Given that these protesters take their name from the Boston Tea Party, which was organized around protesting an unfair tax benefit given to a massive British corporation, and that British oil giant BP’s oil disaster could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, you’d think that Tea Partiers would be demanding that the government hold BP accountable and make the corporation pay the full costs for its bad behavior, so that taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill.
Yet the Tea Partiers haven’t descended on BP’s headquarters or marched on Capitol Hill demanding, for example, that the government lift the $75 million oil spill liability cap on BP so that the damages it pays aren’t severely limited. On the contrary, they’ve attacked President Obama for securing a $20 billion escrow fund from BP to recompense victims of its oil spill and cozied up to politicians who’ve sided with BP. As the Associated Press noted last week, “Tea Party candidates [have stood] by BP to rail against President Obama.” Here are just a few examples of Tea Party organizers and Tea Party-endorsed politicians siding with the foreign oil giant against American taxpayers:
– Republican Study Committee chair Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), who headlined a Tax Day tea party in the nation’s capitol this year, derided the escrow fund as “Chicago-style shakedown politics.” [6/16/10]
– Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who has proudly boasted of supporting the “Tea Party movement and the people getting involved,” echoed Price’s language as he apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayword for the White House’s “shakedown” it performed while trying to hold his company accountable. [6/17/10]
– Conservative talk show host and chairman of the Tea Party Express Mark Williams compared Obama’s efforts to secure the escrow fund to those of “mobsters,” and added that where he comes “from, they call it extortion.” [6/21/10]
– The “tea party favorite” in the Oklahoma GOP gubenatorial primary, state senator Randy Brogdon, said that BP’s oil disaster was “a perfect example of why government should never be involved in the private sector,” while blasting efforts to properly regulate the foreign oil giant so that it couldn’t cause more devastation in the future. [6/21/10]
Without tough government action to make sure that BP pays for the own costs of its own disaster and doesn’t drop the tab on taxpayers — as leading right-wing figures like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue and House minority leader John Boehner (OH) havesuggested — it is likely that the oil company will get off easy, much like Exxon did following its own oil disaster two decades ago.
If Tea Partiers truly want to defend taxpayers from facing undue burdens, it may be time for them to don their signs and demand that BP pay for the entire cost of its own disaster by lifting the oil spill liability cap and ask that the government end billions of dollars in special tax breaks for Big Oil (just as the original tea partiers wanted to end the tax advantages of the British East India Trading Company).
M.C.L Comment: Two reasons why the tea baggers aren't at the doors of BP's headquarters one their corporate masters aren't leading them there and two BP doesn't have a black guy in charge.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) lashed out at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on Twitter earlier this week, telling him “u lie” for saying that many Republicans agree with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) that the White House shook down BP to create a $20 billion escrow fund to help Gulf families. Of course, Barton’s sentiment is not unique among conservatives, as Palin herself proved today. Taking to Twitter once again, Palin urged, “GOP: Don’t let the lamestream media suck you into ‘they’re defending BP over Gulf spill victims’ bs…” She followed up by urging her followers to “read Thomas Sowell’s article,” which compares President Obama to Hitler:
If followers click on the link they will see that Sowell, under the headline, “Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?” argues that the escrow fund is just like the Enabling Act, which “gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.” On Tuesday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) endorsed Sowell’s ludicrous Hitler-Obama comparison on House floor, calling the columnist “brilliant,” before quoting several lines from the piece. “It’s difficult to overstate how absurd all of this is,” Political Correction noted.
M.C.L comment: I said this yesterday when right wingers want to attack the president they go to the fields and find a couple of black "conservatives" that's willingly to do the dirty work for them. And the conservatives will go see here's a BLACK guy saying something negative against your BLACK guy. If you got a right wing friend(why would you?) or a right wing relative expect to see a Uncle Thomas Sowell article in your email box or Facebook wall in the upcoming weeks.
Media Matters has identified numerous instances of media conservatives defending BP on Fox News Channel, Fox Business, the Fox Nation, or the radio shows of Fox News hosts. For example:
BP was victim of a "shakedown." On at least 10 occasions, Fox figures criticized BP's escrow account as an Obama "shakedown" or "slush fund." For example, on the June 21 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, contributor Andrea Tantaros stated that BP had been the victim of a "political shakedown" and a "stickup" to force the company to fund the $20 billion "slush fund."
Investigations of BP are McCarthyist "witch trials." Fox figures criticized congressional and criminal investigations into BP on at least nine occasions. For example, Glenn Beck compared the congressional BP hearings to the McCarthy hearings, the Salem witch trials, and the Romans feeding Christians to lions.
Obama administration has "demonized" BP. On at least nine instances, Fox figures attacked Obama for "demonizing" BP. For example, appearing on Hannity, Fox Business host Stuart Varney stated: "The administration's response can be summed up as follows: Demonize BP, seize its assets, raise taxes on energy, and therefore raise prices, pile on regulation, appoint a commission, all to gloss over the failure to deal promptly with the oil spill. And then give us pipe dreams about a green future."
Conspiracy theories about the oil spill. Media Matters identified at least four instances in which conspiracy theories about the oil spill were raised on Fox's networks. For example, on the May 27 edition of Fox Business' Happy Hour, host Eric Bolling asked guest Alan Colmes, "Are you sure they didn't let [the oil spill] leak so he could renege on his promise to allow some offshore drilling?"
Myth: Obama waited weeks before responding to the oil spill
CLAIM: Obama "waited 50 days, 55 days to really begin" responding to Gulf oil spill. On the June 17 edition of Fox & Friends, Rudy Giuliani said of the federal government's response to the oil spill: "The government has played a big role in letting us down here as well. And who the heck is -- you know, criticizing President Obama, President Obama's response? I mean, the president waited 50 days, 55 days to really begin a resp- -- he told us in his speech that the federal government was in charge from the very beginning."
