At almost every step of the way, BP’s efforts to cap the well spewing oil into the Gulf have wound up making things worse. Let’s hope this doesn’t continue, but for now, we have an uncapped well putting at least 35,000 barrels and maybe as much as 100,000 into the water today (I don’t know why WaPo is foregrounding the 15,000 barrels the last containment dome was catching, implying that no more oil would flow). You can read BP’s entire plan for the next several weeks, both the new cap and the timeline for the relief wells, in this letter to Thad Allen.
While BP claims that the project is moving on schedule, they’ve said that before, and yet previous top hats, top kills and junk shots wound up failing or capturing an inadequate amount of oil to stop the leak. And if the well cannot be fully capped, the risk of an increased flow into the Gulf exists. Remember that every barrel of oil carries with it not only a human cost in pollution, but a hard financial cost in per-barrel fines and penalties. I’ve been saying for a month that BP stands at risk of bankruptcy, and the New York Times picks it up today.
With pockets as deep as BP’s — its assets are worth more than $260 billion — the possibility that it might be forced to seek bankruptcy protection because of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is considered remote by many industry experts.
But what if the company’s plan to contain the spill in the next several days does not work, and other efforts to stop the gushing oil also fail? If that were to occur, the worst-case projections of some experts, if they came to pass, would strain the ability of any company to pay, said Robin K. Craig, associate dean for environmental programs at the Florida State University College of Law.
Professor Craig said that if the oil hit the Gulf Stream and was carried by currents to East Coast states, Cuba and other Caribbean nations, and possibly even Britain, lawsuits could quickly mount to levels even BP could not handle.
“My bet is that BP will finally go bankrupt from the tort liability and the environmental liability,” she said. “Hypothetically, a bluefin tuna farmer in the Mediterranean could end up with a claim against BP.”
This becomes particularly true if Eric Holder does pursue legitimate criminal charges. Holder has said that his wide-ranging investigation would cover more companies than BP, but obviously they would be at the center of any investigation. And those other companies have already begun to stiff BP, which will result in additional legal proceedings (Anadarko may even have a case that BP holds all the negligence in this case).
I know that BP has $260 billion in assets, and makes enough in a day to cover the entire $75 million liability cap (which doesn’t include criminal penalties). But this possibility is real. A lot of things would have to go wrong, but a lot have already. And while the executives at BP would probably emerge from bankruptcy without much trouble, you cannot say the same for the federal government, which would then be on the hook for much of the cleanup and damage awards.
Still, you’d have to sell off a LOT of assets before we get to that point.




24 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
So amazing, we have no idea where this will end….
Holder’s not going to file criminal charges against BP… (BP being one of the companies that owns this administration).
Stern talking-to – that’s what they will get.
Strategic default isn’t just for real estate.
Not entirely OT: anti-littering ordinances are for the small people:
Leaving old drilling-rig pieces in the ocean has big support in Legislature
So maybe the way out of BP’s problems is to declare the slick a National Oceanic Surface Hydrocarbon Reserve, and have the administration declare a victory for sensible centrism .
They must rue the day(s) they threw caution to the wind, cut corners and fought with the crew over the blow-out preventer and other safety issues.
Or not. Now that they are in dire straits, they probably will do it again.
Based on no analysis or evidence whatsoever, just plain emotional pessimism and the fact that the gusher seems like a world class disaster that both BP & the USG are trying to hide as long as possible, I have thought from the beginning that a BP bankruptcy was possible. I asked my money manager friend a couple of weeks into it if she thought BP stock was a short. Her firm has a fancy oil analyst as consultant, and he assured them, so she told me, that would be a bad idea.
So, there we are. Meanwhile, here’s BP’s stock price chart over the past year.
Harry Reid just sent Holder a draft of a Sternly Worded Letter, also reminding him how the appearance of good intentions work far better than redemptive actions. After all, there is substantial risk in taking an actual stand for the public good—right Harry?
This is about as dumb as it gets.
