Jump to content

The environment thread


BigSqwert

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 08:40 AM)
BP pays a huge dividend (>6%), despite the recent fall in share price, they are currently trading at around a 9 multiple.

 

However, this can be VERY bad for them, as they will be on the hook for all the cleanup costs, and any/all fines incurred. This may decimate their stock as well as force them to cut that hefty dividend. Only time will tell.

 

But as it stands right now, even if the stock goes down, if they don't slash that dividend, that's a 6% annual return, try finding that in any money market, savings account or CD.

Bah, if I were really worried I'd have sold it by now. What's much, much, much more likely is that any fines or settlements get hung up in court for 20 years, and eventually get stripped down to virtually nothing by some combination of a pro-business supreme court and the next "Drill baby drill" congress, while most of the costs for destroying one of the most important fisheries, tourist destinations, and shipping lines in the U.S. gets eaten up by the government. Considering that's exactly what happened after Prince William Sound, I think it's a safe prediction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 07:43 AM)
Bah, if I were really worried I'd have sold it by now. What's much, much, much more likely is that any fines or settlements get hung up in court for 20 years, and eventually get stripped down to virtually nothing by some combination of a pro-business supreme court and the next "Drill baby drill" congress, while most of the costs for destroying one of the most important fisheries, tourist destinations, and shipping lines in the U.S. gets eaten up by the government. Considering that's exactly what happened after Prince William Sound, I think it's a safe prediction.

 

I would have agreed with this a few years ago or during previous administrations...but Obama is going to make an example out of BP. Also, the world is MUCH more environmentally aware these days (this thread wouldn't have existed 10 years ago) even with an oil spill.

 

BP is going to pay through the nose for this one and it'll be reflected on their income statements for the next few quarters. I think this stock will go down much further than it is now, despite it's 9 multiple. Unlike Prince William Sound, this ones washing up on warm beaches in the Gulf. Also, note that this may eclipse William Sound in terms of disaster. Oil tankers have a limited amount of oil in them, this is a well, and unless fixed, will probably dump a few tankers worth of oil into the Gulf.

 

No.

 

BP is going to pay for this one. heh

 

As attractive that dividend it -- there are better alternative buys out there right now paying the same dividend with way bigger upside. :)

Edited by Y2HH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 08:14 AM)
Really, this thread wouldn't have existed 10 years ago? You and I have different memories of 10 years ago. Hell, Kyoto was 1998.

 

Ok, this thread may have existed, and there would have been three people in it. :P

 

Again, I repeat, the world is MUCH more environmentally aware than it was 10 years ago. For you to even try to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

Edited by Y2HH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:16 AM)
Ok, this thread may have existed, and there would have been three people in it. :P

 

Again, I repeat, the world is MUCH more environmentally aware than it was 10 years ago. For you to even try to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

That I'll grant you. But it's not like Prince William Sound wasn't big. I was what, 8, and I remember hearing about that on the news. That's like 1 of 2 news stories from that decade I can clearly remember. Maybe 3, counting Noriega.

 

Besides...whether or not "Obama" may want BP to pay through the nose...there's very little he can do directly to make it happen aside from EPA fines...but if they didn't break any rules, then it will be up to a court to get them.

 

For all we know they may have followed every rule/requirement to the letter. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they did, given that we've just spent 8 years dismantling as many rules as we could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oil spill is floating miles from Louisiana’s coastline, home to a huge commercial and recreational fishing industry. It comes as a particularly fragile time for fisheries, since Gulf shrimp are in their spawning season.

 

Louisiana claims a $2.6-billion-a-year commercial fishing industry, which provides a quarter of the U.S. seafood supply, exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii.

 

The two lawsuits target BP, which holds the lease to the offshore well; Swiss-based Transocean Ltd., owner of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform that exploded last week; and Halliburton Energy Services Inc., which the lawsuit says was responsible for capping the well.

:lolhitting

 

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 08:17 AM)
That I'll grant you. But it's not like Prince William Sound wasn't big. I was what, 8, and I remember hearing about that on the news. That's like 1 of 2 news stories from that decade I can clearly remember. Maybe 3, counting Noriega.

 

Besides...whether or not "Obama" may want BP to pay through the nose...there's very little he can do directly to make it happen aside from EPA fines...but if they didn't break any rules, then it will be up to a court to get them.

 

For all we know they may have followed every rule/requirement to the letter. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they did, given that we've just spent 8 years dismantling as many rules as we could.

 

There is a LOT he can do.

 

BP requested help from the US military, and Obama has already said BP will pay for that help.

 

It's nice when you can charge WHATEVER YOU WANT PER HOUR and call it "labor costs", when in reality it'll be fines. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:20 AM)
It's nice when you can charge WHATEVER YOU WANT PER HOUR and call it "labor costs", when in reality it'll be fines. :)

 

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 08:43 AM)
What's much, much, much more likely is that any fines or settlements get hung up in court for 20 years, and eventually get stripped down to virtually nothing by some combination of a pro-business supreme court and the next "Drill baby drill" congress

 

Wonder where I got that idea. :lolhitting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 01:04 PM)
Story on npr said the administration included the offshore drilling in the proposed legislation purely as a deal to get some republican support.

 

Boo.

It's called a compromise. I hate is much as anyone. But sometimes you need to do it. MAYBE, just maybe this whole incident will change a few "drill, baby, drill" minds while they actually see the consequences of their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 01:04 PM)
Story on npr said the administration included the offshore drilling in the proposed legislation purely as a deal to get some republican support.

 

Boo.

Well yeah, we all knew that at the time.

 

I'd love it if we spent half or more of the Stim Bill money to directly push us away from oil. I'd have loved it if we didn't waste $1T on the unfounded, poorly execited and useless war in Iraq, since that same $1T could have gotten us ENERGY INDEPENDENT in a decade. I'd rather that all subsidies to oil companies stop, and I'd rather that we spend that money purely on alt, renewable energy.

 

Unfortunately, at least at this point, that plan goes nowhere. Compromise is a necessity to achieve anything in Congress, even when its doing things well (which isn't often).

 

So while we're all upset about this - and I am, believe me - the question you need to ask is, would you rather we do nothing? Or allow for a small increase in off-shore drilling in exchange for hundreds of billions going into the real future?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 01:09 PM)
It's called a compromise. I hate is much as anyone. But sometimes you need to do it. MAYBE, just maybe this whole incident will change a few "drill, baby, drill" minds while they actually see the consequences of their actions.

That's the good news. The country has already moved more and more towards a concensus understanding that renewable energy is the future. That wave subsided a bit when the economy went south, but this incident will help get awareness back in the right direction. Add in the fact that we'll likely see $100/bbl oil this year, and we'll be back where we were in 2007 in terms of support for a future of renewable, clean energy. Then hopefully we push it further, until the majority of the country realizes how incredibly stupid it is to ignore the future and stick with oil and coal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 01:28 PM)
Well yeah, we all knew that at the time.

 

I'd love it if we spent half or more of the Stim Bill money to directly push us away from oil. I'd have loved it if we didn't waste $1T on the unfounded, poorly execited and useless war in Iraq, since that same $1T could have gotten us ENERGY INDEPENDENT in a decade. I'd rather that all subsidies to oil companies stop, and I'd rather that we spend that money purely on alt, renewable energy.

 

Unfortunately, at least at this point, that plan goes nowhere. Compromise is a necessity to achieve anything in Congress, even when its doing things well (which isn't often).

 

So while we're all upset about this - and I am, believe me - the question you need to ask is, would you rather we do nothing? Or allow for a small increase in off-shore drilling in exchange for hundreds of billions going into the real future?

 

Is that even happening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 03:11 PM)
Climate bill will pass, in some form, in the next couple months.

Reconciliation isn't an option with this one, they didn't include it in the Budget resolution last year like they did with Health Care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 03:23 PM)
Won't need it. It will pass.

The only vote I consider even possibly available is Lindsay Graham, and he's been playing "Lucy with the football" all week. Wouldn't surprise me if it died one bit. And then they had to come back with another dirty energy only subsidy bill in response just to pass something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...