REALITY: Timeline of events indicates Obama administration responded almost immediately to the spill. The Coast Guard began responding to the spill hours after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded at 10 p.m. on April 20. Obama was briefed on the incident and dispatched officials to the region the next day.
Gov. Barbour: "The federal government's done more right than wrong" on BP cleanup. On the June 20 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, asked for his "assessment of how well coordinated the federal, state, and local officials are," former RNC chairman and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said that while "nothing's satisfactory until the well's shut" he thinks "the federal government's done more right than wrong," and "appointing Ken Feinberg, who's got a great reputation that's well deserved, is good for BP and good for the government."
Myth: Moratorium is not needed because oil companies are equipped to handle spills
CLAIM: No need for moratorium to "ensure ... safety," Obama should "undo the harm that he's already done" and lift it. On the June 12 edition of Fox & Friends Saturday, anchor Alisyn Camerota asked Palin: "[T]he administration has called for a moratorium on deep-sea drilling until that safety can be ensured. Given all of the problems that we now know, how BP overlooked safety measures, do you support a moratorium until we can ensure the safety?" Palin replied, "No, but we do need to ramp up the oversight" of offshore drilling." Likewise, on the June 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes urged Obama to "undo the harm that he's already done and lift the moratorium on the existing drilling that was going on in the Gulf."
REALITY: All five major oil companies reportedly share similar spill response plans written by same company, and admit aspects of their plans are an "embarrassment." According to The Washington Post, "the same tiny Texas subcontractor" authored the Gulf spill response plans for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Exxon Mobil. Additionally, execs for both Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips called an error in both plans embarrassing.
FACT: All five companies reportedly rely on the same companies to draft their response plans and provide containment equipment. According to a June 16 Washington Postreport, "the same tiny Texas subcontractor" authored the Gulf spill response plans for BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Exxon Mobil:
The spill response plans for all five companies were written by the same firm, the Response Group. Although it has operations in at least seven cities nationwide, the Houston-based firm's Web site says the company has about 35 employees. (One current assignment: calling 50,000 people who have visited BP offices and getting their e-mail addresses and emergency contact information.)
Additionally, the Post reported that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) stated that oil companies all rely on one company, Marine Spill Response, to provide containment equipment.
FACT: Three spill plans reportedly listed the phone number of a deceased marine science expert. According the same Postreport, three of the five major oil companies operating in the Gulf "listed the phone number for the same University of Miami marine science expert, Peter Lutz, who died in 2005" in their spill response plans.
FACT: Exxon Mobil CEO: "We are not well-equipped to handle" major oil spills. In testimony before the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee on June 15, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson stated repeatedly that his company is "not well-equipped to handle" major oil spills.
FACT: Responding to criticism of having a dead expert's info in his company's oil spill response, Tillerson admitted "we need expertise." When Markey questioned Tillerson on the Exxon Mobil plan's inclusion of contact information for a "technical support person" who had been dead for four years, Tillerson acknowledged that it was an "embarrassment" and stated that "we admit that we need expertise." He further stated that just because "Dr. Lutz died in 2005 does not mean his work and the importance of his work died with him."
FACT: ConocoPhillips CEO: "Obviously it is embarrassing" that Lutz's contact information is in the report. At the same hearing, ConocoPhillips CEO, James Mulva, said of the response plan's obvious flaws: "Obviously it is embarrassing." He further acknowledged that "the plans need to be updated more frequently."
Myth: BP was only drilling "out there" because environmentalists and the federal government "made them" do it
CLAIM: BP's deepwater drilling due to environmentalists, federal government "pushed us out there." Several Fox News figures, including Sarah Palin, Charles Krauthammer, Steve Doocy, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, have claimed that, as Hannity put it, BP "should have been in ANWR and shallower waters, and environmentalists pushed us out there." Similarly, Fox News contributors Andrew Napolitano and Bill Kristol, and Fox guest and BigGovernment.com editor-in-chief Mike Flynn have blamed the federal government for, in Flynn's words, "ma[king] them drill in water that deep."
REALITY: Deep-water regions feature vast oil reserves that make such drilling potentially lucrative. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service, the "best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water." The deepwater region of the Gulf has also been identified as "probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory."
FACT: MMS said "remarkable increase" in deep-water drilling due in part to "finding of reservoirs with high production wells."According to the MMS: "The deepwater portion of Gulf of Mexico has shown a remarkable increase in oil and gas exploration, development and production. In part this is due to the development of new technologies reducing operational costs and risks, as well as the finding of reservoirs with high production wells."
FACT: Bush MMS reported that the "best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico." In a 2004 report -- titled Deep Water: Where the Energy Is -- the MMS stated that "our best source of new domestic energy resources lies in the deep water Gulf of Mexico and other frontier areas." MMS reported that due to "declining production" in "near-shore, shallow waters" in the Gulf of Mexico, "energy companies have focused their attention on oil and gas resources in water depths of 1,000 feet and beyond." MMS estimated that "the deep water regions of the Gulf of Mexico may contain 56 billion barrels of oil equivalent, or enough to meet U.S. demand for 7-1/2 years at current rates."
FACT: Bush MMS reported deepwater drilling is "America's Offshore Energy Future," "significant proved reserves" discovered in recent years. In a 2008 report titled "Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2008: America's Offshore Energy Future, MMS reported:
The deepwater GOM has contributed major additions to the total reserves in the GOM. Figure 40 shows the proved reserves added each year by water-depth category. Additions from the shallow waters of the GOM declined in recent years but, beginning in 1975, the deepwater area started contributing significant new reserves. Between 1975 and 1983, the majority of these additions were from discoveries in slightly more than 1,000 ft (305 m) of water. It was not until 1985 that major additions came from water depths greater than 1,500 ft (457 m). From 1998 to 2001, significant proved reserves were added in the 5,000- to 7,499-ft (1,524- to 2,286-m) water depth range. The year 2002 saw the first substantial addition from water depths greater than 7,500 ft (2,286 m).
FACT: NY Times reported BP discovery of "giant oil field" in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico indicated area was "probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory." A September 2, 2009, New York Timesarticle reported that "BP announced on Wednesday the discovery of what it characterized as a giant oil field several miles under the Gulf of Mexico," which the Times stated "was another indication that the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico are probably the most promising area in United States-controlled territory to bolster domestic oil production." The Times further credited BP's deep-water rigs with having "stabilized domestic production after almost two decades of yearly decline."
Myth: Obama, unlike Bush, "was off on vacation" during crisis
CLAIM: Obama "was off on vacation twice" during oil spill, but Bush did not go on vacation "in the middle of a crisis." On the June 17 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Giuliani asserted that he didn't think the spill was Obama's "job number one" because Obama was "off on vacation twice" during the cleanup. Giuliani contrasted Obama's vacations with President Bush's and Giuliani's own purported refusal to take vacations during times of crisis. Giuliani made similar arguments on the June 17 edition of Fox & Friends.
REALITY: Bush vacationed during the aftermath of Katrina; Giuliani reportedly spent more time at Yankees games than at WTC after 9-11. Despite Giuliani's suggestion, Bush reportedly made at least three trips to Camp David in the two months after Katrina, and Giuliani himself reportedly spent "roughly twice as long" at, or flying to, Yankees games than at ground zero between September 17, 2001, and December 16, 2001. The Obamas visited Asheville, North Carolina, the weekend of April 23. During that trip, Obama eulogized the 29 workers killed in the West Virginia mine explosion and "met with the workers' families privately before the ceremony," according to CNN. During Memorial Day weekend, Obama traveled to Chicago and was scheduled to deliver his Memorial Day address at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. Due to a thunderstorm, he spoke at Andrews Air Force Base instead.
FACT: Giuliani reportedly spent more time at Yankees games than at ground zero following 9-11. In an August 18, 2007, Salon.com article, Alex Koppelman examined Giuliani's schedule in the 90 days following the attacks and found: "By our count, Giuliani spent about 58 hours at Yankees games or flying to them in the 40 days between Sept. 25 and Nov. 4, roughly twice as long as he spent at ground zero in the 90 days between Sept. 17 and Dec. 16."
Myth: "Ridiculous" and "offensive" to blame Bush for spill
CLAIM: "Outrageous" to blame Bush for MMS mismanagement leading to oil spill. Fox News figures, including Dana Perino, Dick Morris and Mike Huckabee, have claimed that it is "ridiculous" and "offensive," as Perino put it, to say that the Bush administration's regulatory failures led to the oil spill.
REALITY: Under Bush, MMS relaxed oversight of drilling, ignored safety warnings, downplayed oil spill concerns. The Department of Interior's Office of Inspector General (OIG) "found a culture where the acceptance of gifts from oil and gas companies were widespread" in Bush's MMS. In addition, under Bush, MMS loosened rules requiring a blowout plan, dismissed the risk of a massive oil spill in a BP assessment, and failed to report a warning about a vital piece of blowout preventer. Moreover, Bush promoted and sought to expand offshore drilling.
FACT: Bush MMS adopted regulations stating drillers are "in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity."The Washington Postreported on May 25 that the actions taken by MMS "are shaped in part by a 2005 regulation it adopted that assumes oil and gas companies can best evaluate the environmental effects of their operations." The article stated that "[t]he rule governing which information the MMS should receive and review before signing off on drilling plans states: 'The lessee or operator is in the best position to determine the environmental effects of its proposed activity based on whether the operation is routine or non-routine.'" Rolling Stone magazine reported that these "new rules pre-qualified deep-sea drillers" to receive an "exemption from environmental review," even though such exemptions were "originally intended to prevent minor projects, like outhouses on hiking trails, from being tied up in red tape."
FACT: In April 2008, Bush MMS loosened rules requiring blowout plan. The Associated Press reported on May 5 that a "rule change two years ago by the federal agency that regulates offshore oil rigs allowed BP to avoid filing a plan specifically for handling a major spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project." AP further reported: "The MMS rule change, made in April 2008, says that Gulf rig operators are required to file a blowout scenario only if one of five conditions applies. For example, an operator must provide a blowout scenario when it proposes to install a 'surface facility' in water deeper than 1,312 feet. While Deepwater Horizon was operating almost 5,000 feet below the surface, [BP spokesman William] Salvin said the project did not meet the definition of a surface facility. The MMS official agreed."
FACT: Bush MMS 2007 environmental impact assessment for BP lease dismissed risk of massive oil spill. The Postreported on May 5: "While the MMS assessed the environmental impact of drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico on three occasions in 2007 -- including a specific evaluation of BP's Lease 206 at Deepwater Horizon -- in each case it played down the prospect of a major blowout." The Post stated that "In one assessment, the agency estimated that 'a large oil spill' from a platform would not exceed a total of 1,500 barrels and that a 'deepwater spill,' occurring 'offshore of the inner Continental shelf,' would not reach the coast. In another assessment, it defined the most likely large spill as totaling 4,600 barrels and forecast that it would largely dissipate within 10 days and would be unlikely to make landfall." According to the Times-Picayune, these assessments "paved the way for BP to assert that its plans for drilling in Lease Sale 206 posed no real dangers."
FACT: Bush MMS failed to respond to 2004 warning about vital piece of blowout preventer.The Wall Street Journalreported on May 3 that "[f]ederal regulators learned in a 2004 study that a vital piece of oil-drilling safety equipment may not function in deep-water seas but did nothing to bolster industry requirements. The equipment, called shear rams, is supposed to seal off out-of-control oil and gas wells by pinching the pipe closed and cutting it." The Journal further reported that "[e]xperts theorize the rams may have failed to work as expected in the Deepwater Horizon disaster."
