ChatterBank3 mins ago
Government Bailout for BP over Oil Spill????????
Apparently a trading house has implied that BP should be helped out once the legal claims start rolling in for the oil spill in America. The word to look for is "Sovereign Wealth" unless If i'm not reading that right that sounds like government bailout to me. What does anyone else think?
If this is the case doesnt look good, were in the biggest financial crisis for generations For Funks Sake and cant afford to bail them out. Arent they owned or have about 40% american shareholders, maybe they should foot the bill.
In a note to investors, trading house Nomura said pressure was growing on the company to "assure sufficient funding" to stop the spill.
Earlier BP said that its costs linked to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster had risen to $2.35bn (£1.57bn).
The total costs, including compensation claims, are expected to be much higher.
"We consider that equity linked financing - perhaps backed by sovereign wealth - could prove the attractive short-term solution," said Nomura,
It added that BP's perceived need for more money was damaging the company in the eyes of investors.
ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10414529.s
tm
If this is the case doesnt look good, were in the biggest financial crisis for generations For Funks Sake and cant afford to bail them out. Arent they owned or have about 40% american shareholders, maybe they should foot the bill.
In a note to investors, trading house Nomura said pressure was growing on the company to "assure sufficient funding" to stop the spill.
Earlier BP said that its costs linked to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster had risen to $2.35bn (£1.57bn).
The total costs, including compensation claims, are expected to be much higher.
"We consider that equity linked financing - perhaps backed by sovereign wealth - could prove the attractive short-term solution," said Nomura,
It added that BP's perceived need for more money was damaging the company in the eyes of investors.
ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10414529.s
tm
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by barney15c. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
was it not a faulty american produced valve that caused this event??? and what about the hundreds of lives of british soldiers that have been lost backing the americans up in iraq and afghanistan without us the u.s wouldnt have stood a chance in either of these wars...they make me sick,,,if i were cameron/clegg id tell obama to shut his mouth or else we are withdrawing our military aid....too many british soldiers have gone to their graves in a war that we now cannot win the usa have dragged us into a vietnam scenario...i know that this has nothing to do with the oil spill but a bit of support for the uk from obama would not go amiss here after all they owe us big time....
the US didn't drag us into Iraq and Afghanistan, we went of our own free will. After Tony Blair arranged it, he stood for re-election and won. So it comes down to us.
As for BP, if they can't afford to plug the leak and repair the damage, what happens? Will governments step in or not? (Note that Nomura didn't say which government - my guess is they meant the US, as they're the ones with most to lose if the leak carries on.)
As for BP, if they can't afford to plug the leak and repair the damage, what happens? Will governments step in or not? (Note that Nomura didn't say which government - my guess is they meant the US, as they're the ones with most to lose if the leak carries on.)
B.P will be fine, they'll just go to the bank and ask for (and get) an extension on their credit.
They'll just put the cut in the bottom so to speak.
This whole thing is just govermental hot air.
If you're going to have a dig at the U.S over the environment then you only need two words, UNION CARBIDE.
They'll just put the cut in the bottom so to speak.
This whole thing is just govermental hot air.
If you're going to have a dig at the U.S over the environment then you only need two words, UNION CARBIDE.
Nomura's reference to sovereign wealth in this case meant a Sovereign Wealth Fund like those run by the governments of Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc., NOT an injection of funding by either the US or UK governments. Essentially Nomura's research note pointed out that it is difficult for BP to borrow in this environment, so raising equity might be the way to go.
That said, Obama needs to STFU and let the legal process take its course here.
That said, Obama needs to STFU and let the legal process take its course here.
If Obama's so concerned about pollution why doesn't he do something about Bhopal where the pollution is STILL occurring and considerably more damaging than anything in the Gulf of Mexico, and that's 26 years after the affair.
And Union Carbide only paid $470 million dollars compensation some 15 years later, and that was only after being dragged through the courts.
And Union Carbide only paid $470 million dollars compensation some 15 years later, and that was only after being dragged through the courts.
The Wall St. Journal had more complete coverage of the Nomura statement than the link provided above did. It said in part:
"Investors' fears were stoked by a research note from analysts at Nomura Holdings Inc. in London saying BP may need to sell shares to assure counterparties it has the financial wherewithal to absorb costs related to the spill.
Nomura analyst Alastair Syme said BP had enough liquidity to deal with the clean-up costs and the phased funding of the escrow account, but it may struggle if liabilities from the spill were to rise, for example due to hurricane damage, or if oil prices fall. He said BP's options are constrained because issuing debt has become expensive and selling off assets takes time.
But the need to raise funds is pressing, one reason BP has made moves to augment its cash and available credit. Mr. Syme said BP has an estimated "$2 billion to $2.5 billion of one-year commercial paper to roll over, needed to fund day-to-day trading activities and working capital, which will likely be much harder (and more expensive) to do in this environment." BP said it does not comment on its financial arrangements.
BP and its advisers had been considering a large bond sale to shore up the company's finances, but have shelved the plan for now, other people familiar with the matter said. Nomura's Mr. Syme wrote that BP could raise equity-linked financing in the near term, perhaps from a Sovereign Wealth Fund. However, doing so at such a depressed share price might make current shareholders uneasy, since they could face large dilution, depending on how much money BP needs to raise. Indeed, one of the people said BP has no imminent plans to do an equity or a bond deal."
