Fuzzy Thinking here is aShort answer: F...off!  You obviously don't have the sense to avoid taking an anti-American stance when the facts are all against you.  I will be here as long as you are so watch the garbage coming out of your mouth and we won't have a further problem.

nope.

I always thought that the acceptance of different and varied opinions on any subject, discussion or conversation was a good thing, it is not necessary that they be agreed upon. 

You must be one heck of a tough guy...............

Personal threats are never acceptable at WC.  Consider this a warning for all thinking about escalating further.

I don't think there should be any worry about BP going broke to soon...with oil wells in over 100 countries and 500 billion in cash flow I don't think they'll be hurt to bad. Well...it might hurt but they'll recover.

Maybe yo are right WebGizmos, and maybe you are wrong.

The latest update at Wiki (for general reference only )) )

"

After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill BP's stock fell by 52% in 50 days on the New York Stock Exchange, going from $60.57 on April 20 to $29.20 on June 9, its lowest level since August 1996.

Around 40% of BP shares are held by UK shareholders, and 39% in the USA. The UK dividends represent approximately one-seventh of all dividend payments in the UK and form the basis of many pension schemes.

Some economists suggested BP may have to cut its dividend, file for bankruptcy or be taken over by another oil company as a result of the spill and associated liabilities.^[42][43]Financial analysts suggests 4 possible scenarios. One is that the oil leak stops, political pressure abates, and the clean up costs are manageable. A second is that a competitor attempts to takeover BP, either in cooperation with the company or as a hostile bid. The share price would vary according to political pressure and factors related to the suitor and/or BP. A third scenario is that the leak is stopped but with delays. There is uncertainty of the clean up payments. BP stock prices rebound but not completely. A fourth scenario is that the leak is not resolved, political pressure continues leading to bankruptcy. ^[44]

Faster than the people hurt by this, and one helluva lot faster than the animals, plants and coastal estuaries. That's one thing BP can take to the bank.

Can't say that I disagree with your emphasis gentlemen.  I merely point out that nothing is achieved by the bashing of BP in terms of fixing the problem and on the contrary, we merely add to the list of injured parties as a result of this tragic accident.  39% of the shareholders are in the US in pension funds, 401k's, etc.  They too are hurt and that is a lot of folks. The cries for the US to take over the company are so counter productive.  Does the US want to be responsible;e for all the British pensioners, all the retired dividend dependents?  I think not.  I am not defending BP's actions past or present.  There will be a heavy load to haul in this clean up and recovery and it would be poor judgement to kill the horse that you expect to haul that load for political posturing or out of anger.  The urge to demonize should be avoided.

My feeling is not to neccessarily take over BP...but to understand that...yeah...BP was at the helm when this started...but it has become such a disaster that we should not just stand by and watch and wait for BP to solve the problem which they obviously don't have a clue on how to accomplish that. This in my opinion has now become a problem for all of us. In cases like this I think we should band together...solve the problem...do the clean up...and then place the blame squarely where it belongs and bill whoever is responsible and let the chips fall where they may...no matter what part of the world they are based out of. And I agree that blaming a group of people for the mistake of a company is just childish and ignorant.

We are in agreement!

The damages and penalties are going to be enormous based on the increased estimates of the amount of oil escaping into the Gulf.  The market is telling us that the company is at risk for non-survival.  Also telling us this is the administration's expressed objection to BP's paying it's usual dividend.  The Obama administration wants to be certain that when the time comes to pay the damages and penalties, there will be money there for that purpose.  I am a regular listener to CNBC which covers the markets.  None of the invenstment experts on the show are suggesting that anyone buy BP stock at this point.  I know that I wouldn't.  40 % of the stock is owned by Americans so its not just British pensioners who are in jeopardy.

Survival may come down to whether there is a finding of "gross" negligence by BP.  If that finding is made, the penalties go from $1000+ per barrel to over $4000 per barrel.  Depending on how much oil is ultimately determined to have escaped into the Gulf, this could raise BP's exposure to something in the area of $70 Billion.

We usually are Kenwas!

This is what I wrote:

I don't believe BP will go out of business. The damages may come out in the $30 Billion range, but that's (a poor pun, but true) a drop in the ocean...as Tony put it.

If they go out of business, that's what'll happen...no one's going to give them a write-off on this, Ken. In fact, receivership might be the right way to go, but who'd run that company? Who has the know how? The last group of knuckle heads I'd trust to do that would be the government. They'd be the only group capable of losing money running an oil company. In fact we've already had a President who accomplished that feat.

