In Defense of BP's Deep Pockets

July 13, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (4)

Imagine if General Motors had spilled all of that oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Or Citigroup. Or AIG. Shudder.

[See 5 lessons from oil spills and reform bills.]

The Gulf oil spill is an appalling abuse of the world's natural resources, and BP should be held accountable for every bit of damage, for as long as it can be documented. If there were crimes, BP should be prosecuted and legal loopholes closed. But while we're all scolding BP, we might also want to acknowledge some of the things that are working in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster that occurred on April 20. As depressing as it is to watch oil gush into the ocean for weeks on end, the whole ordeal could end up forming a template for how industry and the government should work together when a man-made catastrophe occurs. And despite voter disgust with all manner of big institutions, the BP spill shows there's a role for both deep-pocketed companies and an activist government when something goes wrong.

At the moment, we have no such template, which is readily apparent in the aftermath of another disaster that left wounds that are still bleeding—the 2008 financial meltdown. Both the BP spill and the financial meltdown were caused by private industry, abetted by government policies that encouraged reckless behavior. When the banks foundered, it took extraordinary intervention by the government to contain the damage, with taxpayers footing the bill. Stimulus spending and dozens of bailouts will end up costing more than $1 trillion—over $9,000 per U.S. household. Add in Federal Reserve actions and other government maneuvers that won't come directly from taxpayer wallets, and the total cost is probably three or four times higher.

[See 10 states where taxes are up, services down.]

The cost of the BP spill, by contrast, is being borne largely by one company—the one that caused the damage. To be clear, BP isn't doing this voluntarily. The company has fought the disclosure of information related to the spill and refused to admit wrongdoing, guided more by defense lawyers than by any sense of public responsibility. But public and government pressure has been working. Congressional hearings have forced the company into a hot spotlight it would clearly like to avoid, and helped pry loose information about the spill. The Obama administration strong-armed BP into pledging $20 billion for reparations. A few corporate-rights advocates complained that the hasty deal violated due process, but that got about as much traction as an oiled pelican on a mossy log.

BP has obviously paid a price for all this. Its stock price has fallen by about 40 percent since the spill, slicing about $70 billion off the company's value. BP has suspended the dividend paid to shareholders and looked into selling up to $10 billion worth of assets. And the company will have to deal with a kind of pariah status for years. Some critics would like to see more draconian action, like a government seizure of BP's U.S. assets or other moves that could essentially force the breakup of the company. But those kinds of plans don't account for 29,000 Americans employed by BP, retirees holding BP stock, or many others who would be harmed by BP's demise even though they had nothing to do with the fateful spill.

[See 5 reasons a double-dip recession could happen.]

We can curse BP's profits all we want, but we're lucky it has profits to start with—and lots of them. The company earned nearly $60 billion between 2007 and 2009, a lot more than it will likely end up spending for the Gulf spill. This means that as long as the government keeps the pressure on, BP ought to be able to pay for the entire cleanup itself.

Thank goodness for deep pockets. As we've all learned to our chagrin, the technology for operating machinery a mile beneath the sea is complex, unproven, expensive and well beyond the government's capabilities. Most Americans are uncomfortable with the government running banks, insurance companies, or automakers—and those jobs seem easy compared to capping a gushing well in frigid water, under pressure that would crush the strongest Navy submarine. If BP became insolvent, like GM or AIG, we'd then have to watch a ham-handed government cobble together the expertise to handle one of the most complex undertakings in its history. Much better to let BP employ its own expertise—and bear the blame when things go wrong.

[See why voters will get a lot angrier.]

The role of government in American society will be a dominant undercurrent in the upcoming midterm elections, emboldening the Tea Party movement and perhaps motivating voters more than any other issue to save the struggling economy. Voters are in a nihilist mood, fed up with the big companies that employ them and the government that helps take care of them. But the BP fiasco shows how strong companies can lessen the burden on government when something goes wrong, which in turn lets the government stick to what it's supposed to do—regulate—without straying into misadventures like taking over huge companies.

The bank bailouts were so aggressive because regulators at the Treasury Dept., Federal Reserve, and White House believed the banks were so weak they were unable to help themselves. So Washington basically took over the whole financial sector for awhile. We'll never know if they were right about the banks, but if they were wrong, it wasn't by much. The BP spill is a more measured response in which the government is asserting its power while leaving more free-market incentives in place. If BP fixes the problem in time, it will live to see another profitable quarter. If it doesn't, the market—not the government—will kill the company, by bidding its shares lower and lower as the cost of mistakes and incompetence mounts.

[See why American workers need to toughen up.]

So far, BP seems to have the resources to get the job done. The government should hold BP to the task—and be thankful it has the money to do it. It's a lot better to have rich companies able to bail themselves out than broke ones clinging to your neck while they claw for your checkbook.

Tags:
Citigroup,
General Motors,
BP,
government,
government intervention,
oil

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

It seems to me that BP has owned up to its mistakes. It will try to make things right. The best point of the article is that it is a good thing that BP has enough money to do that.

We need as many companies as we can making lots of money...If we make it too difficult to make money here, companies will go overseas to do it and not pay taxes.

Our economy is only great because of capitalism and incentives. Our lifestyle is only great because of capitalism. Do you really want to live in a country with an economy like Tanzania or even Greece? It probably possible for you Troy.

I personally like running water, flush toilets, soft mattresses, and a nice roof over my head. All corporations are in business to make money (if you want to call that greedy), and most people have jobs because of them. If we just have jobs in the public sector, we don't produce anything, and we do it much less efficiently. Very rich people need to make lots of money, they are the ones paying most the taxes. Let them make more!!! I am not jealous. The top 1 percent of earners pay some 50 percent of the taxes, and the top 10 percent pays something like 90 percent. If they have more income, there will be more money in the coffers. Sadly, though, the Dems will just spend it on the non-producers in our economy, and blame the rich for not doing their share when nearly half their income is already being tapped by taxes.

Mark of CO 9:44AM July 16, 2010

Free of TX...

This BP well was an exploratory well. None of the oil from this well would be pumped into the global supply for a long time. Oil prices have actually been coming down due to deflation in the global economy.

Jeremy of NC 5:15PM July 13, 2010

This is the best article I have read regarding this whole situation. Since the beginning it has seemed as if I was the only person to give BP credit for how they are handling the situation. There is a lot to be said for a company that owns up to their mistakes, helps the families who were affected, helps the businesses and animals affected, and even tries to fix the problem themselves! I think people have gotten so used to businesses and individuals not taking responsibility for their actions that it has become the norm. On the flipside nothing great has come without big risk, and in this case no one would have complained if the benefits of the well were fully reaped to their benefit. There are millions of gallons of oil not being refined into gasoline because of this spill, but yet the price of gas has remained low and steady versus the gross rise of pump prices last year and I have yet to hear any questions posed to the government on how this is possible???? Seems to me that an oil spill would deplete the supply thus causing prices to rise, but the case has been that the supply has been depleted and (somehow) prices have fallen??? Something smells fishy, well, oily, well... You get it, can someone explain this to me, maybe I'm missing something...or not.

Free of TX 3:32PM July 13, 2010

Rick Newman

Rick Newman

The global economy is mysterious, even scary. Chief Business Correspondent Rick Newman connects the dots. In addition to his writing for U.S. News, Rick is the co-author of two books: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, and Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail.


Read Rick's latest blog entries here.

advertisement

advertisement