FACT: Bush MMS ignored warnings about faulty cementing in wells. AP reported on May 24 that numerous MMS reports identified a "poor cement job" as the cause of many offshore accidents, including incidents that took place in 2005 and 2007, "[y]et federal regulators give drillers a free hand in this crucial safety step." AP noted that rig owner Transocean and "independent experts" have pointed to "faulty cement work" as a possible cause of the blowout, and that new rules "in the works long before the Deepwater Horizon" took effect June 3, which "take a conservative watch-and-wait approach and demand only routines already carried out around the industry: a management program with monitoring and diagnostic testing."
FACT: WSJ reported that in 2003, Bush MMS decided not to require last-resort shut-off device. ABC News reported on April 30 that in 2000, MMS "issued a safety alert that called added layers of backup 'an essential component of a deepwater drilling system'." However, according to the Journal, "The industry argued against" mandating a remote-control shut-off switch that serves as "last-resort protection against underwater spills," and "[b]y 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said 'acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly'." The Journal noted that the Deepwater Horizon rig did not have a remote-control device, which is required "in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil," and that "[i]ndustry consultants and petroleum engineers said that an acoustic remote-control may have been able to stop the well, but too much is still unknown about the accident to say that with certainty."
NPR similarly reported that Michael Saucier, MMS regional director in New Orleans, said at a hearing, "I think it was around 2001, there were some draft rules concerning secondary control systems for BOP stacks, and those rules were then sent up to headquarters to continue through the process." The NPR report goes on to state, "But what came back from headquarters were not rules, he said, just notices that 'highly encouraged' companies to use the backup systems. 'There is no enforcement on it,' he said."
FACT: Bush MMS reportedly suppressed scientists' concerns about environmental impact of spills in Alaska. A June 6 Denver Postarticle reported that an MMS office in Alaska rejected a 2006 analysis conducted by a biologist, which stated that a large oil spill could significantly harm fish populations. The analysis, which would have "required MMS to conduct a more detailed environmental impact statement before auctioning leases in the Beaufort Sea," was rewritten after a supervisor told the biologist that his analysis would cause a "delay in sale 202. That would, as you can imagine, not go over well with HQ and others." The Denver Post further reported, "[c]oncerns raised by another MMS biologist, James Wilder, that the impact on polar bears was not adequately addressed in Shell's Alaska exploration plan, also were rebuffed, according to e-mails."
Myth: Obama is the "single largest recipient of BP cash"
CLAIM: "Largest single donation" "from BP" has gone to Obama. After Palin suggested a connection between "contributions made to President Obama and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration," Doocy said that "when it comes down to the single largest recipient of BP cash, [Palin is] absolutely right ... it was Barack Obama."
FACT: Obama presidential campaign took no money from BP's PAC. Obama received $71,051 in contributions from BP employees during his presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama's presidential campaign received no funds from BP's PAC or from the company itself. A CRP spokesman confirmed that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees." The spokesman also stated that "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC."
FACT: Donations from BP's PAC and its employees represent 0.01 percent of Obama's total presidential fundraising. Obama raised more than $744 million for his presidential campaign. The $71,051 he received from BP's employees accounts for less than .01 percent of Obama's total presidential campaign contributions.
Scherer: "People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest." In a May 5 Swampland post, Time's Michael Scherer cited CRP's data and noted that "[i]t is true that ... Obama received slightly more money from BP's PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else." Scherer went on to explain:
But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest. The fourth highest recipient of BP money in the same time period is George W. Bush. The fifth highest recipient is John McCain. In the 2000 and 2004 cycles, Bush got the most money, albeit less than Obama received in 2008. But then one could adjust these numbers for campaign inflation: campaigns overall raised much less money in the 2000 and 2004 cycles than the record-smashing 2008 cycle.
FACT: Obama took only $1,000 of PAC money from BP during his 2004 Senate campaign. Obama received $1,000 from BP's PAC during his 2004 Senate campaign. Twenty-one Senate candidates received more from BP's PAC during that election cycle alone.
Myth: Obama admin turned down foreign assistance in dealing with oil cleanup
CLAIM: Obama's refusal to waive Jones Act has prevented international assistance. Fox News' Dick Morris, Bill O'Reilly and Oliver North have similarly asserted that Obama's purported refusal to waive the Jones Act has prevented the United States from accepting aid from foreign ships.
REALITY: International assistance is part of Gulf spill response. In an interview on the June 15 edition of Fox & Friends, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated that "foreign entities are operating within the Gulf that help us respond" to the oil spill. Further, in a June 15 press release, the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center stated, "Currently, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in the largest response to an oil spill in U.S. history." The Center further explained, "No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico." The administration has further stated that they would waive the Jones Act if waivers were requested, but that "there are no pending requests for foreign vessels to come into the Gulf."
Myth: Obama admin defied Constitution because it "told" BP to create escrow account
CLAIM: Obama's actions on escrow fund were "not constitutional." On the June 18 edition of Fox & Friends, talking about Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) criticism of the $20 billion escrow account, co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "You know, [Barton's] upset that they set up this -- that they told BP, 'I need $20 billion into this fund.' ... He felt as though that was out of the administration's realm. They shouldn't be allowed to do that. That's not constitutional, and they shouldn't go ahead -- go forward with that."
REALITY: BP volunteered to establish account after "negotiation session" with White House in which "[b]oth sides got what they wanted." BP agreed on its own to establish the account as a "voluntary gesture" after negotiations with the White House in which both sides reportedly got what they wanted. Additionally, Dan Farber, director of Berkeley Law's environmental law program, wrote that "the answer isn't very clear" but that the Oil Pollution Act "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages' that might encompass an escrow and independent decision-makers."