Now, it's estimated by the government scientific panel (based on the vids at the well head) that twice what they estimated has spilled.

My concern is the people/animals/environmental damage done by this spill and doing everything humanly possible to mitigate it, and recover what is possible to recover. After that, setting in place regulations and inspections to prevent recurrences and prevent other disasters.  After that's done, resuming this cautiously. If that means rationing, so be it.

The primary concern should be the safety of the world and all that dwell on and in it. Sustainability comes next and finding other sources of energy...safer for all of us.

What kind of legacy are we to leave our children?

I guess we just look at this differently Doc.  To say "If that means rationing, so be it" is very cavalier of you.  As you list people first oof the things to be saved and recovered I am surprised that you do not include the millions of people, small businesses, large businesses that will be under severe stress if we have a rationed fuel supply.  But so be it....

It is funny though that every one of the gulf states that are most affected by this disaster wants moratorium lifted and the rigs back in operation ASAP.  But what do they know about what is best for them?

I look at it more globally, Ken. More from a species stand point. Individuals are selfish, not willing to do what has to be done...decreasing consumption, raising the health and education of the lowliest, ending conspicuous consumption in favor or sustainability for all people. The people in the gulf area and their suffering does not elude me. However, just because that's how they prefer to live doesn't make it right. Is it right for anyone to live inflated existences while children elsewhere starve? I'm not advocating Communism. I am advocating a much fairer division of resources, and responsibility towards other humans.

That is quite the opposite of being "cavalier". Being cavalier would be (barring the use of less attractive terms) disregarding the suffering of immense masses of people on this planet starving and ill while bemoaning the terrible loss of fishing and oystering and "a way of life".

There has to be moderation. We can't go on using 90% of the world's resources without consideration. We are not 90% of the world's population, are we? Or is there some special entitlement we enjoy simply because of the American Industrialization? Isn't it ironic that the very forces which caused the careless drilling and over/unbalanced utilization of the earth's limited resources engendered this disaster?

I am not saying "YOU have to ration the folks in the Gulf states while I enjoy limitless consumption." That would be unconscionable, right?

But what you're saying is "The world can exist on 10% while America/the West get 90%". That isn't reverse rationing? That is unsustainable and indefensible....but then, "That's just the way it is...we can't do anything about it."

I am perfectly willing to be rationed, as long a EVERYONE, including the leaders are also rationed. No one is more entitled to healthy food, good health care, a job, shelter and clothing than anyone else. Does that sound cavalier to you?

As far as I'm concerned they can have their way of life back and drill....as long as it is made safe. They might know what's 'best' for themselves (if best=best money), but they do not have the right to do that under unsafe conditions. I won't suffer the illnesses nor pay my hard earned money to buy them that option.

Well, if you are now expanding the subject of the thread to the global condition of mankind and the unfair balance of wealth, etc, I'll just drop out of the conversation.  I was talking about the position of BP in relation to this specific disaster, and not the establishment of a global government that can divide all the resources based on some criteria that I suppose a grand committee creates but yes, with moderation.  I guess your point is that this is not really BP's fault but my fault and your fault fro driving my car when other people in the world are starving.  But guess what , I would be willing to bet that if I reduced my level of consumption and everyone in America did the same, there would be just as many people starving , just as many wars, just as many crazies as there are now.  Probably more as we would not be there to help feed them or give them protection.  You don't help an alcoholic by drinking with him Seth.

Sorry, I said I was out of here and I am....... 

No NWO, Ken. I was hoping to live to see people kinder to one another...care about the other who really is no different from us.

It's BP's fault for being negligent. But who drives the engine. Is it the drug dealer or the person who buys? If there's no market....

No guarantees...no simple solutions, I'm afraid, but when one craps on the floor, it's bad policy to let him get away with it until one day, totally fed up, one shoots the puppy.

Better to housebreak them when they're small, no? Wish you wouldn't leave...though there's nothing I can do to prevent that, I suppose...

Survival [here] is all about how civil you all remain.

[Just a subtle reminder, folks]

As for this oil spill being the worst disaster ever....think Chernobyl.

Think Bikini Attol

Think Maralinga

Think Hiroshima

Think Nagasaki

3 mile Island

Ad nauseum.

oh....Exxon Valdez

The whole world WANTS that oil....so the whole world is responsible for the endangerment of our environment.

Suck it up and kick your/our collective arses for being dependent on dangerous resource technology.