Stupid BP Tricks

BP is up to its neck in oil and lies. Not only does BP CEO Tony Hayward lie incessantly he does so in a manner that suggests he believes he can spin his way out of trouble. It’s all bad PR as far he’s concerned. Here are two more examples of BP spin about the oiltastrophe:

  • Wayward Hayward claims that spill workers who were recently hospitalized weren’t made ill by the vile chemical dispersant, Corexit, but by <get ready> food poisoning. I suspect that the so called food poisoning wasn’t caused by raw oysters since we’re nearly out of those thanks to BP.
  • BP has hired former Cheney flack and associateAnne Womack-Kolton as head of US Media relations. That’s further proof that they think they can spin and lie their way out of this mess. I don’t know about you but I have a hard time taking anyone with the surname Womack seriously. Why? It reminds me of onetime Yankee relieverDooley Womack who was a tobacco chewer with a mono-brow…

Hat Tip: Kevin Allman of ye olde Gambit Tabloid.

Cross-posted @ Adrastos.

3 thoughts on “Stupid BP Tricks

  1. mothra says:

    Oiltastrophe. Love it. Well, I don’t love the ruination, but I love the term.

  2. MapleStreet says:

    Uh, shortness of breath and nosebleeds aren’t food poisoning.
    In food poisoning, the body tries to expel the offending substance out both ends (vomit and diarrhea, both often violently explosive).
    So can I depend on the BP exec has a doctor’s statement that it is food poisoning?
    The thing I really hate is that I’m trying to give BP some benefit of the doubt. I fault them and the govt that they got carried away in the audacity that they could handle any emergency and there was nothing that could go wrong that technology couldn’t fix (see sci-fi flicks from the 1950s). But once the failure happened, they are faced with a situation that all of their choices are bad.
    Then BP does stupid @#$% like this. Another stupid step is that they pretend that each attempt will work. Instead, they should be preparing for attempts 3 and 4 down the list. That way when #1 fails, they are ready for #2, etc.
    Most of all, I’m not sure how to take the lack of coastal protection in a good light. Once the failure occured, there was a reasonable probability that crude would reach the coast. Yet, beyond some minor efforts to burn the oil, there has been no visible action to protect the coastline. Even if the well magically stops right now, there is still a month’s worth of crude just off the coast.
    Why didn’t BP set barriers to the coast from day 1 (or at least make preparations to do so)? Is it because they couldn’t believe that oil would travel? Or is it tacit admitting that booms and skimmers would not be effective against the sheer volume of crude?

  3. pansypoo says:

    he’s trying may this seem better to his ayne randian libertarian mind. because ayne has to be right!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: