Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

breaking: the washington post doesn't understand basic economics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • breaking: the washington post doesn't understand basic economics

    BP has steady sales at Defense Department despite U.S. scrutiny

    By R. Jeffrey Smith
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, July 5, 2010; A01

    The Defense Department has kept up its immense purchases of aviation fuel and other petroleum products from BP even as the oil company comes under scrutiny for potential violations of federal and state laws related to Gulf of Mexico well explosion, according to U.S. and company officials.

    President Obama said last month that the company's "recklessness" in the gulf contributed to the disaster, and he promised that BP will "pay for the damage." Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on June 2 that Justice Department lawyers were looking into possible violations of civil and criminal statutes. "If we find evidence of illegal behavior, we will be forceful in our response," he said.

    BP, meanwhile, remains a heavy supplier of military fuel under contracts worth at least $980 million in the current fiscal year, according to the Defense Logistics Agency. In fiscal 2009, BP was the Pentagon's largest single supplier of fuel, providing 11.7 percent of the total purchased, and in 2010, its contracts amount to roughly the same percentage, according to DLA spokeswoman Mimi Schirmacher.

    "BP is an active participant in multiple ongoing Defense Logistics Agency acquisition programs," Schirmacher said, without providing details. BP spokesman Robert Wine said he was aware of at least one "big contract" signed by the U.S. military after the oil rig explosion on April 20, involving the supply of multiple fuels for its operations in Europe.

    So far, members of Congress have discussed barring BP from any new oil and gas drilling leases, not from fuel sales to the government. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who co-chairs the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, said last week that he would introduce legislation to shut BP out of such leases for the next seven years, as punishment for what he described as "serial" legal violations. But Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said in a statement that "the U.S. government needs to look at all possible options when it comes to showing BP, or any corporate bad actor, that a continued culture of cost cutting and increased risk taking will absolutely not be tolerated."

    Even before the gulf debacle, the Environmental Protection Agency had begun to explore cutting off BP from all federal contracts -- including those with the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which buys all fuel for the military services. The EPA plays the lead role in debarment proceedings related to the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, and its probe was sparked by BP's 2006 oil spill in Alaska and a 2005 explosion at a refinery in Texas.

    The EPA's deliberations, however, are suspended until the gulf spill investigations conclude, according to an EPA spokeswoman. The agency may decide to shut off federal contracts with specific divisions within BP, or with the whole company "if it is in the public interest to do so," it said in May. Any such action would be meant to punish "environmental noncompliance or other misconduct," it said.

    Jeanne Pascal, a former EPA lawyer who until recently oversaw the review of BP's possible debarment, has said she initially supported taking such action but held off after an official at the Defense Department warned her that the Pentagon depended heavily on BP fuel for its operations in the Middle East. "My contact at DESC, another attorney, told me that BP was supplying approximately 80 percent of the fuel being used to move U.S. forces" in the region, Pascal said. She added that "BP was very fortunate in that there is an exception when the U.S. is involved in a military action or a war."

    ... [click the link for the rest, it isn't very interesting]



  • #2
    They should nationalise BP.

    hail Chaves!
    Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
    "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
    2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

    Comment


    • #3
      980 million per year = 12.5 mln bbls or so. Quantity of oil used per day worldwide is ~100 million bbls

      So yeah, barring bp from supplying the US would have virtually no effect on either party, EVEN IF oil suppliers were somehow barred from trading crude.
      12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
      Stadtluft Macht Frei
      Killing it is the new killing it
      Ultima Ratio Regum

      Comment


      • #4
        Or maybe they do, and can make a great political gesture that is almost completely devoid of any sting.
        One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ban BP
          "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
          Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

          Comment


          • #6
            the Americans should take over BP, break it in parts, sell it off and pay off for the consequences of the spill

            it will teach the British not to spill the oil in the gulf anymore
            Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
            GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KrazyHorse View Post
              980 million per year = 12.5 mln bbls or so. Quantity of oil used per day worldwide is ~100 million bbls

              So yeah, barring bp from supplying the US would have virtually no effect on either party, EVEN IF oil suppliers were somehow barred from trading crude.
              You idiot. Do you realize that parking tickets cost the same no matter how rich you are? And yet the rich obey the parking laws just like the undesirables. Try explain that WITHOUT using nonsense abbreviations like 'bbls'... bbls is no help to you here.

              Comment


              • #8
                yes the rich should pay proportionally more expenisve parking tickets, it would be good for the economy.
                Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
                GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

                Comment


                • #9
                  YOU MISSED MY POINT! ENTIRELY! PLEASE GO BACK AND REREAD IT! THANK YOU (AND STOP SPECULATING! ABOUT THINGS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't get the joke...
                    If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                    ){ :|:& };:

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't get how your signature can suck as much as it does

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        By adding a vacuum cleaner?
                        Indifference is Bliss

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Wiglaf View Post
                          You idiot. Do you realize that parking tickets cost the same no matter how rich you are?
                          Not true, in Sweden

                          And yet the rich obey the parking laws just like the undesirables.


                          Utter nonsense. For instance, I sometimes rent a car simply in order to park it illegally.
                          12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                          Stadtluft Macht Frei
                          Killing it is the new killing it
                          Ultima Ratio Regum

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave View Post
                            yes the rich should pay proportionally more expenisve parking tickets, it would be good for the economy.
                            I can't tell if you're kidding or not. If you aren't, then this is a ridiculous statement...
                            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                            Stadtluft Macht Frei
                            Killing it is the new killing it
                            Ultima Ratio Regum

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by KrazyHorse View Post
                              I can't tell if you're kidding or not. If you aren't, then this is a ridiculous statement...
                              I guess he's going for a price discrimination thing although I'm not sure how it applies for fees and the relevance of willingness to pay with ability to pay. I guess it doesn't apply
                              "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
                              "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X