were the result of specific laws that say that assets involved in the drug trade can be seized. Documenting alleged abuse of those laws in no way demonstrates that the government has the ability to seize other assets that are not involved in a crime, let alone a crime covered by the statute.

<i>Are three links to blatant abuse of the law enough? I could go on for a few pages.</i><P>

If you could find ONE that didn't involve any alleged illegal behavior and wasn't overturned/returned, that would be a start. You know... <b>something</b> that makes it in any way similar to seizing the assets of a foreign company without any due process at all?

[JoeyT]

25. Well not really.

They just have to suspect you might at some point maybe commit a crime. Then in a lot of places it's handed over to a lawyer that gets a share of the money to argue, if you're allowed to sue to get your seized possessions back at all.
There have been tons of cases where someone was carrying more money than a policeman thought they should have had. That's ALL it takes.

Of course even if you don't bother with asset forfeiture, eminent domain is enough to argue that the government seizing privately owned property isn't unconstitutional.

[AnArmyVeteran]

30. That's right, we're not Venezuela, we have a much bigger military!

So why not use it in the war on corporationism. The war on terror hasn't worked out very well, except for funneling money to corporations. We need to have a war on greed and corporations which declared war against the United States and humanity long, long ago.

A hundred years ago in Texas, it required a 2/3rds majority to approve a corporate charter. The government so feared the corrupting influence on government they put severe restrictions on corporations even being formed. Now look at where we are. It's a Corporate Whoredom, where government, our people and our country are all controlled, manipulated or invaded by corporations. I am not anti-corporation. I believe in responsibility by corporations, but no one at the tops of any corporation are even subject to most laws. They have so insulated themselves through corrupt laws there is zero accountability. If things weren't so corrupt we should be able to confiscate every dime from every corporate executive at BP, their salaries, their stock options, their mansions, their private islands and even their family dog. Why should they be protected from liability when we could go to jail if we cause a $100 damage to a neighbor?

Wake up Americans...


NOTE: I don't actually advocate using military force to seize corporations. We need to elect people who will pass laws to make corporate irresponsibility a felony so we can go after corporate heads and put them in prison.

[librechik]

24. Our guys won't even audit the Fed properly. And it's our money.They're not going to seize anything.

no matter how much sense it makes.

[FBaggins]

2. Does the US have the option of grabbing a british company?

n/t

[elehhhhna]

4. see post 3. BP used to be Amoco, btw.

[BrightKnight]

16. There is no way that we would do that to the UK's largest company.

They will have to pay for damages but nobody is going to pull a Hugo Chavez. Exxon Mobile might have reason to tar their pants if it were their rig but I doubt that it would be called "Nationalizing."

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Recced and kicked.... this NEVER NEEDED TO HAPPEN... if it

weren't for their disregard for making things double, triple, quadruple fail safe.

[randr]

8. All extraction industries need to be nationalized

The oil, coal, gas, and other resources are property of we the people of these United States.
We pick up the bill when lives are lost and families are ruined. We pick up the bill after the profiteers have left town leaving their pollution behind. We pick up the bill to provide the military strength needed to operate in a hostile world. We pick up the bill for all the health issues related to continuing environmental degradation.
I am, personally, sick and tired of picking up the bill.

[elehhhhna]

11. No joke -- why do Alaskans get annual checks for their resources being sold?

Every state should have that deal, or better yet, do it nationally.

[FBaggins]

19. We already DO it nationally.

There is a reasonable debate over how the US charges the fee (a lease vs a per bbl fee etc), but states and/or the federal government do get paid for the oil extracted from our land...

...the difference in Alaska is that the amount of oil was so large (compared to the number of residents) that they could go without sales taxes or income taxes and still have money left over... so they cut a check.

[grantcart]

18. Agreed - follow the Norwegian model

[Scuba]

27. Nailed it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. Uh, what do you think the bill would be for nationalizing all of that?

You think that comes free in a Happy Meal? Sorry, but when you nationalize and industry you PAY for what you are taking.

[backscatter712]

13. Works for me. Seize and liquidate every BP asset on American territory. n/t

[gravity]

21. It makes no sense to nationalize BP

The company has $100 billion in equity, but it is worth $160 billion on the market which would already make the US down $60 billion if they liquidated it. If the US decides just to take over BP instead, it is going to be breaking many US laws and be a complete diplomatic disaster because it isn't even a US company.

I can assure you that there is no talk about nationalizing BP whatsoever in the government. The only solution that actually makes sense is to fine BP for the damages.

[Whisp]

22. submitted by Tyler Durden. lol TD = Fight Club