DI MAURO Bottarelli
ilsussidiario.net
In today's column I talk about stock market, volatility, debt crisis, the placement of government bonds and everything else: we have done up to now, we will take weeks to do so by next.
Today we speak of the oil spill unleashed by the failure of the British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico, an environmental tragedy that fills the pages of newspapers for weeks and the main news headlines. For once, there seems no doubt in the identification of good and bad: the former are the leaders of BP, the second is Barack Obama, after promising to kick ass-makers and spent hours talking with the fishermen of Louisiana, yesterday showed a face even tougher.
The top British oil company, in fact, were received with icy coldness and even the White House have given the green light to the disbursement of $ 20 billion to pay off the damage, they felt an answer by the number of White House that the word "is not the ceiling." That is, get ready to shell out more money, you are now in check but not my entire world that hates you to death.
It seems the movie "Wag the Dog," a media creation extraordinary. It took, in fact, images of four feathered wings smeared with oil and three interviews with many experts ready to proclaim the death of the ocean, to close its eyes to the world much more behind the story that sees the platform prootagonista Deepwater Horizon.
Let that be the champion of the world, or Barack Obama, not later than four months ago had also allowed in offshore drilling in the "rose garden" in the White House not to depend more on the whims of OPEC blackmail and speculation on otc futures, safe now become the duty Fulco Pratesi, the problem is not limited to: the accident that you knew would happen for months and months, it was a matter of time. Indeed, timing because the implications are even - perhaps especially - economche and financial issues: first of them, kill BP, making it scalable and get his balance at the cost of mining.
start from the beginning. The Deepwater Horizon, paper sings in official documents, has been classified since its inception a project potentially subject to the so-called "low probability, high impact event", that classification has as other incidents that took place on 11 September, the ' explosion of the Shuttle and Hurricane Katrina: as for these cases, the assumption of worst-case scenario "has been completely ignored. Intentionally or less, we'll find out later.
What happened then? There are two magic word, "blowout preventer" or a mechanical mechanism that is physically possible to prevent oil spills: in the case of the Deepwater Horizon, both of these devices, a manually activated and an automatic back-up, have misfired. When such incidents occur, says Robert Bea, a professor of engineering at the University of California, the responsibility is spread in three directions or sectors: the workers of the platform, the so-called "human error", the hierarchy of the company to which these workers work and the government bureaucracies that oversee the work, or so-called auditors or regulators.
Bea, after working on a series of about 600 structures in mining accidents, concluded that 80% of cases the liability is attributable to "human and organizational factors", in turn, within this half percentage headed by deficiency in the engineering design of the structure on the extraction equipment or processes. For Bea, what happened has a lot to do with Hurricane Katrina, "a mixture of hubris, arrogance, ignorance, combined with the chance of nature."
"Damn, greedy British drills!" Cry all over the world. Too bad the Bp is only partly responsible, since in the case of the Deepwater Horizon we are faced with a classic case of fragmentation of responsibilities: the platform is an operation of British Petroleum but it has been leasing the property from Transocean and work, in effect, when the accident happened were in the hands of Halliburton, an extremely powerful U.S. company that sees an old hand at the top of U.S. politics as Dick Cheney, right arm of the former U.S. president, George W. Bush and powerful man as regards the question of oil.
The fact is that these three entities have different interests with respect not only to Deepwtare Horizon but to the entire operational process: BP is interested access to hydrocarbon resources to advance its refineries and distribution network. Halliburton provides services in the field, or operational. Transocean, finally, work as a taxi: in short, different goals and therefore different processes. Too bad that, as food to the public, has been given only BP.
For Andrew Hopkins, a sociologist at the Australian National University, what happened "is similar to what happened with the financial crisis. The great managers get huge bonuses for risks taken this year or last year, the problem, the real risks for all, coming to homes this year after all. "
did not think so in the U.S., even Obama era (has already recalled its decision last spring to drill Alaska without so many precautions), because government decisions on mining platforms were always based on the principle of "so nothing will happen." Who should monitor and supervise is the Minerals Management Service (MMS), a division of the Interior Department, which since the Eighties and has based its check on the operation of facilities on a single principle: free. That is, no control on the environmental impact of the various businesses and operations: it operates sub judice and so on, to certify it with a very detailed complaint is was not signed but Holly Doremus, Professor of environmental law at Harvard.
In the silence of other media, too busy to show images catastrophic and volunteers to work, Washington Post and Associated Press have certified that the Deepwater Horizon and wrote a new exemption was granted (the technical term "Categorical exclusion") last year: This certainty was based on what is working, this latest clearance? Empirical calculations published in 2007, according to which the "Most Likely size, the amount of oil that most likely would have spilled into the sea in the event of an accident, would have amounted to 4,600 barrels. Too bad that in the Gulf of Mexico, today, we are above quota 80 thousand barrels spilled, congratulations to the auditors and regulators, as well as who was working at that time on the platform!
Yes, because it seems as if the error was human and not due to activation of the two "blowout preventers," because the White House was furious with the powerful U.S. and Halliburton, in charge of operating the facility? Ask the President that the threat kicks ass but is careful not to touch larger national interests of him and perhaps, in doing so, you will also understand the anger of the ill-concealed British Prime Minister, David Cameron, the general and exclusive Crucify against Bp.
ridge of ridges, Washington yesterday announced an inquiry Federal the incident: and who is responsible? At the same MMS, the agency exemption easy. Andrew Hopkins said as yet, "the MMS is the regulator and a failure of regulation is part of this disaster. So, MMS is going to investigate itself. I would say that it is at least totally inappropriate. " Think of the framework is sufficiently comprehensive to call a little 'discussion in the media and political can-can of this period? Wrong. The beauty has now arrived and can be seen from this table. ( http://moneycentral.msn.com/ownership?Holding=Institutional+Ownership&Symbol=BP )
On 31 March this year, as always, Thomson Reuters has announced the ownership of BP after the first quarter of the year: it lacked a little accident, just a little bit and see 'who downloaded 4,680,822 shares of British Petroleum for a value of 250 million dollars and 44% of the total? Goldman Sachs investment bank in glove tied to Washington and all'establishment political and above all unique investment bank that makes money when the others lose: they do not scald your fingers ever.
Why are the best, this is undeniable and must be told to avoid falling into the conspiracy: of course, the fact that the platform would be at risk certify the MMS, with its exemptions, of course the fact that the actions of BP have collapsed is also true - if he had kept, Goldman would have lost 36% of their value - but not those "crumbs" to frighten a giant like the New York firm: the damage is real, the diffuse responsibility but transmit in the right way and hiding some of them, maybe Bp becomes scalable and its acquired businesses.
But Goldman has not only magically unloaded shares of BP just in time: Wachovia and UBS has sold something like 2,667,419 2,125,566. Again, not the number of shares or the equivalent to having to think, but the timing: Why, Obama gives green light to offshore drilling everywhere, and people like that out of the business? Strange. On the other hand, someone has bought. Who? For example, Wells Fargo, a purchaser of 2,398,870 shares: strange though, as Wells Fargo is the owner of the "vendor sly" Wachovia. It stinks of playing around, at least to me. And who else? The Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation, one sponsored by Microsoft and Mr. Wellington Management, a large asset firm: great rip-off took, at least formally.
The strange thing is that in mid-March, before the sale, the Morningstar site, market research, publicly traded shares of BP with a rating of three stars out of five, then fomalmente attractive: Goldman Sachs, for once, was wrong choice and was "saved" by the incident? No, because in the description of the title, Morningstar lists only the weaknesses of BP, or 'the integration of BP less than ExxonMobil or Shell, fluctuations in oil prices, potential losses due to political risks, especially the heavy exposure in Russia ( The consortium TNK-BP, the third largest oil company in the country, with 100 thousand employees and the bad idea of \u200b\u200bwanting to put a spoke in the wheel that Gazprom has brought the expulsion of the president of the group, the taking of hostages from among the workers the government of Moscow and other manifestations of love for the Democratic competition, ed).
And finally, the best, "Fissures caused by operational and environmental limits could further limit the potential for gain. " Damn it, or bring bad luck or are these portents of Morningstar! Pity, then, that other analysts in February to Morningstar, in a separate note, instead had hailed as a wonder the results presented by BP in the fourth quarter of last year saying he was "encouraged by the continuing gains through new projects and cost cutting."
How things change in a few days! A pretty picture, no doubt about it. Now, the environmental disaster, huge, but still do not be fooled by the face against Barack Obama as he talks with the fishermen or the images of birds with wings drenched in oil: behind what is happening there is much more, responsibility very popular and up and above all interests. The certifying
June 2 last year, the Bloomberg site, people who knows something of the markets, "BP at risk since the collapse of the actions fueling rumors of climbing," even updated four times in one day. Who knows what to ExxonMobil, BP's main rival in the United States, someone there is thinking, given the unlikely ascent of Shell, which in 2004 was merged with British Petroleum: with all the shares sold or passed from hand to people so faithful the White House and interests, legitimacy, the United States ...
Mauro Bottarelli
Source: www.ilsussidiario.net
Link: http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/Economia-e-Finanza/2010/6/18/MAREA-NERA-Il-giallo-del-rapporto -segreto-sugli-operai-della-BP-che-si-sono-ammalati-tentando-di-arginare-il-petrolio/3/93694 /
seen on 18.06.2010: www.comedonchisciotte.org
0 comments:
Post a Comment