FACT: Wash. Post: "Both sides got what they wanted out of the encounter." The Postreported that in the meeting between the White House and BP, "[b]oth sides got what they wanted out of the encounter," noting that "BP, though poorer on paper in the short run, got some much-needed clarity on its long-term liability, plus an explicit statement from Obama that the administration doesn't want to see BP driven into bankruptcy."
FACT: BP announced $100 million to support unemployed oil industry workers as a "voluntary gesture." The Post also reported on June 17 that Obama asked BP "for a voluntary contribution to a foundation that will support unemployed oil industry employees" and that "BP agreed, offering $100 million." The Post quoted BP adviser Jamie Gorelick as saying, "We made clear that we do not think this is a liability for the company. The president said he's concerned about those workers. He asked if there was something we could do as a voluntary gesture."
FACT: Expert said law "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages,' " which could include escrow account. In his June 15 post on the blog Legal Planet titled, "Can Obama Require BP to Form an Escrow Fund?" Farber wrote that "the answer isn't very clear" but that the Oil Pollution Act "does require BP to establish a process for 'the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages' that might encompass an escrow and independent decision-makers." Indeed, Section 1005 of the Oil Pollution Act states:
SEC. 1005. INTEREST; PARTIAL PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.
(a) GENERAL RULE. -- The responsible party or the responsible party's guarantor is liable to a claimant for interest on the amount paid in satisfaction of a claim under this Act for the period described in subsection (b). The responsible party shall establish a procedure for the payment or settlement of claims for interim, short-term damages. Payment or settlement of a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount of damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled shall not preclude recovery by the claimant for damages not reflected in the paid or settled partial claim.
Myth: Obama admin unreasonably delayed purchase of Maine company's oil boom
CLAIM: "Red tape puts hold on company's boom making." On June 10, Fox & Friendsran a story criticizing the administration for possibly being "in the dark about" Packgen, a Maine company who's oil containment boom had yet to be approved by BP for use in the Gulf. During the segment, on-screen text read: "Red tape puts hold on company's boom making."
REALITY: Packgen had not previously manufactured boom, reportedly failed "initial quality control test." The Maine company had reportedly not produced boom before and their boom reportedly "differs from other designs being used." BP ordered a trial run of the product before committing to purchase it. The boom later reportedly failed "an initial quality control test."
FACT: Packgen reportedly began manufacturing boom after spill. The Lewiston, Maine, Sun Journalreported on May 19 that Packgen, a Maine company that "makes composite packaging used to contain environmental and hazardous waste," hoped to "capitalize on the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico by churning out a much-sought-after oil containment tool known as a boom." The article quoted Packgen's president as saying they were "still pitching (to buyers)" and reported that BP had "sent up a company auditor to check out" the company.
FACT: WCSH6 reported that BP "ordered a trial run" of the product, which "differs from other designs being used." Maine news station WCSH6 reported on June 3 that BP "has ordered a trial run of the product but there is no word of when or if the design will be approved." The article also reported: "It differs from other designs being used because, according to company officials, it creates a tighter seal between pieces preventing oil from leaking past the barrier."
FACT: Boom reportedly failed "an initial quality test." On June 11, ABC News' Jake Tapper tweeted that according to the Coast Guard, the "boom manufactured by Packgen did not pass an initial quality control test." On June 16, Tapper reported that an engineering professor who was hired by Packgen to inspect the boom stated his belief that " 'it certainly will work' in coastal areas in coastal areas, though he 'wouldn't deploy it deepwater'."
Myth: Obama unnecessarily delayed berm plan
CLAIM: Obama did not "respond immediately" to spill because he did not approve the berm plan "right away" On the June 9 edition of Fox & Friends, Perino responded to the statement that "[Obama's] officials responded immediately" to the spill by claiming, "I think Governor [Bobby] Jindal would disagree with the berms that weren't built right away."
REALITY: Army Corps of Engineers studied plan as required by law and expressed concerns over proposal. AP reported on May 24 that "the Corps said it is working as quickly as possible on the emergency permit request -- but still has to follow various steps required by federal law."
FACT: Army Corps reportedly raised concerns that barriers "could instead funnel oil into more unprotected areas and into neighboring Mississippi." AP reported on May 26 that the Army Corps released documents that day that "signaled support for parts of the state plan, including berms that would be built onto existing barrier islands," but stated that parts of the plan "could inadvertently alter tides and end up driving oil east -- into Mississippi Sound, the Biloxi Marshes and Lake Borgne."
FACT: Army Corps approved portions of the plan "after careful consideration of the available information." On May 27, the Army Corps of Engineers announced that they approved portions of the plan to create sand berms between barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana. The White House approved additional portions of Lousiana's berm plan on June 2.
FACT: Adm. Allen reportedly continued to express concerns about proposal but said "the prudent thing ... was to start a pilot project and keep asking questions." On May 28, AP reported that Adm. Thad Allen "approved portions of Louisiana's $350 million plan to ring its coastline with a wall of sand meant to keep out the Gulf of Mexico oil spill." The article noted that the Army Corps had objected to portions of the plan due to concerns about oil being diverted to Mississippi and that Allen also "said some sections of the berm system would not have kept out oil," as well as potentially "interfer[ing] with cleanup."
Myth: Coast Guard docked oil-collecting barges for no good reason
CLAIM: Shutting down oil-collecting barges was an "amazing screw-up." On the June 18 edition of his Fox News show, O'Reilly asserted that there had been an "insane," "amazing screw-up in the Gulf cleanup," because the Coast Guard sent several oil-collecting barges back to shore due to questions about safety measures (including life vests and fire extinguishers) on the ships.
