Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Global Protest Planned over BP's Handling of Oil Disaster
New Orleans, Louisiana - Environmentalists plan to stage a worldwide protest against BP on Saturday as the petroleum giant takes hits from politicians and Gulf residents.
A protester holds a sign during a protest against BP organized by Moveon.org outside an Arco gas station in Los Angeles, Tuesday, June 8. (Chris Pizzello/AP) Worldwide BP
Protest Day claims demonstrations will take place in more than 50
cities across five continents from Pensacola, Florida, to Christchurch,
New Zealand.
"Let the world know YOU care," says a flyer on the group's Facebook page, which translates BP's initials to mean British Predator. "We need to let BP know that we are NOT okay with what they are putting in OUR oceans."
The protests come as politicians and Gulf residents slammed BP on Friday over its efforts to end the spew of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and make whole those who have been hurt.
"BP misrepresented what their technology could do," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday. "They misrepresented the amount of oil that was being spewed forth into the Gulf and continued to do so."
She was referring to Thursday's announcement by researchers that doubled estimates of how much oil has been gushing from the ruptured well: About 40,000 barrels (1.7 million gallons) a day may have escaped for weeks.
Pelosi said she met with President Obama on the matter and was pleased to hear that he had ordered the attorney general to look into whether there was negligence on BP's part.
"This is a matter of integrity," Pelosi said. "BP stated that they had the technology to drill deep, to prevent a blowout and that they had the technology to clean up, and none of these things happened to be a fact."
But the multibillion-dollar, multinational company found support for its efforts. In New York, that support came from billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"The guy that runs BP didn't exactly go down there and blow up the well," he told a radio program. "And what's more, if you want them to fix it and they are the ones with the expertise, I think I might wait to assign blame until we get it fixed."
iReport: Share your views on the oil disaster
In London, England, a Downing Street spokesman said Prime Minister David Cameron spoke Friday with BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg.
"The prime minister explained that he was frustrated and concerned about the environmental damage caused by the leak, but made clear his view that BP is an economically important company in the UK, US and other countries," the spokesman said in a news release.
"He said that it is in everyone's interests that BP continues to be a financially strong and stable company."
Svanberg, who is to meet Wednesday with Obama at the White House, "made clear that BP will continue to do all that it can to stop the oil spill, clean up the damage and meet all legitimate claims for compensation," it said.
British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg appealed for a reduction in the vitriol that has gripped many observers. "I don't, frankly, think we're going to reach a solution stopping the release of oil into the Gulf any quicker by allowing this to spiral into a tit-for-tat political, diplomatic spat," he said.
That comment elicited no sympathy from Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser. "Obviously, Nick hasn't been over here and touched the oil," he told CNN. "We get a tropical storm that brings that oil and lays it across coastal Louisiana, we're wiped out for the next 20 years. This community will be dead, and they're talking like we're being too tough?"
By law, the company is responsible for paying all the costs to stop the leak and clean the oil off the shore. That's likely to be the small bill: in the single-digit billions.
A bigger concern will be claims of economic damage from fishermen, hoteliers and other businesses who report losses. BP has said it will pay "all reasonable claims" but has been vague on what "reasonable" means.
BP said that nearly 42,000 claims have been submitted and more than 20,000 payments made, totaling more than $53 million.
So far, the cost of the response is $1.43 billion, it said.
Lawmakers want to make sure the company has enough money not only to remove the oil but to reimburse residents for lost wages and other damage to the economy.
BP has argued that the company has plenty of money to do both. Executives noted last week that BP had a cash flow last year exceeding $30 billion.
The government's response manager offered a new round of numbers as well on what it takes to clean a spill of this magnitude: an Exxon Valdez-like spill every few days that has now gone on for 55 days.
Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said that more than 25,000 people -- contractors, volunteers and members of the military -- were involved on the ground.
Some 3.8 million gallons of oil burned, he said. About 1 million gallons of dispersant has been used to break up the slick. That has taken more than 500 skimmers, barges, ships and aircraft.
Piecemeal efforts to slow the flow are continuing.
As early as Monday, BP plans to deploy "Q4000 Direct Connect," the company's name for a containment device secondary to a primary cap that was put in place over the leaking well last week.
Allen has said he expects that the Q4000 will be able to take an additional 5,000 to 10,000 barrels per day.
A second Transocean drill ship is expected to arrive in mid- to late June, bringing an added capacity of 10,000 barrels per day, the company said.
By mid-July, the current cap will be replaced with a larger device that will provide a tighter seal, the company said.
The cap will be connected to another manifold and hose system to a free-floating riser 300 feet below sea level. The hose attached to the riser will connect with the containment vessel on the surface, giving cleanup workers the option of disconnecting from and then reconnecting to the riser should the ships need to return to port in the event of a hurricane.
The riser would remain in place at all times. This system could contain up to 50,000 barrels per day, according to BP.
The ultimate containment plan would insert mud and cement 18,000 feet under the seabed, effectively stopping the flow of oil, the company said.
Two such wells, one of which would be a backup, are under way and are slated for completion in August.
Meanwhile, a delegation of U.S. senators traveled Friday to the heart of coastal Louisiana to assess the damage.
"Until you see if firsthand, until you really smell it, get a sense of it, you can't understand it fully," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana.
They were the latest in a virtual parade of officials from Washington to make the trip to the coast. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was in the region Thursday, and Obama is scheduled to make his fourth trip next week.
28 Comments so far
Show AllPROTEST PUBLICLY AND ONLINE AND BOYCOTT ALL BP PRODUCTS !
It is highly unlikely that Washington and the American corporate courts will be tough enough on BP to prevent more negligence in the future. If BP walks away as a survivor they will be in stressed financial condition and will be more inclined than ever to save operating costs by using dangerous practices.
In fact, Obomber granted BP two new leases (after the blowout) under the same deregulated conditions that led to the Deep Horizon volcano of oil and gas. These are disasters waiting to happen.
Another good reason to eventually put BP out of business is they are now complicit with the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq via recent oil contracts with the "Green Zone" government protected by the endless American occupation. And like the Gulf blowout, the long terms costs will fall on the public.
But the boycott should be slow and steady as to not shut them down before they have paid out the maximum amount in damages the courts are willing to enforce.
BP is directly and indirectly engaged in crimes against humanity. The world would be a better place without this rogue corporation.
This course of action would also send a powerful message to other corporations.
dup deleted
gonzonews,
It is worse than that.
BP is huge in the Caspian Sea (check google earth for their rigs), and IIRC, a huge partner in pipelines through Afghanistan to India and to the Arabian Sea.
They are a major partner in the wars for extraction, and will not be penalized by this government of racketeers.
We must make them pay at the pump all at once.
TJ
What about the politicians who've enabled BP to do their dirty work? Think about that.
And next let's not only protest the oily greed of modern civilization but bring both to an end!
40 million gulf coast residents homeless, game over
I went and protested today in front of a BP station. There were about 20 of us. Too bad more people didn't come out, but at least I got a chance to express my outrage. Judging by the number of "honks," we had a lot of supporters.
Boycott BP and all their affiliates! And let BP know what we're doing. That's the only way to cause BP or any other organization to mend their evil ways.
With that Headline, I got all excited.
Then, the rest of this article, outside of mentioning protests planned, is just chock full of BP propaganda, and government propaganda, brought to us by CNN, and then Common Dreams.
My thoughts exactly. CNN (Corporate News Network) on Common Dreams--what's that about?
The ultimate blame (not enough loud screaming about this) goes to the US Government for allowing BP to do what it wants to do by no oversight, gutting & weakening of regulatory agencies & just generally sitting back while the criminals control all information.
It is in every ones interest that BP be able to stop quickly all its oil leaks
And not be a company that tells a continuous flow of deep lies.
Does not report leak flows out by an order of magnitude.
Does not claim competence when incompetence is plain.
Does perform and verify all safety measures.
Does not perform unsafe procedures without a proven failsafe.
Is careful of the real social and environmental impact of its activities,
and not just the slick PR through the usual stupid, filtered and paid for media.
Can be trusted.
Since BP is proven to be none of these things, it has no right to exist in its current form. Its right to financial integrity is as forfeit as its false image.
A company claims more rights, privileges and access to profit than each and every one of the public. The corresponding punishments for betrayal should be that much greater again.
This is the end of the Obama political career as well.
- BP is to blame.
- Lazy, bought off Government is to blame. (Since far before Obama)
- Car owners are to blame.
- Society is to blame.
- We all are to blame. We all hold the key.
Can we get it together and get off of this addiction?
Or are we screwed. It won't happen again until the next time.
Stop being so damn vain. Start walking and biking. Its good to be inconvenienced.
The left has to start thinking about tactics and strategy. A picket sign is not the solution to every one of our problems. If we want to raise awareness, then yes; getting out and picketing, passing out literature, honking, etc. can be an effective means of doing so.
But are we trying to raise awareness?
Who does not know about the oil spill?
Who is not upset?
We need to channel that anger. We need to start taking risks.
There are of course issues that need to be brought to the public debate. Issues that need awareness. For instance, BP is a top 100 contractor with the DoD. They received contracts of over $1,500,000,000 in 2005 and 2006 (and surely every year since) That is our money, America. Has the DoD even talked about terminating the contracts? Why not?
What would the Tea Party say about that? Looking for opportunities to build constituencies with the "enemy" should be evaluated earnestly. Some people will never be with us, but who are you trying to convince at a rally: those that are already with you ... or the public as a whole?
'There are of course issues that need to be brought to the public debate. Issues that need awareness. For instance, BP is a top 100 contractor with the DoD. They received contracts of over $1,500,000,000 in 2005 and 2006 (and surely every year since)'
At On The Hill for June 7, 2010, there's an article about current BP contracts with the DoD: there are six of these, according to that source, and they total something more than 2.1 billion dollars, primarily for fuel delivery.
You are so right that consciousness needs to be raised in this regard. The environmental impact of this contractual relationship goes way beyond this particular oil spill: the DoD can only thrive on, e.g., the relevant government agencies turning a blind eye to possible horrors developing from every other BP well in the Gulf; and undoubtedly BP is not the DoD's only supplier.
It is crucial, when we speak of the addiction that we in the US have to oil, that we unpack that "we" in a thoroughgoing manner, and the big users need an extra-big focus.
Photos from today's well attended Global BP Protest in Manhattan at The New York Times building: http://bit.ly/bzPPyB | http://bit.ly/ae4ETa
Two officers from the NYPD showed up, (who were very courteous) to stand sentry inside The New York Times: http://bit.ly/bVwbvl
Has anyone seen this pathetic BP rubbish from 2007?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rklKyFMUME
This article makes it appear that only employees of BP have the knowledge and expertise to plug that hole. Does anyone know if this is actually the case? And if it is not, why has Obama or anyone else not contacted someone other than BP to fix this ongoing problem? Perhaps I have missed it but I do not remember the mainstream media asking what I would have thought would have been that obvious question as I would hardly think that the only engineers in the world that might be able to solve this catastrophe are the ones who work for BP.
Of course other oil companies have approximately the same technological competence as BP. There are likely to be differences in resources immediately available, but it should be fairly certain that the resources of all would be greater than those of any single company.
0bama, BP, and other oil companies are all primarily concerned with control of public opinion, not of oil. Sure 0 or BP would plug the pipe if they could. Apparently it is not all that easy. So the decision, just like with large coal mines or with nuclear plants, runs about like this.
There is a LOT of money to be made if BP drills, plus a lot of risk. Most of the money goes to BP stockholders. Most of the risk goes to the area's residents. If BP cuts a deal for a particular well, that means its competitors do not.
So of course BP claims it can plug its leaks.
Please note that this is far, far cheaper than actually planning to plug any leaks. It is most particularly far cheaper than planning to plug any leak that might happen at any likely point anywhere across the globe, which would be the task BP would be facing, were they not facing the other way.
The regulators said, "Great! We have the forms signed. Go ahead and drill, and if half the Gulf blows to kingdom come, it won't me my fault: I have a signed paper that says it is your fault and not mine" --- firm handshake, exchange of funds and favours, cut scene.
Soon the thing blows, and every regulator within a few hundred miles is guilty, guilty, guilty -- as of course is BP. The D's work out how to blame the R's and the R's D's, but the R's have an edge because the D's are in office, and clearly this will be a catastrophe.
So of course you get people casting around for help, but for the most part, government and BP already know the situation the second they see video of the pipe: they are screwed; this time it blew not in remote Alaska, not in politically impotent Timor, but within smirching range of American voters and commercial interests.
So the PR folk get together, and that is what we have seen. Basically, they figure the well empties eventually, and people get used to it in the meanwhile. They lie as much as possible about quantities and circumstances, buy off newspapers and search engines, bully workers, and let the green people come volunteer to clean birds and get sick breathing BP toxins.
The government colludes with the denial, because both gov't and BP share an interest in minimizing the perceived loss to the population, not the interest in avoiding loss to the population. They may fight publicly over whose fault it is, but that is a separate issue.
They do not act so because they want to damage people, most of them; it's just that when it comes to any decision that damages profits, they will find damaging people preferable. The government is run almost the same way. In both cases, the gateway to power over others, whether in the form of money or of elected office, depends on successfully misrepresenting themselves as humane.
Other companies will win something and lose something in this. Surely there will be some moratorium on offshore drilling around the US for some time, though frankly, I don't think we should trust to that for a minute; 0bama's language indicates that he intends to start drilling again ASAP, and his officials blew through as many drilling permits as possible after the burst and before they anticipated media attention. So they can play it pretty easily. They do not have to spend anything; BP's market share will be reduced, and they can continue playing a little ahead.