First, the US Gov has to enforce the “hard financial cost in per-barrel fines and penalties,” which would be hard to impose, will be fought to a standstill in court, and eventually end up infront of those corporation hating supremes.
Second, The US licensed and its MMS has oversight of this dangerous activity. Where’s the liability now?
Third, BP Exploration, a separate company, has a firewall, limited liability, between it and BP. BP America (the US arm of BP) is probably not even the parent of BP Exploration.
Fourth, BP is a UK registered company, and good luck with those US laws in UK jurisdiction. What UK laws has BP broken?
Fifth, US MOTUs are the largest holders of BP shares. Oh yes, they will volunteer for a loss.
Live camera showing them trying to put whatever the latest thing is on top of the gusher. LINK.
Trust me, BP is looking at the current costs, and the longer-term costs of health lawsuits, and the permanent loss of jobs and income, and their lawyers have worked out the cost-benefits of throwing in the towel and hollerin’ uncle, to the penny.
I don’t know how well anyone is keeping track of any movement of assets on their part, but someone ought to be. It’s going to be like a deadbeat dad hiding his gelt so that his ex can’t get at it.
Which is why Obama should have declared a national emergency two months ago and frozen everything he could find…as well as sending armed federal marshalls on a dawn raid of their entire operation in the GOM.
Now, with the country collectively inured to the sight and reality of the Gulf of Mexico slowly being assassinated, his support for taking some real steps to stop this, will be thin, at best.
Thanks, Barry, and the dems. You guys are doing a hell of a job. See you in November.
Or not.
Very true.
Plus BP is probably looking at liquidating its US assets before any others.
Amy Goodman/Juan Gonzales/Democracy now have covered this extensively, very well. no pun intended.
I woke up from a dream about this last night.
Lying in bed, it occurred to me that this resembles a three stooges movie, or something by the Marx brothers.
or Peter Sellers.
Inspector Jacques Clouseau is running the team down there in the Gulf.
and yet people are so deeply brainwashed, that they still trust corporations.
Remember when it was the Russians who were brainwashed?
David, your diary is, as always, very valuable. But I don’t know why you are still buying into the false notion that BP’s liabilities are subject to the $75 million cap set out in the 1990 Oil Pollution Act.
The Act specifically provides that the cap is lifted whenever there is gross negligence or recklessness. In other words, the misconduct need not be so serious as criminal. That the misconduct rose to at least gross negligence or recklessness is well enough documented by the internal BP emails just preceding the blowout, not to mention tons of other evidence. I think even our stalwart President called it “reckless” in his otherwise feckless speech, 6 weeks after the blowout.
Further, I seriously doubt BP would have agreed to ante-up $20 billion for the slush fund if it thought it had some arguable chance of hiding under the cap.
OldCoastie – Long time no see!
But Alan, who makes the call for “gross negiligence or recklessness?
And if the current cap works so well, then why are some democrats trying to get it lifted? Are they a bunch of greedy socialists, trying to fatten up government coffers at the expense of poor BP?
As for BP “agreeing” to ante up $20 billion for the escrowe fund or whatever you want to call it, some fact-checkers have looked at the “agreement” and found that it’s got more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese.
Which is WHY they “agreed” to Obama’s little piece of corporate Kabuki: it benefitted them a lot more, in terms of PR, than it will ever cost them.
Synoia:
The sale is on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/20/bp-north-sea-assets-sale
This is about their holdings overseas, and I don’t know how vulnerable they would be in the event of BP declaring bankruptcy, but I know this:
It’s easier to hide money than it is to hide companies.
And, since we’re talking about sell-offs, here’s the capper, about the congers who have decided that having BP in their portfolio might be a bit of a political liability:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/06/lawmakers-sell-off-bp-shares.html
If I were an incumbent, of any stripe, running against these assholes, especially, the ones who serve on committiees having to do with keeping an eye on Big Oil, etc., I would shove this so far up their asses that it would be coming out of their nostrils.
Just my opinion, but BP would not need to declare bankruptcy in order to shrug off its obligations. When the electricity deregulation proved unprofitable (when the cost of purchasing through a “free-market” exchange rose due to the gaming of the system by enron and others) PG&E simply ring-fenced it’s corporate entity – PG&E Corporation and spun off its utility and exposed its rate-payers to the costs of the spot-market – just as it promised not to do during the time it sold off its generating capacity for 3 and 4 times the book value of the generating facilities.
I’ve expected to see such a move by BP since the beginning of the disaster.
Restructuring is not bankruptcy. The Vatican is trying to pull this same bull. They probably won’t sell a single asset. What a crock.
Thanks, Tanbark. We basically agree. I am under no illusion that the $20 billion “agreement” is not indeed full of holes, and I understand that not a nickel has actually been put into the fund.
The decision on recklessness or gross negligence has to be made by a court, and of course, that’s a long way down the road.
The Congressional Dems who are trying to lift the cap seem to have two reasons, although this is surmise on my part: One, to eliminate the cap for all future spills and gushers. That’s fine, and it’s good to take advantage of the present crisis to do that.
The second reason is, in my view, rather questionable: to eliminate the cap retroactively for the present BP gusher. I think that purpose seriously runs afoul of the Constitution’s prohibition on ex-post facto laws. If it works, fine, and it would avoid protracted litigation on the recklessness/gross negligence issue. But I have my doubts.
I would add that the new legislation should really help avoid the bankruptcy problem by forcing all oil producers to contribute to an industry-wide fund precisely for situations such as the present one where the offending polluter may hide under bankruptcy protection. I see three potential advantages: First, it would lessen the probability that the victims of a spill would go uncompensated. Second, it would create some incentive on the part of the industry to rein in its most reckless members and actually avoid the most excessive risk-taking. Third, if the statute provided that some of the fund would be used for research on pollution avoidance and remediation, it would address the present serious problem in which the industry currently is doing nothing for R&D on pollution control because it has absolutely no financial incentive to do so. For many decades, vessel owners have formed “clubs” – i.e., mutual insurance societies for coverage of liability for pollution damages. This has seemed to work well. This would be a good model to start with, but would require major adaptation.
I have also advocated amending the Oil Pollution Act to require the creation of escrow accounts for payment of damages in cases of apparent liability. This would eliminate the bullshit arguments that what Obama did in persuading BP to agree to the account was somehow extra-legal.
Correction to the first paragraph, above: I am under no illusion that the $20 billion “agreement” is not completely full of holes, and I understand that not a nickel has actually been put into the fund.
Clarification: What I describe in the paragraph “I would add . . .” is what I advocate should be included in the new amendments. What I describe is not currently in the new amendments or in the thinking of any of our Masters in Washington, as far as I know.
If the feds had any balls, they would be filing in federal court (somewhere besides the Fifth Circuit, please!) to enjoin any BP entity from selling any assets of significance without putting all proceeds of such sales into escrow. This is what’s called “piercing the corporate veil.”
It appears clear that BP functions as a single, huge entity under Tony Harwood and his cronies, who make decisions that cut across all of the artificial boundaries of the various BP subsidiaries. Those entities are in a common enterprise. Each of those entities must pay for the transgressions committed by their collective masters.
To expect any such action by Holder-Obama is, alas, unrealistic. Yet another Obamarahma failure in the offing.
BP going bankrupt? Obama and Goldman will never let it happen.
They’ll thwart it at every turn.
If by some remote chance it does go that far. Obama will call for more shared sacrifices. We’ll be forking out a helping hand for big oil and Wall St. one way or another.
See? No worries.
Here’s to the CEO, the chairman, and the spokesman of BP:
Three liars in white shirts
Black oil spill still streaming
Thirteen weeks of hurts
Never stopped me dreaming
BP’s going broke
it’s going broke
it’s going
BP’s going broke!
(melody: “Three Lions”, the hymn of the English soccer team)