To control message, BP buys Google search terms

Their image is already ruined...why not use that money to help pay for the mess they created.

What a bunch of BS - they are doing everything in their power to control the images that reach the public as it is and now they are attempting to do this?

I heard that BP is requiring anybody filing a compensation claim with them to fill out a 1,700 page form. Yeah, like local mom/pop shops, fisherman, etc. are going to have the legal know-how to go through such a massive hoop, or like these individuals who are already suffering can afford to pay lawyers to review and fill out a 1,700 page document. It's BPs effort to slow the claims filed against them. So the gulf states are creating a one page form claim and are going to pressure BP into allowing people to submit claims using that. This company is just so slimy and shady, all the covert things they are trying to do to save their image and their wallet.

I'd like to see confirmation for that "I heard...." If it's true, there needs to be correction. If it isn't, then we need to not repeat it.

I am looking for confirmation too. My local news radio station said it on air. I'm trying to find out where they got their info. I may email them to see if they have a source for it. They also said that BP is making preparations to file Bankruptcy because their stock has dropped in value so much but I think that's just rumor right now.

I sent an email, so maybe they'll reply.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/10/2010-06-10_gulf_oil_...

Here's a story about trouble filing claims with BP.

Okay, evidentally I can't link to the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, my posts with links are being flagged. The Wall Street Journal has an article highlighting the possibility of BP filing for bankruptcy now that stocks are so low. The New York Times does too.

"I'd like to see confirmation for that "I heard...." If it's true, there needs to be correction. If it isn't, then we need to not repeat it."

Yes, we must make sure BP's public image is not tarnished. That would just be unfortunate.

Kastarte - I tried to add links but my posts were flagged. If people search "filing compensation claims against BP" on google - you'll see the first few responses are BPs (they did pay google afterall) and then below that you'll start to see articles highlighting the struggles people are having filing claims.

Link that discusses letters from gulf states Attorney Generals to BP.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20100506/NEWS02/5060337/King...

Barack Obama said BP needed to cut through the red tape. "What is clear is that the economic impact of this disaster is going to be substantial and it is going to be ongoing," he said. "I do not want to see BP nickel and diming these businesses that are having a very hard time."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/07/bp-oil-spill-fines-gov...

"The oil giant's formula for calculating those payments is causing controversy and distress among workers who make their living at sea. The compensation proposal is based on wages from their slowest earning season. "

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36961761?__source=RSS*tag*&par=RSS

According to the fishermen, the oil company has offered them one month’s wages, using a formula that takes a three-year average of their income between January and March—their least productive season.

(From same link as above)

I'm sorry Kas, I thought we wanted to make sure the truth, regardless of who it's about.
It's interesting that Obama keeps telling BP what they need to do, but so far has refused to meet with them to discuss how the government can actually help.

UnDave: Found documentation of the 1700 pages.

"Some businesses have been asked to file 1,700 pages of documents before they can get a check."

"In Alabama they're developing a one-page claims application for businesses. They want BP to pay first and audit later. "

Source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/09/eveningnews/main6564115.shtml

So I guess I can start repeating this now huh?

I would agree if Yoga hadn't said "I heard..." she clearly presented her info as a rumor and something that might be incorrect, so that we could all make of it and look into it as we wish.

That's quite a bit different than spreading slanderous lies.

The local news was discussing why Federal Government response is limited. This isn't technically a natural disaster - natural disasters are earthquakes, tornados, blizzards, hurricanes, etc. This is considered a man-made disaster caused by a private business - because of that, the federal government can only go through certain channels to be involved.

That's the whole downside to those who want limited gov't regulation of businesses - they want gov't to be out of everything yet when something bad happens and gov't doesn't do enough, they condemn it for following the very rules they support during non-disastrous times.

She didn't explain from whom she heard. That's still heresay. Now, I agree that Yoga is fairly trustworthy, but it's always good to make sure we get to the truth.

Now, that 1,700 pages isn't a claim form. It's 1,700 pages of documentation. There is a difference. Which companies have been asked to do this and why? It still sounds fishy.

Yeah let's get the truth - anyone got a good oil spill novel they can recommend?

"It's interesting that Obama keeps telling BP what they need to do, but so far has refused to meet with them to discuss how the government can actually help."

Why should the government help BP?
It’s a multi-national corporation, nearly 100 years old - they’re pros at this stuff - they told the government they were prepared to handle a spill much bigger than this - why would anyone want the government to ‘interfere’ with what is clearly the corporation’s situation? Why should my tax dollars go to helping BP do what it said it could do?