The Republicans can claim that all of this would have been solved or improved by privatization -- I have already read arguments that the core problem was that the Gulf of Mexico is not privately owned. The Dems will blame BP, which is at least part of the story, and claim they didn't know, which of course would be a crime in itself, even were things so cozy.
As a brief coda, it is worth noting that most of this was immediately obvious upon announcement of the leak because of exposure to other very large industry. All these are matters of corporate institutional structure, something that ought to be dismantled.
MSM is already trying to subtly prevent the boycott of BP.
Myth #1)
They say that boycotting local BP stations ONLY hurts the poor station owner. Remember that he/she has to sell BP gasoline at his or her pumps.
Myth #2)
It is not so bad for gulf coast fisherman because BP is providing jobs for the clean up--in some cases paying them more than they would otherwise make. Even if this is the case, is it worth the ecological cost? And are all those losing money from closed beaches being compensated? Also, how long will the clean up last, and how will these people earn their livelihood afterward?
As with station owners, they should get together for a class action suit to sever their contracts. I still say boycott everything BP.
Boycotting BP is an emotional, knee jerk, illogical reaction, just like our two illegal occupational wars.brillant people take the time to think about proper solutions that do not cause greater long term harm.
If BP finds a way to bankrupt its US branch, and pay penny's on the dollar for damages to Florida and other states we all loose.
As a Flordian of 30 yeas I am asking all Floridians to buy BP fuel.
This is precisely the reason why BP's assets should be liquidated and absorbed by the public.
What makes you think Floridians will get anything from BP without pressuring them? Talk to the folks around Timor or downstream from the Exxon Valdez. Talk to anyone left at Bhopal or downwind of Three Mile Island. Talk to the people from around Chernobyl if you can; it's not like the situation was all that different.
BP is telling workers they cannot put on gas masks in the toxic fumes because they are afraid that doing so may change the amount of damages they might have to pay to folks in the Gulf states, including Florida.
If they are willing to run that liability risk, it's because they do not intend to compensate you more than they are forced to do.
0bama's people stood side-by-side with BP's hired charlatans to do PR announcements from the first day, and you can bet his efforts to distance himself from the company were discussed with BP execs before they aired.
The boycott will not bankrupt BP anyway. I would love to see that, but it's not even close to realistic. If we do very, very well, we might manage to alter the little numbers on the spreadsheet that BP execs and Democratic and Republican party bosses consult before they send your beaches and livelihood swirling down the toilet.
You can safely bite that hand: it has no intention of feeding you.
Boycotting the individual gas station owner hurts the little guy. It does not get at the root of the problem.
39% of BP Stock is owned by USA investors. If you support Wall Street and Capitalism you support BP.
If you voted for a Democrat or Republican, you supported BP.
When you vote next time, if you vote for a dem/repub, you will be supporting BP.
BP is just doing what corporations are supposed to do - that is to maximize profit.
There are many things that YOU CAN do. The ultimate responsibility falls on the VOTER.
You should have voted for NADER. He is the only one who has consistently - for decades- taken on the corporations.
I voted for Nader. But I'm not voting for BP the other 364-odd days of the year.
The little guy who has cut a deal with BP is welcome welcome welcome to change his allegiances. I have made my compromises and at times regretted them, and I forgive him his, but that does not require me or even allow me to support the transgressions themselves.
I am not altogether against "changing the system from within," but people trying to do that have to recognize that actual change is one of the risks.
No BP in my tank -- and here's to the day I can lose the tank.
"Boycotting the individual gas station owner hurts the little guy. It does not get at the root of the problem."
It's unfortunate, but if BP cares, it should compensate the little guy for his losses. It's kind of like supporting the troops but not the war, which indirectly supports the war or, in this case BP.
Turn off the TV news.
Billionaire Bloomberg is an idiot. The tie that represents his wealth has effectively cut off his head from his heart. "The guy that runs BP didn't exactly go down there and blow up the well," No, but he established the cost management expectations that directly resulted in the short cuts that blew up the well. But of course, those in charge are not responsible. Pfeh. If this were imperial Japan, Hayward would take his short sword into his office, shut the door, and take direct responsibility. But no one in an office like his in our culture takes that kind of personal accountability. See you at the Four Seasons on Lanai Tony - until the oil gets there.
I'm still confused as to why they need to drill a 'relief well' in order to shoot the blown out hole with cement? Wouldn't it be faster to use the original hole?
Why is that overly simplistic?