REALITY: The ships reportedly did lack the required equipment, and there were also concerns about their stability. The Daily Caller's Jonathan Strong reported on June 18:
Sixteen crude-sucking barges are back in the Gulf of Mexico working to clean up oil, but the Coast Guard is defending its decision to ground the vessels because it couldn't verify whether there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board.
"The Coast Guard is not going to compromise safety ... that's our No. 1 priority," Coast Guard spokesman Robert Brassel told The Daily Caller.
[...]
Brassel said the barges are now "back in operating order."
On Thursday night, the Incident Commander in Houma, Roger Laferriere, decided with the captain of the port in New Orleans to inspect the barges when they realized the ships did not have a certificate of inspection to demonstrate safety equipment on board. Thursday morning, the ships were inspected and grounded because they did not have the proper fire-fighting and life-saving equipment. There were also concerns about the stability of the barges. During the day Thursday, the problems were fixed, and the barges are back out on the water today.
A June 17 statement from the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center stated that the "vacuum barges were temporarily removed from service after safety concerns occurred including stability and the lack of lifesaving and firefighting equipment." A June 19 statement said that "the owner/operator of the barges asked the Coast Guard to inspect the vessels, some under construction, to ensure they were safe" and that "The Coast Guard inspectors made recommendations to the owner/operator regarding lifesaving and firefighting equipment, vessel stability and egress issues, leaving the decision to continue construction and operations with the owner/operator."
The New York Times reported that "in the 2008 election cycle," Barack Obama "took in $77,000" from BP "executives and its political action committee." In fact, Obama received $71,051 in BP-linked donations in 2008, and all of that money came from BP employees, not from BP's PAC, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
NY Times: Obama "took in $77,000 from company executives and its political action committee" in 2008 election cycle
Democrats continued to make use of Mr. Barton's apology to BP, using it to portray Republicans as beholden to big oil. Mr. Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, worked as a consultant to Atlantic Richfield Oil and Gas Company before being elected to Congress. He has long been one of the top beneficiaries of campaign donations from big energy companies, cornerstones of the Texas economy.
But in going after Republicans, the Democrats' attacks gloss over a more complicated picture.
The largest beneficiary of campaign donations from BP in the 2008 election cycle, for instance, was President Obama, who took in $77,000 from company executives and its political action committee. This year, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas and chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, leads all candidates with $286,000 in donations from oil and gas companies.
In fact, Obama received no BP PAC money for 2008 campaign
Obama received no PAC money from BP during his presidential campaign. Contrary to the Times' claim that Obama "took in $77,000" from BP "executives and its political action committee," during "the 2008 election cycle," Obama received $71,051 in BP-linked contributions during his presidential campaign, and $6,000 in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. All of the BP-linked money Obama received for his 2008 campaign came from BP employees, not from BP's PAC or from the company itself. A spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees." The CRP spokesman also stated that "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC."
Donations from BP or its employees represent 0.01 percent of Obama's total fundraising. As Media Matters senior fellow Jamison Foser has noted, Obama has raised more than $799 million for his campaigns. The $77,051 he has received from BP's PAC and employees accounts for less than 0.01 percent of Obama's total campaign contributions.
Tomorrow, the chief executives of the five big oil companies — including BP’s Tony Hayward — are going to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. According to an e-mail released by that Committee today, a BP drilling engineer warned that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig was a “nightmare well” that had caused the company problems in the past. The e-mail came just six days before the well exploded:
More than five weeks before the disaster, the Deepwater rig was hit by several sudden pulsations of gas called “kicks” and a pipe had become stuck in the well. In fact, the well had to be shut down because of “one intense kick of natural gas.” The blowout preventer was discovered to be leaking fluid three separate times. “As early as June 2009, BP engineers had expressed concerns in internal documents about using certain casings for the well because they violated the company’s safety and design guidelines.”
While BP has denied that it is blocking the media from reporting on the Gulf oil spill, numerouspressreports indicate otherwise. Today, while preparing for a Skype chat on his laptop at a public beach in Alabama, ABC News reporter Matt Gutman “was hassled by the manager of a nearby crew, asking Gutman why he was on the beach.” Gutman captured the interaction on video, and said “several people” had asked him “not to talk to any of the workers here”:
BP has said that “anyone on cleanup crews can share their views,” but Gutman and other reporters have found that field managers often prevent workers from doing so. As ThinkProgress noted, BP initially forced workers to sign a contract that explicitly barred them from talking to the media. Though that clause of the contract appears to have been removed due to a lawsuit, workers are clearly still paranoid about talking to the press. One contractor who broke the silence surreptitiously escorted a New York Daily News crew around some of the affected sites, saying he was frustrated with what he deemed the “coverup.” “They specifically informed us that they don’t want these pictures of the dead animals,” he said.
As oil keeps pouring into the Gulf of Mexico, oil giant BP continues to see its reputation dragged further and further through the muck. Across the Gulf Coast, anti-BP signs and calls for help are popping up. On Friday, people gathered at BP’s DC headquarters to protest the corporation and present a “prison jumpsuit” to CEO Tony Hayward. While no one came down to accept the gift, ThinkProgress was covering the event and saw several BP employees watching from the safety of their 7th floor offices.
Protests at the local level — even ones that are nothing more than symbolic in nature — are also picking up. The Brevard County Manatees, the minor league Class-A Advanced Florida State League affiliate of the Milwaukee Brewers, has officially changed the name of “batting practice” — known as “BP” for short — to “hitting rehearsal.” “We hope to send a message to the community that we are definitely worried with the pollution that is in the waters off the Gulf Coast and its potential impact on the beaches here in Brevard County,” said the team’s general manager.
Yesterday in Pensacola, FL — which is on the Gulf Coast close to the Alabama border and now has tar balls washing up on its beaches — about 30 protesters gathered outside of a local BP gas station for a two-hour demonstration, with signs and bumper stickers reading, “Boycott BP,” “BP Lies Pensacola Dies,” and Wake Up and Smell the Oil.” Some other protests at BP stations around the country:
– On May 30, more than 200 protesters “swarmed Jackson Square” in New Orleans to vent their frustration at BP, where speakers “lashed out” at the “slow effort to keep oil from hitting Louisiana’s coastline.” Many posters had “scathing messages” including “BP = $ over people” and “refuse to be LOSEiana anymore.”
– Over Memorial Day weekend, hundreds of protesters “covered in ‘oil’ or dressed like sea creatures” flocked to a New York City BP station to rally against the oil spill and “to keep motorists from filling up.” Protesters chanted “BP your heart is black, you can have your oil back.”
– On June 3, middle-school students from Illinois valley spent the day “on a stretch of public sidewalk” outside a BP station “shouting facts about the disaster” and chanting “agree with me, don’t buy from BP.”
– Fifteen students in St. Cloud, MN “circled in front” of a BP gas station on Friday holding “painted signs” to show that “young people are doing something and they have a voice.”
– Over Memorial Day weekend, more than 20 protestersdemonstrated outside a local convenience store in Charlottesville, VA. One protester urged the need for clean energy sources with “a placard touting fuel from hemp.”
Many business owners are worried that these boycotts and protests may hurt their profits while not affecting the parent company. The vast majority of the 10,000 BP stations in the country and independently owned and operated.
While the company isn’t publicly addressing the boycott efforts, they may still end up affecting how BP operates. Consumers also boycotted Exxon stations after the 1989 spill in Alaska, and while the company ignored it publicly, Exxon has now “reduced its dependence on consumer sales, and the company is much more dependent on business-to-business sales than it was 20 years ago.” Eighty-one percent of Americans disapprove of BP’s response to the spill, and 64 percent believe the government should pursue criminal charges against those involved.
As oil from BP’s Deepwater Horizon well makes its way deep into the marshes of the Gulf Coast, and the wildlife toll mounts, the company announced today that cleanup costs have already reached $1.25 billion and are growing quickly. Given this devastation, it’s not surprising that a vast majority of Americans — 72 percent — now have a negative view of the company, a new Rasmussen poll found. However, 22 percent still have a somewhat or very favorable view of the foreign oil giant. EnviroKnow examined the crosstabs from the poll and found that this group of BP supporters is made up disproportionately of conservatives:
On BP favorability, a few key statistics stick out:
* Conservatives are four times more likely to view BP favorably as Liberals are
* Republicans are more than twice as likely to view BP favorably as Democrats are
* Whites are nearly twice as likely to view BP favorably as Blacks are
Given conservatives’ almost religious devotion to offshore drilling, perhaps this is not surprising. While a majority of Americans now believe increased offshore drilling is “too risky,” severalRepublicanleaders have called for an immediate expansion of drilling, even before the investigation of the Deepwater Horizon disaster is complete. Meanwhile, evidence mounts that BP flouted safety regulations before the disaster, and there are legitimate questions about the sincerity of BP’s pledge to pay for all damages from the spill. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 64 percent of Americans would support a federal decision to pursue criminal charges against the company.
In recent weeks, journalists from CBS News, Mother Jones, the New York Daily News, and other media outlets have been reporting that BP has blocked them from photographing the dead animals and environmental degradation on the Gulf Coast as a result of the company’s oil spill. BP and the U.S. Coast Guard, however, have insisted that there are no restrictions on coverage:
Neither BP nor the U.S. Coast Guard, who are responding to the spill, have any rules in place that would prohibit media access to impacted areas and we were disappointed to hear of this incident. In fact, media has been actively embedded and allowed to cover response efforts since this response began, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date. Just today 16 members of the press observed clean-up operations on a vessel out of Venice, La. The only time anyone would be asked to move from an area would be if there were safety concerns, or they were interfering with response operations.
The Coast Guard might not have any prohibitions now, but BP sure tried. Powering a Nation, a student journalism initiative sponsored by the Carnegie and Knight Foundations, has obtained a contract BP made with local boat operators helping with the clean-up sign that explicitly barred them from talking to the media:
The contract included a clause prohibiting them and their deckhands from making “news releases, marketing presentation, or any other public statements” while working on the clean-up. It also included an additional section titled “Agreement Regarding Proprietary and Confidential Information,” which states that workers cannot disclose “Data” gathered while on the job, including “plans,” “reports,” “information” and “etc.”
Here are the relevant sections of the contract:
On May 24, however, someone named Tommy G. Mayet sent a letter, “on behalf of BP America Production Company,” to Vessel Opportunity Program members, informing them that Article 22 and Paragraph 5 (as well as other sections) had been deleted from the original contract because of a lawsuit. Nevertheless, the original contract has had a chilling effect on many fishermen, who remain nervous about talking to journalists. “Ultimately, BP is not directly limiting media contact,” writes the Powering a Nation reporters, “but the contract added more uncertainty on top of what the fishermen are already experiencing.”
Recently, a BP contract frustrated with the oil company’s cover-up surreptitiously escorted a New York Daily News crew around some of the affected sites, allowing them to observe a shore “littered with tarred marine life, some dead and others struggling under a thick coating of crud.” “There is a lot of coverup for BP,” said the contractor. “They specifically informed us that they don’t want these pictures of the dead animals. They know the ocean will wipe away most of the evidence.”
Firm's stock sale nearly twice as large as any other institution; Represented 44 percent of total BP investment
The brokerage firm that's faced the most scrutiny from regulators in the past year over the shorting of mortgage related securities seems to have had good timing when it came to something else: the stock of British oil giant BP.
According to regulatory filings, RawStory.com has found that Goldman Sachs sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman's sales were the largest of any firm during that time. Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP's stock during the quarter.
If Goldman had sold these shares today, their investment would have lost 36 percent its value, or $96 million. The share sales represented 44 percent of Goldman's holdings -- meaning that Goldman's remaining holdings have still lost tens of millions in value.
The sale and its size itself isn't unusual for a large asset management firm. Wall Street brokerages routinely buy and sell huge blocks of shares for themselves and their clients. In light of a recent SEC lawsuit arguing that Goldman kept information about a product they sold from their clients, however, the stock sale may raise fresh concern among Goldman's critics. Goldman is also a frequent target of liberals and journalists, including Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, who famously dubbed the firm a "vampire squid.
Two calls placed to Goldman Sachs' media office in New York Wednesday morning after US markets opened were not immediately returned, though Raw Story decided to publish the story quickly after the calls since the stock sale had been already noted online.
Others also sold stock
Other asset management firms also sold huge blocks of BP stock in the first quarter -- but their sales were a fraction of Goldman's. Wachovia, which is owned by Wells Fargo, sold 2,667,419 shares; UBS, the Swiss bank, sold 2,125,566 shares.
Wachovia and UBS also sold much larger percentages of their BP stock, at 98 percently and 97 percent respectively.
Wachova parent Wells Fargo, however, bought 2.3 million shares in the quarter, largely discounting Wachovia's sales.
Those reported buying BP's stock included Wellington Management, a large asset firm, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
BP is struggling to cap a massive oil leak at one of its drill sites in the Gulf of Mexico. The firm's myriad safety violations over the years have come to light in lieu of the Gulf disaster.
BP traded on average at $56.86 in the first quarter, according to GuruFocus, a site that monitors the major trading moves of prominent investors. A list of major institutions' sales of BP stock are available at the market research website Morningstar.
It's certainly unknown as to why the firms sold their holdings. In its analysis of the company in mid-March, Morningstar, the market research site, gave the company an average rating of three out of a possible five stars.
"BP's valuation carries more uncertainty than ExxonMobil's or Shell's because the firm is less integrated, with more of its earnings coming from the [exploration and production] business than from potentially offsetting refining operations," the site's analyst wrote. "Like its peers, a sustained drop in oil and gas prices can hurt upstream earnings. Lower crude-oil feedstock costs could help refining margins, but refined product pricing lags could quickly swing refining profits to losses. BP's global business faces potential disruptions caused by political risks, particularly with its heavy exposure to Russia. Disruptions caused by environmental and operational constraints could further limit earnings potential."
The transnational oil company, like other energy giants, was hit with lower oil and gas prices in the past year after the price of oil surged in 2008.
"BP's fourth quarter marked another quarter of year-over-year production gains, with a 3% increase thanks to new field startups," Morningstar's analyst wrote in another note, after BP turned in better than expected fourth quarter results in February. "BP reported fourth-quarter replacement cost profit of $3.4 billion, up 33% from year-ago earnings of $2.6 billion, as upstream earnings growth was more than enough to offset downstream weakness. For the full year, BP's earnings of $14 billion were 45% below year-ago earnings of $26 billion, in part because of lower oil prices earlier in the year. We're encouraged by BP's sequential earnings gains as new projects and cost-cutting efforts drive upstream results."
The SEC filed a civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs and one of its vice presidents in April, asserting that the firm had committed fraud by misrepresenting a mortgage-investment product inherently designed to fail. The company helped a hedge fund trader create a mortgage investment that gained value as mortgage borrowers defaulted en masse.
In response, Goldman said the SEC's charges were “completely unfounded in law and fact” and averred that it would “vigorously contest them and defend the firm and its reputation.”
The firm has also faced criticism over giant bonuses paid to staff amidst the US financial crisis. Goldman reduced the sizes of its staff bonuses this year to $16.9 billion, and said it would pay its chief executive $9 million, far less than the previous year.
Goldman also announced it would create a $500 million program to help small businesses. Critics noted that the figure represented just 3% of the bonus pool.
As if the water wasn't deep -- or oily -- enough around British Petroleum's public relations, the company has hired a former spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney to be its public face for the disaster.
Anne Womack Kolton, former head of public affairs at the Department of Energy and Cheney's onetime campaign press secretary, will take the baton from BP this week.
While at Cheney's side, Kolton defended the secrecy of the Vice President's Energy task force, a group which held secretive meetings with energy company executives. When the General Accounting Office -- the research arm of Congress -- sued the Administraton for records relating to Cheney's meetings, Kolton (then Womack) was at his side.
"We are ready to defend our principles in court," she said. "This goes to the heart of the presidency and to the ability of the president and vice president to receive candid, discreet advice."
A blogger at the liberal web site Daily Kos notes that BP was reportedly among one of the companies that Cheney met with.
In 2004, Womack Kolton also drew attention from the left after Cheney made comments suggesting a Democratic victory would precipitate a terrorist attack.
“Whoever is elected in November,” she said, “face[s] the prospect of another terrorist attack. The question is whether or not the right policies are in place to best protect our country. That‘s what the Vice President was saying.”
A Department of Energy press release notes that "Ms. Kolton joined the Bush administration in January 2001 as Assistant Press Secretary in the White House Press Office after serving on the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign as Assistant Press Secretary to then Vice Presidential candidate Dick Cheney."
"Before joining Bush-Cheney 2000," the release continues, "Ms. Kolton was Washington Liaison for Texas Attorney General John Cornyn."
Kolton also appeared in the news when asked for a response about Cheney's apparent difference of opinion with President George W. Bush on the anti-gay marriage amendment.
"The vice president respects the president's right to make that decision," she said.
By
Tea Party activists’ self-proclaimed mission is to demand lower taxes. TEA, in fact, stands for Taxed Enough Already. As a part of this anti-tax crusade, the Tea Party has vehemently opposed comprehensive health reform, clean energy legislation, and even mandatory garbage collection. 