Dave, I provided a source - granted, it's not the news radia station I heard it from, but it is a source that confirms what they were saying on the air. 1700 pages is a lot to file. I've provided plenty of links showing that the BP is making it hard for these fisherman and small business owners to file claims and that when they do compensate them, they're providing the lowest compensation they can and they are being called out on it.

Why do you need to know which companies? It doesn't change the fact that yes - BP is requiring up to this much documentation? What's fishy about it? I would say it's fishier that BP is going through massive PR stunts to try and protect their rep and cover their shady handling of this, including the purchase of google search terms, which I will say, when you use those terms, you get BP propoganda and have to wade through that BS to find real third party articles against them. You know in my search to find the article where they mentioned the 1700 pages how many misleading websites I clicked on that were operated by BP? Click on a site that seems to be "3rd party" lawyers advising fisherman how to file a claim, turns out it's BP lawyers. BP must be mass producing website right now to try and ensure people only see BP approved pr.

Yoga, I was trying to be sarcastic but I know that is hard to carry across through type.

Don't really think any of us need to give a flying turd about protecting BP's rep at this point.

I've worked with claims that ballooned from 3-5 pages to almost 350 in a matter of days, because of what happened to the guy who had the accident. I can see how for a larger company, they may need to provide a lot of extra documents showing why they are claiming what they are claiming from BP.

I can also understand why it's taking time for BP to get these claims processed, since they weren't prepared to handle the flood of claims that came as a result of this spill. They're fighting fires on two fronts, and they aren't an insurance company, who is used to writing millions of checks daily.

As to why the government should help BP - Obama is the one who has said he's looking for someone's a$$ to kick, it makes sense that he'd go to BP, but he isn't. I find that humorous, like a bully who likes to act like he wants a fight, but is too afraid to really get into the trenches and get down to business.

As president, he has every right and duty to kick the ass of anyone who has greatly fouled an important natural resource - and to make sure the guilty parties fix their messes. It is NOT up to taxpayers to pitch and help BP do something that it said it was more than capable of doing.

Right, just as long as he doesn't have to meet with the person who's ass he wants to kick....

To be honest - I think Obama could probably kick some ass quite literally (he seems to be in shape and active). The only one who I see that could probably kick his ass is Putin - he knows all kinds of secret ninja moves they taught him at the KGB

So you want Obama to sit down with BP like every day and figure out how his herd of magical unicorns can fix all their problems? He has other things on his plate, like this legislation going in front of the Senate tonight to change the Clean Air Act. I just don't get it. Either you want a small govt. that doesn't get involved or you expect the government to interfere with private business. If you want the government involved in everything you need a bigger government!!! Pick a side!

No, I want Obama to quit talking a good talk, and start walking the walk. He hasn't met with BP at all. He has no idea what they are doing. Anyone can stand on the sideline and criticise what's going on, but a real leader does something. The only thing he's done is put abunch of people in the industry out of work. That's not leadership.

What should Obama do Dave? What would a Republican leader do?
Obama doesn't need to meet with the head of BP or his minions to know what's going on - they're notorious liars.

Since Obama is looking for someone's ass to kick, he should go meet the person who's ass he wants to kick.

What makes you think you know exactly whose ass it should be?

Oh, and what would a Republican leader do?

"President Barack Obama is inviting top officials from BP, including its chairman of the board, to meet with him in Washington next Wednesday, incident commander Admiral Thad Allen said in a letter to the company Thursday. Since the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama hasn’t met with BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg or BP CEO Tony Hayward." Politico

Exactly how much of a difference to anything will this make?

A real leader wouldn't talk about looking for someone's ass to kick. I'm sure that works real well among the people in the street, but I expect the leader of the free world to be able to communicate his intentions without resorting to the language of the street. I thought he was a Harvard man.

It might help if you watched the whole ass kicking interview, you'd know how silly it sounds to say that Obama resorted to the language of the streets.

And what would a Republican leader do?

I'm sure I can't respond to how any Republican Leader might respond. I can only give you my opinion on how I think the leader should respond, which I have.

Oh, and I have listened to the whole interview, it still sounded like a guy who has very little intelligence.

You've said this: "No, I want Obama to quit talking a good talk, and start walking the walk. He hasn't met with BP at all. He has no idea what they are doing. Anyone can stand on the sideline and criticise what's going on, but a real leader does something. The only thing he's done is put abunch of people in the industry out of work. That's not leadership."

But really, there's nothing concrete there. As you say, anyone can criticize from the sidelines and suggest that people they like would do a better job, but you carefully dodge answering what "does something" would entail.

And I'd think twice about dismissing Obama's intelligence, he doesn't get his information from mystery novels.

"It's interesting that Obama keeps telling BP what they need to do, but so far has refused to meet with them to discuss how the government can actually help. "
I've also said this. There are things that the LA government has wanted to do to protect their harbors and critical inlets, but he hasn't bothered to ok those plans (These plans needed EPA approval, or a Presidential mandate), and now it's too late. Instead of doing that, he's spent his time talking to the fishermen, people who are understandably experts in their field, but aren't experts in stopping a tide from rolling in.

I'm not dismissing his intelligence, I'm HOPING he'll actually start using it.

UnDave - Please understand that there are politically expedient things to say, and things that are scientifically feasible. The sandbar issue has been tendered as "the solution" but has as quickly refuted as being scientifically unsound by currents specialists. The oil front is miles long. To get that much sand would take years to lay down. Also, the tides and currents from rivers and rips would destroy it before it was really started. Finally, it woul have a tendency to collect the oil behind the sand precisely where you don't want it.

Also, one must ask what the LA governor is thinking when they say that they want a quick and decisive action to lift the off shore drilling ban when faced with this catastrophy.

I'm thinking he wants to keep a certain population that works those rigs employed.

The next question I have is why hasn't Obama met with Jindahl then? It seems to me that this has been a long photo op for Obama, where he flies down, meets with a group of poeple affected by this, gets his pictures with them to show his "concern", and then gets out before he has to make any real decisions or contributions.

Totally off topic, but, that pic at the top is awesome.

"In Alabama they're developing a one-page claims application for businesses. They want BP to pay first and audit later."

Alabama! Woohoo! Though one page isn't much, wouldn't two or three pages be more appropriate?

"I'm thinking he wants to keep a certain population that works those rigs employed."

I think that is incredibly short sighted of the LA governor if that's the case. He's seeing the destruction of most of the tourist and seafood industry of the state, which results in how many thousands of job losses, and yet the jobs of people who work on oil rigs matters more? Half the time, the people who work on those rigs don't even live in the state their rig is in. They go spend 6 months living on a rig and then fly home to wherever their family is during their weeks off. My friend works on an off shore rig and he flies home to PA on his time off. The people he works with on that rig are from all over the world. Don't know why Jindal is so concerned about preserving jobs of non-LA residents that result in the destruction of a huge source of income for the state.

Who said he isn't interested in the tourist or seafood industry? Those have been affected, yes. The rigs were shut down by mandate. To him, closing those rigs only adds to the ecconomic disaster, because there are more people who are out of work. The money that those employees make working on those rigs goes back to LA, which helps his city's ecconomy.

Allowing those rigs to continue working when there are obvious serious questions about safety and the company's ability to handle any other potential 'accidents' would be incredibly negligent.

Are those other rigs BP's? It would be a shame to close every company down because BP had an accident, and it was an accident.

And you've ascertained it was an accident how?

You're right, they did this on purpose.

Didn't we just have this discussion? About how BP ignored warnings about pressure building in the well and continued pumping anyway?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR201005...

If you hit someone with your car, technically it's an 'accident' but that doesn't mean you can't be held accountable for your actions.

And I'm not saying they aren't accountable for what happened, and just because pressure was building doesn't mean you hit the panic button and stop. It sounds like the pressure was under what was considered within normal operating limits.

When pressure is building you SHOULD hit the panic button and stop. BP has proved the consequences of not doing that. What makes you think the pressure was within normal limits?

Dave, how do you know the pressure was withing normal limits and how do you know that when pressure builds they should just continue operating? I'd like to know where your technical expertise in this field comes from - you're not a geologist or engineer, right?

When the pressure is building is precisely when you hit the panic button, because that's why it's there - to stop the pressure and save the rig. They didn't do it until it was too late, and then it didn't work.

Don't go 20/20 hindsight on me, now, Dave.

The problem experienced is not an uncommon occurrence on rigs during the end of the drilling phase. The results are. But it begs the question how safe are the rigs that currently are operating? In all likelihood they are, if they've been operational for awhile. Still, you'd want to find out what happened, why it happened, and how to prevent it in the future so we don't repeat the past.