"Investors' fears were stoked by a research note from analysts at Nomura Holdings Inc. in London saying BP may need to sell shares to assure counterparties it has the financial wherewithal to absorb costs related to the spill.
Nomura analyst Alastair Syme said BP had enough liquidity to deal with the clean-up costs and the phased funding of the escrow account, but it may struggle if liabilities from the spill were to rise, for example due to hurricane damage, or if oil prices fall. He said BP's options are constrained because issuing debt has become expensive and selling off assets takes time.
But the need to raise funds is pressing, one reason BP has made moves to augment its cash and available credit. Mr. Syme said BP has an estimated "$2 billion to $2.5 billion of one-year commercial paper to roll over, needed to fund day-to-day trading activities and working capital, which will likely be much harder (and more expensive) to do in this environment." BP said it does not comment on its financial arrangements.
BP and its advisers had been considering a large bond sale to shore up the company's finances, but have shelved the plan for now, other people familiar with the matter said. Nomura's Mr. Syme wrote that BP could raise equity-linked financing in the near term, perhaps from a Sovereign Wealth Fund. However, doing so at such a depressed share price might make current shareholders uneasy, since they could face large dilution, depending on how much money BP needs to raise. Indeed, one of the people said BP has no imminent plans to do an equity or a bond deal."
jno...how can you say that the case for the 1st gulf war was stronger??? we left without acheiving our objective.. taking saddam hussein out....a huge mistake in both humanatarian and logistical terms the so called ''2nd'' gulf war was the invasion of iraq by the west..led by the u.s to determine the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction...of which there was none found...and to liberate the iraqis..but really at what cost? that place is full of people who dont want ''liberating'' they will live their entire lives under the regime that makes their lives tolerable and that is because they know no other way of life and indeed do not want to..is that worth the loss of soldiers lives?? dont believe for 1 second that troops out there want to ''liberate'' people who live in mud huts and sell goats for a living [and some of these savages would kill them given half a chance] they are there because the various governments have sent them there they are doing a job...and just want to get back home, believe me ..i have been there...
Stokey, I'm going straight off memory here, the first Gulf War was in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a sovreign nation in it's own right.
We used to call these aggressive wars of expansion, Kuwait was a nation cleaved out of Iraqi soil (we invented it), it was (again from memory) a kind of sop to various Arab leaders to compensate them for their help WW1 (and probably to avoid "the prohibitions" from the treaty of Sevres) see Saudi Arabia and look at Egypt.
Iraq didn't exist under the Ottomans (there was never a place called Kurdistan, possibly the next hot spot) it was split into three sections Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk, memory again).
We invaded Iraq in WW1 and got as far as Kut.
All this information serves to demonstrate that we had no right to admnister Iraq from 1918 onwards, and the world might be a better place if we hadn't, the Iraqis are only recently coming to terms with the idea of nation, because it was something always denied to them.
But the actual aim of the second Gulf War was to remove Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait, that was the stated war aim, that was the coalitions desire and that and that alone assured Saudi acquiesenence.
The hope was that such a major defeat would topple Saddam, it didn't.
He still had armour and the werewithall to suppress the uprisings we encouraged and then let die.
A little bit like the Russians and Warsaw in 1944.
We used to call these aggressive wars of expansion, Kuwait was a nation cleaved out of Iraqi soil (we invented it), it was (again from memory) a kind of sop to various Arab leaders to compensate them for their help WW1 (and probably to avoid "the prohibitions" from the treaty of Sevres) see Saudi Arabia and look at Egypt.
Iraq didn't exist under the Ottomans (there was never a place called Kurdistan, possibly the next hot spot) it was split into three sections Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk, memory again).
We invaded Iraq in WW1 and got as far as Kut.
All this information serves to demonstrate that we had no right to admnister Iraq from 1918 onwards, and the world might be a better place if we hadn't, the Iraqis are only recently coming to terms with the idea of nation, because it was something always denied to them.
But the actual aim of the second Gulf War was to remove Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait, that was the stated war aim, that was the coalitions desire and that and that alone assured Saudi acquiesenence.
The hope was that such a major defeat would topple Saddam, it didn't.
He still had armour and the werewithall to suppress the uprisings we encouraged and then let die.
A little bit like the Russians and Warsaw in 1944.
stoke, the case for *entering* the war was stronger, because of the invasion of Kuwait. The fact that we didn't handle it well while fighting it doesn't change the case for taking part in it - I'm not talking about military matters here but about political ones.
The case for entering the second war was always bogus - there were never going to be WMDs, nobody but Blair and Bush believed otherwise. (I'm not talking with hindsight here - everyone was talking about them when the war broke out and I never met anyone who believed they existed.)
Nonetheless, both Blair and Bush stood for re-election after invading Iraq and both were re-elected. So voters had their say and they approved of the policies in place.
The case for entering the second war was always bogus - there were never going to be WMDs, nobody but Blair and Bush believed otherwise. (I'm not talking with hindsight here - everyone was talking about them when the war broke out and I never met anyone who believed they existed.)
Nonetheless, both Blair and Bush stood for re-election after invading Iraq and both were re-elected. So voters had their say and they approved of the policies in place.
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.