• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BP Exec: Gulf of Mexico 'Relatively Tiny' Compared to 'Very Big Ocean'

What part of his comments are in any way erroneous? I understand the media's desire to create news and the populist urge to rage over anything corporate, but this is something of a new low.

That they dipped their toe in "alternative energy" somehow mitigates the fact that have DESTROYED millions of people's way of life and CAUSED an environmental disaster of almost unmeasurable proportions?

Do you have a link for this, or is it just hilariously overwrought hyperbole?

BP, poster child for galactically ignorant and selfish. Comments like that only expose their arrogant attitude that they can do what they want and get away with what they want. Hopefully, those days are gone.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:rofl

Oh - so it's ok, now! Since the ocean is just SO HUGE it's ok.

Link to where he said that?

The funny thing about corporate capitalism is that there are caps on damage awards for these environmental disasters. ;)

There are caps on secondary damages. There is no cap on the liability for the clean up.
 
What part of his comments are in any way erroneous? I understand the media's desire to create news and the populist urge to rage over anything corporate, but this is something of a new low.

Do you have a link for this, or is it just hilariously overwrought hyperbole?

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to where he said that?

I see you are still allergic to facts, ehh.:roll:
 
.............Democratic Senators Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Bill Nelson of Florida introduced legislation that would raise the cap on damage awards from $75 million to $10 billion. Nelson said he is open to attaching that legislation to the financial regulation overhaul under consideration in the Senate. Nelson said BP requested today’s meeting with the lawmakers................

It might affect future oil spills, but it won't affect BP now. That would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Since $75 million was the cap when the spill occurred, that's probably what we're stuck with for this incident.
 
It might affect future oil spills, but it won't affect BP now. That would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Since $75 million was the cap when the spill occurred, that's probably what we're stuck with for this incident.

The government got around this principle for retroactive tax increases during the Clinton administration. What makes you liberal Democrats won't find a way around this now?
 
The government got around this principle for retroactive tax increases during the Clinton administration.

Huh? What tax are you referring to? In any case, a tax is not the same as compensation for damages. Ex post facto laws are specifically about crimes/torts.

ludahai said:
What makes you liberal Democrats won't find a way around this now?

Obvious partisan troll is obvious.
 
The government got around this principle for retroactive tax increases during the Clinton administration. What makes you liberal Democrats won't find a way around this now?

So you would rather have the nanny state government pay for the mess?
What happened to taking responsibility?
Unlike you, I do not believe taxpayers should have to pay for another corporate screwup. I guess you just want bigger government and more taxes.. Looks like just another rightwing hypocrite to me that always wants the government to babysit..
 
Last edited:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkSdOvGon50"]YouTube- Offshore Drilling: Bobby Jindal[/nomedia]

He sure was whistling a different tune on the news tonight.
 
I took my position already, I'm still positive that it will rebound in a year or two.
In the mean time I can DRIP my dividends and gain some cheap shares.

You should have waited.
 
Meh, it's all good.

I'm a strategic value investor, so getting in at the lowest price isn't a requirement.
Getting it at a below fair value price enough.

You didn't. If you paid more than 40 you will lose your shirt. BP will bottom out around 10 and it will not see 40 again in our lifetime. If that's all good you might want to reconsider your goals.
 
You didn't. If you paid more than 40 you will lose your shirt. BP will bottom out around 10 and it will not see 40 again in our lifetime. If that's all good you might want to reconsider your goals.

If you're so sure, I would think you'd be pouring everything you own into shorting BP.
 
You didn't. If you paid more than 40 you will lose your shirt. BP will bottom out around 10 and it will not see 40 again in our lifetime. If that's all good you might want to reconsider your goals.

Why? That sounds really off the wall.

Their fair value is over $100 a share, even accounting for potential liabilities.
 
To add, there are reasons why BP shares have been trending down outside of the oil spill.

The "sell in May and stay away" seasonality concept is in effect, as well as, the overall slumping recovery.
I'm sorry but with all the information available, it will eventually rebound in a couple of years.

If not, it was a speculative investment that I'll lose out on.
That's life, I can't always win.:shrug:
 
To add, there are reasons why BP shares have been trending down outside of the oil spill.

The "sell in May and stay away" seasonality concept is in effect, as well as, the overall slumping recovery.
I'm sorry but with all the information available, it will eventually rebound in a couple of years.

If not, it was a speculative investment that I'll lose out on.
That's life, I can't always win.:shrug:
. Buying a stock on the way down hoping it rebounds in a couple of years is not a wise move.

"Although this spill is astronomical, we have to remember that big oil companies like BP could still make astronomical profits and it has a lot of attractive assets it can sell to make money," said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at PFG Best. "I'm still confident that BP will avoid default."

Still, Flynn conceded that there is cause for investor confidence to erode, given the unknown potential for political backlash, and even hurricane forecasts, which could hamstring cleanup efforts.

Whether BP's stock continues to decline or rebounds hinges on the successful completion of the relief wells, says Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond James, a solution that BP estimates could take another three to four weeks. Until then, Molchanov says, there aren't a lot of reasons to buy the stock.

This could further punish the company's market capitalization, which has fallen to $85 billion, from more than $160 billion since the oil rig explosion in April, leaving BP quite vulnerable.

"BP's market cap is eroding and its ability to finance itself in the capital markets is impaired," said Orr. "It's anybody's guess what can happen, but the fear of the market is that the liability could be so enormous that BP may have to seek bankruptcy protection."
 
Last edited:
. Buying a stock on the way down hoping it rebounds in a couple of years is not a wise move.

"Although this spill is astronomical, we have to remember that big oil companies like BP could still make astronomical profits and it has a lot of attractive assets it can sell to make money," said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at PFG Best. "I'm still confident that BP will avoid default."

Still, Flynn conceded that there is cause for investor confidence to erode, given the unknown potential for political backlash, and even hurricane forecasts, which could hamstring cleanup efforts.

Whether BP's stock continues to decline or rebounds hinges on the successful completion of the relief wells, says Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond James, a solution that BP estimates could take another three to four weeks. Until then, Molchanov says, there aren't a lot of reasons to buy the stock.

This could further punish the company's market capitalization, which has fallen to $85 billion, from more than $160 billion since the oil rig explosion in April, leaving BP quite vulnerable.

"BP's market cap is eroding and its ability to finance itself in the capital markets is impaired," said Orr. "It's anybody's guess what can happen, but the fear of the market is that the liability could be so enormous that BP may have to seek bankruptcy protection."

I completely understand all those points, with that said there is still a lot in the back pocket of BP, like a potential British taxpayer bailout among other things.

I bought it because it was going down, it's call value investing.
"Buy when there is blood in the streets."

BP is a still a solid company, with a very profitable product line.
If they fail, I will lose some but not much because I am well diversified.
No risk, no reward.

Always being fearful is a weakness, I'm not a skittish little kitten.
 
I completely understand all those points, with that said there is still a lot in the back pocket of BP, like a potential British taxpayer bailout among other things.

I bought it because it was going down, it's call value investing.
"Buy when there is blood in the streets."

BP is a still a solid company, with a very profitable product line.
If they fail, I will lose some but not much because I am well diversified.
No risk, no reward.

Always being fearful is a weakness, I'm not a skittish little kitten.

No, but it is better to use some common sense and buy low and sell high. This crisis for BP has just begun and it has a long way to go before it reaches bottom. I can not believe you think it was a good investment to buy BP at 40 when you could have waited a few weeks and bought it at 20. It was a no-brainer. There is a difference between being fearful and investing wisely. When it hits 15 I will buy some BP stock. That will be a wise investment.
 
No, but it is better to use some common sense and buy low and sell high. This crisis for BP has just begun and it has a long way to go before it reaches bottom. I can not believe you think it was a good investment to buy BP at 40 when you could have waited a few weeks and bought it at 20. It was a no-brainer. There is a difference between being fearful and investing wisely. When it hits 15 I will buy some BP stock. That will be a wise investment.

Like I said it's all good, I don't need someone here admonishing me for what they think is good.
I can't change time, it is the choice I made and I must live with it.

No one here has a magic crystal ball that can predict stock prices.

Strategic value investing doesn't involve a ton of active management, it just involves getting a lower than fair market value price, I did that and I'm happy with my choice.
If it doesn't pan out, so be it. :shrug:
 
No, but it is better to use some common sense and buy low and sell high. This crisis for BP has just begun and it has a long way to go before it reaches bottom. I can not believe you think it was a good investment to buy BP at 40 when you could have waited a few weeks and bought it at 20. It was a no-brainer. There is a difference between being fearful and investing wisely. When it hits 15 I will buy some BP stock. That will be a wise investment.

If you could actually use your "common sense" to know when to buy low and sell high, you'd be a billionaire. A lot of people think their "common sense" means they can't lose money. The vast majority are wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom