BP's Hayward Rejects Rep. Joe Barton's Apology for Obama's 'Shakedown'

BP’s Hayward Rejects Rep. Joe Barton’s Apology for Obama’s ‘Shakedown’

PoliticsJune 2010 • Views: 2,832

This afternoon BP CEP Tony Hayward responded to GOP Rep. Joe Barton’s “apology” for the Obama administration’s “shakedown:” Thanks, but no thanks.

BP CEO Tony Hayward disavowed a top Republican’s characterization of a $20 billion relief fund the company will establish as a “slush fund.”

Hayward rejected the�controversial remarks Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) made�Thursday morning,�in which he criticized the account in escrow the oil company will create to pay out damages to victims of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.�

“I certainly didn’t think it was a slush fund,” Hayward said this afternoon during an appearance before a congressional committee.

Meanwhile, Nate Silver notes that the top contributor to Joe Barton’s election campaigns is Anadarko Petroleum — who just happens to be a partner of BP on the Deepwater Horizon project.

Jump to bottom

53 comments

darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:19:34pm

Barton just walked back his apology...in the most gentle way possible so he wouldn't hurt Hayward's feelings.

Sol Berdinowitz Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:21:41pm

I thought the Free Market (TM) was about personal as well as corporate responsibility, which is always presented as the flip side of personal freedom.

Why is it suddenly seen as government meddling or evil-doing when it simply steps in to ensure that these people live up to their legal commitments?

McSpiff Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:22:06pm

Hey, where'd that bus come from?

darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:23:30pm

re: #3 McSpiff

Hey, where'd that bus come from?

Even Hayward knows that trying to attack President Obama over this oil spill is a stupid idea. Barton doesn't get it, yet.

Sol Berdinowitz Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:24:34pm

re: #4 darthstar

Even Hayward knows that trying to attack President Obama over this oil spill is a stupid idea. Barton doesn't get it, yet.

Not attacking Obama is not an option.

What, me worry? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:25:50pm

re: #4 darthstar

Even Hayward knows that trying to attack President Obama over this oil spill is a stupid idea. Barton doesn't get it, yet.

I'm reading it as Hayward being equally insulted. Basically Barton is accusing him of misusing the relief funds before they've even left the bank.

How many toes can this moron Barton step on?

Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:26:24pm

Hayward is starting to look a bit like a dog that's been beaten too much.

Cato the Elder Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:27:02pm

Barton is just skeered. His personal investments are on the line.

Too bad, so sad. That's capitalizz, folks!

MrSilverDragon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:27:12pm

re: #2 ralphieboy

I thought the Free Market (TM) was about personal as well as corporate responsibility, which is always presented as the flip side of personal freedom.

Why is it suddenly seen as government meddling or evil-doing when it simply steps in to ensure that these people live up to their legal commitments?

Because government IS evil! A bunch of movie stars say so, so it must be true.

/ and dripping with more.

Firstinla Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:28:05pm

Barton has ties to Big Oil? Why would anybody be surprised?

Batman Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:28:13pm

re: #7 Charles

Hayward is starting to look a bit like a dog that's been beaten too much.

So you're saying we have him right where we want him.

Spider Mensch Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:28:57pm

re: #7 Charles

Hayward is starting to look a bit like a dog that's been beaten too much.

as in ready to attack? or cowering?

different dogs act different ways..

okonkolo Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:31:31pm

Yeah, eleven people die (likely because of negligence, cut-corners), more injured, Gulf fishing and tourism economies devastated, the worst environmental disaster, and we apologize to them for putting up some money to cover some of this? Give me an effing break.

This is simple the Obama Outrage of the Day. Oh, it seem like only yesterday the conservative punditocracy was suggesting the White House caused the accident in the first place to boost enviromental agenda. Then the lie that environmentalists were to blame for the oil company being "forced' to drill in deep water (yeah, like an oil company discovers oil in deep water and will not drill there; guess they were forced to cut corners on the accident too). Now Obama is a "thug" for "shaking down" [not loaded language at all wink wink] $20 billion from a multi-billion corporation, you know LIABLE for the damage they have done.

Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised at the news, as a corporation could easily hide behind the $75 million liability cap and also drag this out for years before putting up any money. And I am sure this will be dragged out for years and there will be disputes and massive litigation, but I imagine if my Gulf-based livelihood was on the line, I'd be pleased with this. I am not sure if this is just more the spotlight that BP is under and their inability to hide than Obama's work, but I'll take it. and no apologies to BP are necessary.

Vambo Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:35:18pm

didn't someone mention that Barton's seat is considered "safe" for the next election? yeah, the Dems ought to be working to change that. I know everyone in DC is corrupt and all, but it's another to be so blatantly whorish.

calochortus Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:35:35pm

Anyone else surprised that Hayward doesn't appear to know what the chain of command is at BP-as in who actually made the various bad decisions on the Deepwater Horizon?

albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:35:35pm

Meanwhile, Nate Silver notes that the top contributor to Joe Barton’s election campaigns is Anadarko Petroleum — who just happens to be a partner of BP on the Deepwater Horizon project.

well whadya know...surprise!

A Man for all Seasons Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:35:49pm

These hearings are nothing more than a finger pointing exercises.. Fine political grand standing on National TV...
Real leadership would have created a war room on day one and worked as a team to solve this disaster... Then had the hearings afterwards

albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:36:43pm

re: #4 darthstar

Even Hayward knows that trying to attack President Obama over this oil spill is a stupid idea. Barton doesn't get it, yet.

doesn't matter...there is a points system and he's a tough guy, wracking them up

MandyManners Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:40:26pm

re: #17 HoosierHoops

These hearings are nothing more than a finger pointing exercises.. Fine political grand standing on National TV...
Real leadership would have created a war room on day one and worked as a team to solve this disaster... Then had the hearings afterwards

Spot. On.

Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:46:12pm

Meanwhile, Nate Silver notes that the top contributor to Joe Barton’s election campaigns is Anadarko Petroleum — who just happens to be a partner of BP on the Deepwater Horizon project.

Wow, the nerve of the little harlot.

Barton deserves to go down in flames over this.

JohninLondon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:48:25pm

As new threads keep opening I am reposting this on this thread. Prtobably not popular - but this is what it looks like from over here :

...................

I don't think Barton was trying to excuse BP - or the other US companies involved - for the massive spill, not is he seeking to defend them against proper claims.

Yes, he regards the announcement of a $20 billion escrow fund as a shakedown by the White House. Can anyone deny that BP's arm was being twisted right up behind its back by the White House ? Is anyone suggesting that BP came up with the idea ? Obama has been under justifiable criticism for his handling of the whole affair - he needed to come up with something he could foist on BP.

Barton should not have suggested that the $20 billion is a slush fund, obviously wrong. But the core argument is not about how disbursements from the fund might be made. It is about the principle of forcing the fund idea on BP, forcing a decision of this corporate magnitude out of the blue.

It is all rather reminiscent of the shakedown of the bondholders in the car firms - going way outside normal legal precedent. In that case to the direct benefit of the unions which had helped fund Obama.

...
Of course there needs to be a full post-mortem over how the spill happened. But part of that needs to include the ridiculous US policies of forcing drillings to be conducted at extreme depths, thereby increasing the pressure from any break and delaying any chance of quick relief well-drilling.

As far as I can see BP has tried to act in good faith since the spill. (Try comparing it to 25 years of disgraceful behaviour by Union Carbide over the far worse Bhopal disaster).

From this side of the pond the appearance is of a petulant President strong-arming an American-British company while ignoring the other US companies involved - and deliberately tagging BP as "British", a nice xenophobic touch to cap off the general belligerance.

BP has been doing or paying for most of the heavy lifting since the spill - it is the US Government that is under clear and specific criticism from the Gulf coast for failures to take maximum measures to prevent the spill coming ashore.

I think it was wrong but deliberate for Obama to keep using the word "British". Especially when it is Britain - virtually alone - that has stood alongside the US in Iraq and in Afghanistan. A contribution in blood and treasure that Obama and his people have appeared to slight several times.

The US is now looking like a fair-weather friend from over here. Cheap shots by Obama have gone down like a lead balloon.

webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:53:01pm

re: #15 calochortus

Anyone else surprised that Hayward doesn't appear to know what the chain of command is at BP-as in who actually made the various bad decisions on the Deepwater Horizon?

Not really.
I have a feeling that this is the way it is at many humongo multi national corporations. Guys like him are pretty far removed from those day to day decisions and approvals.
BUT when something goes wrong it is the head guys responsibility because they are the ones who create the "it's ok to cut corners to save a few bucks" culture within that corporation.

Hell, look at Wal Mart (or any large retail corporation). The top guy can say all he wants about how customer service comes first BUT if you do not allow your stores to hire more cashiers and stock people because you are worried about this quarters bonus then you really don't give a shit about the customer. At least when Wal Mart cuts corners they don't get people killed.

webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 12:55:04pm

re: #21 JohninLondon

From this side of the pond the appearance is of a petulant President strong-arming an American-British company while ignoring the other US companies involved - and deliberately tagging BP as "British", a nice xenophobic touch to cap off the general belligerance.
.........
I think it was wrong but deliberate for Obama to keep using the word "British".

And I'll keep asking when did the British become such a bunch of namby pamby pantywaists that shiver if the word British is used with the word petroleum following it?

calochortus Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:00:58pm

re: #22 webevintage

I'm not surprised that Hayward didn't make the decision himself, or know the name of the person who did (though I think I would have looked into it, were I him.) I am surprised he apparently didn't know that the well was the responsibility of such and such office and/or department. I'm guessing he knows but didn't want to talk about it-but IMHO it makes him look like a fool.

If someone at a local Walmart screws up, I'll be the CEO knows which district manager to call within minutes.

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:03:57pm

If Hayward wanted to do the right thing, he would be throwing under the bus the people who actually made the decisions to eschew taking proper precautions. I think it's possible he signed off on these decisions, but really, it doesn't matter. This CAN'T have been all Hayward's idea.

Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:04:04pm

re: #21 JohninLondon

I can't speak for others, but here are a few quick, obvious reasons why you're getting downdinged.

1. No one 'forced' them to drill deep, Johnny. There's oil there, and BP SOUGHT and BOUGHT rights to drill it. If they couldn't handle it, they shouldn't have tried. Please file this in your "no shit" drawer.

2. They're not doing a good job at all. On our side of the pond, you know, where billions of gallons of oil are sloshing around, BP has proven incredibly slow to provide funds and approval for basic supplies and labor to fight the environmental effects of this calamity. If they're slow now, how much worse will they be when we finally get this sucker under control?

3. Their safety record is abysmal over the past decade. It's horrendous. Period.

4. Thousands of americans are out of work now, too, at companies not named BP, because we're too scared to pump more oil in the Gulf at the moment. BP will survive this disaster. It's not too much to ask to make sure we keep food on some peoples' tables because your managers don't know how to turn a profit without blowing our shit up.

They make 6-8 billion a quarter, IIRC. They'll be ok. So unless you or the other whiney whinertons on the other side of the pond want to come over and shovel oily sand, STFU.

Love,

USA

JohninLondon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:04:08pm

re: #23 webevintage

Because the company name is NOT British Petroleum. It is a mix of companies, with far more US employees than British, and about the same proportion of US stockholders as British. Obama should never have kept calling the company "British" and not expect to be accused of anti-British sentiment.

Don't you read the press ?

It happens that pension funds here are more exposed to BP than pension funds in the US. The BP story has been headlines here for weeks. Most people are impressed that BP should immediately waive the legal limit on compensation - but are not impressed that Obama seems to be muscling the company management into decisions that affect all stockholders, abrupt decisions usually end up wrong.

The pile-on in the Congressional hearing is revealing nothing new, just a load more political bluster.

tradewind Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:05:56pm

re: #26 Aceofwhat?

Their safety record is abysmal over the past decade. It's horrendous. Period.

So probably we should wonder why the administration graced them not even a year ago with an award for outstanding safety?/

tradewind Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:09:03pm

re: #25 Fozzie Bear
If we are really interested in results and mitigating the damage, we would be uninterested in who gets thrown under the BP bus at this time and more concerned with how diligently their engineers are working to fix the problem.
After it's fixed, then we can make them pay, and hurt them hard. I would rather their energies at this particular juncture not be invested in how to outwit Congress and placate POTUS.

celticdragon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:10:28pm

re: #21 JohninLondon

I honestly couldn't care less if your fee-fees are hurt. Play your little violin as loud as you like about the bad ol' Americans who are upset about 2.5 billion barrels of crude spewing into our waters and onto our shores, our businesses and our wildlife.

Maybe you should save it for somebody who cares. We have a goddamned giant disaster to fix, and you want to whine because we are upset about it?

It would be laughably pathetic if the situation where not so dire.

Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:10:45pm

re: #29 tradewind

If we are really interested in results and mitigating the damage, we would be uninterested in who gets thrown under the BP bus at this time and more concerned with how diligently their engineers are working to fix the problem.
After it's fixed, then we can make them pay, and hurt them hard. I would rather their energies at this particular juncture not be invested in how to outwit Congress and placate POTUS.

We can and should be juggling more than one ball at a time.

We need to fix the problem, and we need to hold responsible those who made this possible.

JohninLondon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:10:55pm

re: #26 Aceofwhat?

BP has behaved a damn sight more honourably than Union Carbide ever did over the huge disaster in Bhopal. You wanna keep slagging off BP, fine, - but it is hardly productive.

celticdragon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:13:13pm

re: #28 tradewind

So probably we should wonder why the administration graced them not even a year ago with an award for outstanding safety?/

Inertia.

It will take years to clear out the deadwood and industry fellating practices of the past twenty years that has infected the government.

Of course, the Rand types think we need to be sucking the oily tools of the petroleum industry even more vigorously...

celticdragon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:15:03pm

re: #27 JohninLondon

Yeah...and KFC isn't Kentucky Fried Chicken anymore either.

Bzzzt!

Try again.

JohninLondon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:16:29pm

re: #30 celticdragon

I honestly couldn't care less if your fee-fees are hurt. Play your little violin as loud as you like about the bad ol' Americans who are upset about 2.5 billion barrels of crude spewing into our waters and onto our shores, our businesses and our wildlife.

Maybe you should save it for somebody who cares. We have a goddamned giant disaster to fix, and you want to whine because we are upset about it?

It would be laughably pathetic if the situation where not so dire.

My feelings aren't hurt. And I don't have any BP stock. And obviously it is a huge disaster. I have not complained about people being upset, of course they are. My focus was on Obama's attempt to pin all the blame on a "British" company. Just like the hearing today is trying.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:16:57pm

re: #30 celticdragon

JohnInLondon pops by from time to time like the wacky neighbor on a sitcom, spills his global-warming-denier walnuts all over the thread, and then leaves. Then he gets downdinged eighty times, then we point and laugh.

webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:17:36pm

re: #27 JohninLondon

Don't you read the press ?

I can't believe we are having this stupid conversation again.
Man up UK.

and Union Carbide sucked and what happened there was sinful and I could care less if your said over and over again American Union Carbide.

British Petroleum
British Petroleum
British Petroleum
British Petroleum
British Petroleum

webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:19:46pm

Hell, I still call Istanbul Constantinople from time to time.
(I love that song)

Is there still a Bombay?

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:21:22pm

re: #35 JohninLondon

My feelings aren't hurt. And I don't have any BP stock. And obviously it is a huge disaster. I have not complained about people being upset, of course they are. My focus was on Obama's attempt to pin all the blame on a "British" company. Just like the hearing today is trying.

Suck it, they're British, and our President will keep saying it, because it's true. And sorry about your shareholders, but that's the world right now, when a multinational fucks up, everyone feels it, even lil' old ladies in the UK. Why should fishermen on the Gult Coast have all the fun?

Drogheda Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:21:36pm

re: #34 celticdragon

Yeah...and KFC isn't Kentucky Fried Chicken anymore either.

Get out of my head.

Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:23:02pm

re: #28 tradewind

So probably we should wonder why the administration graced them not even a year ago with an award for outstanding safety?/

Yep. The MMS, apparently, has been incompetent for quite some time. So much for the meme that only Democrats do regulation right...

celticdragon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:24:29pm

re: #35 JohninLondon

My feelings aren't hurt. And I don't have any BP stock. And obviously it is a huge disaster. I have not complained about people being upset, of course they are. My focus was on Obama's attempt to pin all the blame on a "British" company. Just like the hearing today is trying.

Last I heard, BP is, in fact, a British Company.

Do you think for one minute that your MPs or Boris Johnson would fail to say something if ExxonMobil dumped several million barrels of crude on the coast of Scotland and northern England? You don't think that there would be demands for an American company to stop polluting your shore, destroying your fisheries and killing your birds and seals?

You don't think that an American CEO whining about wanting his life back while your fishing and tourist industries sink under the black slime wouldn't incite some nationalist rage?

Uh huh.

Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:24:55pm

re: #35 JohninLondon

My focus was on Obama's attempt to pin all the blame on a "British" company.

So...not much focus on the actual facts. Huh. And here i thought we couldn't value your opinion any less...

celticdragon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:25:04pm

re: #40 Drogheda

Get out of my head.

Naw. It's fun in here...and you have such a dirty mind! ;)

JohninLondon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:26:32pm

re: #37 webevintage

I can't believe we are having this stupid conversation again.
Man up UK.

and Union Carbide sucked and what happened there was sinful and I could care less if your said over and over again American Union Carbide.

British Petroleum
British Petroleum
British Petroleum
British Petroleum
British Petroleum

What a stupid post !

Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:30:40pm

re: #45 JohninLondon

What a stupid post !

We don't have much to work with here...

webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:33:14pm

re: #45 JohninLondon

What a stupid post !

Stupid conversation, stupid post....

JohninLondon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:44:55pm

The 1976 Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea offshore from the UK and Norway killed 167 men, damages at that time estimated as about $2 billion. There had earlier been a major spillage near the Cornwall coast by the Torrey Canyon.

I don't recall any attempts by British politicians - let alone leaders - trying to whip up anti-US sentiment.

Not once in today's hearing have I heard any criticism of the US companies involved. No sign of any shakedown being attempted on them.

Who's the pantywaists ?

Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:47:04pm

re: #48 JohninLondon

Not once in today's hearing have I heard any criticism of the US companies involved. No sign of any shakedown being attempted on them.

Who's the pantywaists ?

Well, it turns out that the US companies didn't fuck this up. It was BP's call at every major junction. Sorry about those pesky facts...they seem to trip you up on a regular occasion, don't they?

sagehen Thu, Jun 17, 2010 1:53:04pm

re: #21 JohninLondon

I don't think you have a proper visceral sense of the size of what we're coping with.

Here's a handy google-map tool -- plug in London, look at the scale of it, and then come back and tell us if you think half a year's BP profits is really too big of a down payment on their liability.

[Link: www.ifitwasmyhome.com...]

JohninLondon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:09:08pm

re: #50 sagehen

It is entirely fair of you to raise the question of "visceral sense" . And it is not unfair that it should be focussed on BP.

But it was entirely wrong of Obama to keep using the tag "British". At least that is what people here have felt - and that is what I was reporting. Quite correctly, a lot of people have said that however large the Gulf disaster, the economic damage is less significant than the worldwide damage caused by the US prime mortgage market. A market that the politicians interfered in, distorted.

The US has an insatiable demand for oil. People have strongly resisted notions of taxing oil consumption to any degree approximating to other countries. Yet the US has forced the oil industry to rely either on unstable regimes overseas - or to drill at unprecedented depths if in the Gulf. Again - the direct result of political decisions in the US. If BP had not taken that zone - another oil company would have taken it. They have no option left but to drill to crazy depths. And those depths have made dealing with the disaster far far worse.

Yes - BP's culpability looks huge. But there is political and social culpability too, the oil industry has been denied drilling rights in more sensible zones.

blueraven Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:51:19pm

re: #51 JohninLondon

How about you just worry about your own political and economic problems and stop bashing America.

Obdicut Thu, Jun 17, 2010 11:09:20pm

re: #51 JohninLondon

At least that is what people here have felt - and that is what I was reporting.

Speak for yourself.

Quite correctly, a lot of people have said that however large the Gulf disaster, the economic damage is less significant than the worldwide damage caused by the US prime mortgage market. A market that the politicians interfered in, distorted.

Apparently you've bought into the bullshit explanation of the mortgage market. And any British exposure to it was due to, well, investment in it.

The US has an insatiable demand for oil.

Britain uses plenty. You guys are at 1/2 our per capita usage, with a much smaller country-- less transportation use. You're not really much better.

Yet the US has forced the oil industry to rely either on unstable regimes overseas - or to drill at unprecedented depths if in the Gulf. Again - the direct result of political decisions in the US

How did the US do all that, alone?

If BP had not taken that zone - another oil company would have taken it. They have no option left but to drill to crazy depths.

Or to invest money in alternative energy and not spend it on AGW denial.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

BP’s Hayward Rejects Rep. Joe Barton’s Apology for Obama’s ‘Shakedown’

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud