Pages

Showing posts with label boycott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boycott. Show all posts

What does the BP "escrow" deal really mean?

Seize BP Campaign, June 16, 2010

People all around the country have put so much pressure on the Obama administration that it had to “do something” to look like it was standing up to BP. The announcement today of a so-called $20 billion escrow fund from BP would never have happened without mass pressure. But does this fund truly respond to the needs of the people in the Gulf Coast states?

Too much is at stake for people to let down their guard and accept the “feel good” sound-bite version of what took place today in the meeting between President Obama and BP’s executives.

The White House and BP are creating a mythology, or "spin," on what the tentative agreement signifies.

It is noteworthy that BP's executives are very happy with the new agreement. Their necessary goal as a corporation is to maximize profits, and not to pay damages to all of those who have been harmed. As the Washington Post reported after the meetings, "Behind the scenes, the company had signaled what it expected from Wednesday's meeting—and the company appears to have gotten exactly what it wanted."

It is quite clear to us, even though much more will be revealed in the coming days and weeks, that we have to accelerate the movement for justice. This agreement is not only inadequate but attempts to shield BP from paying all the damages and compensation for lost work, ruined small businesses, and a devastated ecosystem.

At first glance, one would believe, based on the headlines that the Obama Administration compelled BP to set aside $20 billion dollars in an escrow account to meet the needs of people and communities harmed by BP's criminal negligence.

But this is actually a great deal for BP.

The facts on the "escrow" account

The "escrow account" in 2010 is not $20 billion dollars. BP will put in $3 billion dollars in the third quarter of 2010 (ending September 30) and another $2 billion in the fourth quarter (ending December 31). Thereafter, it will have to make installments of $1.25 billion each quarter for the next three years.

This means that the necessary money will not be available to pay the tens of billions in losses that are real and immediate. It also means that people and businesses will have to get in line.

The real number for the escrow account in 2010 is $5 billion—six months from now at the earliest. To put this in perspective, BP has been bringing in between $26 billion and $36 billion annually in profits on revenue of $250 billion, and pays out more than $10 billion in dividends yearly.

According to a report in Forbes, BP could absorb $35 billion in spill costs before it would have a "material impact" on its operations. But instead, it will be allowed a paltry $5 billion a year, in an installment plan over four years.

Another measure of perspective can be had by comparison of this $5 billion per year voluntary set-aside to the accumulated potential fines and penalties under the Clean Water Act. BP can be fined $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled as a consequence of gross negligence. With the recent acknowledgment that the spill volume is 60,000 barrels per day, that is a potential penalty of over $250 million per day. Put another way, every 60 days accumulates a potential $15 billion fine under the Act. The voluntary arrangement to set aside $5 billion per year is meager in comparison.

This, of course, reflects Obama’s unwillingness to exercise legal authority against BP. Department of Justice lawyers could be initiating prosecutions for the accumulated fines, but aside from the announcement of potential investigations, this has not occurred.

Obama denies that his deal with BP will function as a cap on its liability, but this remains to be determined. The deal appears to functionally provide a shield for BP. As one investment advisor told the Wall Street Journal, the agreement puts "an end to the financial bleeding," and allows investors to assess what BP's total liabilities might be. So while President Obama stresses that the plan is not a cap on liability, it certainly appears as one. The installment terms of the payments themselves limit the amounts that will be made available while people are seeking claims.

Mr. Feinberg to the rescue—again

President Obama announced that the fund will be administered by Kenneth Feinberg, a Washington lawyer who made $5.7 million in his law practice in 2008. Mr. Feinberg has played a particular role in Washington at the time of virtual uprising against the banks and bankers' bonuses. He was appointed to be the “pay czar” by Obama reviewing and approving many of the obscene bonuses doled out to AIG and other executives after they were bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. As Reuters wrote today, "He has been hailed for soothing the egos of Wall Street executives clutching on to big paychecks, while still looking tough to a general public shocked by massive payouts to firms on a government lifeline."

There is very little other information about how claims will be processed. There will have to be determinations made as to what, in the parlance of both BP and President Obama, is a "legitimate" claim. While Obama stated that anyone can file a claim, that doesn’t mean that the claim will be accepted or paid. Nor does it appear that the decision-making process will include any of the affected Gulf coast residents or their representatives from the fishers, shrimpers, crabbers, unions, small business people and workers in the tourism and recreation industry, local elected officials, clergy, and independent scientists and environmentalists.

Details must be forthcoming about claims payments and standards. Can we expect tens of thousands of people to receive checks by the end of the month? One thing is clear: The limited level of the fund necessarily means that claims cannot be paid equivalent to the damages incurred right now.

The creation of the so-called escrow fund was the result of a nationwide mass movement. Now is the time to step up our organizing to make sure that we have the kind of escrow fund that can really meet the needs of the people and repair the vast environmental damage caused by BP.

Seize BP: Make BP & BP Station Owners Fund Cleanup & Compensate Residents


Demand Action to Save The Wildlife & Marine Life & Clean Up This Environmental Catastrophe NOW!!!


Boycott BP & Independent BP Stations Until They Use Profits To Fund Cleanup & Compensate Residents!!

Seize BP's Assets to Fund Clean Up & Pay For ALL Damages - including to workers & businesses!

BP Must Adhere To Environmental & Safety Regulations & Standards NOW!!

What Does The BP "Escrow" Deal Really Mean?

- Seize BP Oil To Pay For Environmental Clean Up & Saving Animals!
- Hands Off Immigrant Workers Cleaning Up Oil Spill
- Reparations to the residents of The Gulf

Independent BP Station Owners That Support BP Are Complicit & Responsible in BP's Crimes!
Owner of BP Station at Randolph Rd & Sharon Amity Rd. in Charlotte, NC Supports BP & Defends BP's Environmental & Safety Violations

Sign inside BP Station window at Randolph Rd & Sharon Amity Rd in Charlotte, NC On June 12

News Reports on the June 12 Protest:

WSOC-TV
FOX News 18
MSNBC
WCNC
Politics Daily - AOL
Charlotte Observer

News About BP's Negligence:
Documents reveal BP's missteps before blowout
BP rig's safety valve failed test before oil spill explosion
Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device

BP On Wikipedia

Info:
Action Center For Justice
http://charlotteaction.blogspot.com/
charlotteaction [at] gmail [dot] com

Students For A Democratic Society (SDS) - UNCC

BP Announces Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Discovery - Teams Up With Israeli Co.'s Partner Noble Energy

BP website, Release date: June 6, 2007

HOUSTON, TX - BP Exploration & Production Inc. (NYSE: BP) announced today a hydrocarbon discovery in an exploration well that tested its Isabela prospect in the Gulf of Mexico. The well is located on Mississippi Canyon Block 562 in approximately 6,500 feet of water, about 150 miles southeast of New Orleans. Isabela was drilled to a total depth of approximately 19,100 feet into Miocene era sands.

“Isabela is an excellent addition to our portfolio of discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico” said Dave Rainey, BP’s Vice President of Gulf of Mexico Exploration. “It will likely be tied back to our Na Kika production platform, helping to maximize the value of that infrastructure.”

The well is operated by BP Exploration & Production Inc. with a 67% working interest and is co-owned by Noble Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NBL) with a 33% working interest. The lease was acquired at federal OCS Lease Sale 169 in March, 1998.

BP is one of the world’s largest energy companies, with interests in more than 100 countries and over 100,000 employees across six continents. BP’s business segments are Exploration and Production; Refining and Marketing; and Gas, Power and Renewables, which includes its Alternative Energy business. Through these business segments, BP provides fuel for transportation, energy for heat and light, retail services, and petrochemical products.

Further information:
Name: Neil Chapman
Office: BP Press office, Houston
Telephone: 281-366-7115

Israeli Company Delek Buys BP Gas Stations for $33.5 Million

AllBusiness.com, Nov. 8, 2005

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Delek Group Ltd. announced that its subsidiary, Delek US Holdings, had bought the rights in 25 gas stations and convenience stores in Nashville, Tenn., from British energy giant BP for $33.5 million, not including inventory, reported Globes online. The deal is expected to be closed in December.

The contract involves ownership rights to 20 gas stations, and leasing rights to five more. It also includes four other real estate properties slated for gas stations and convenience stores, including ownership rights for three properties and leasing rights for one property, according to the report.

Delek added in the report that the gas stations and convenience stores would continue to operate under the BP brand.

In its financial report for the second quarter of 2005, Delek said that Delek US Holdings owned 328 gas stations in Tennessee, Alabama and Virginia under the Mapco Express brand. Delek also reported that the profit of its Texas oil refinery jumped to $72 million for the second quarter, reported Globes.

Hampshire College first in US to divest from Israel

Press release, Students for Justice in Palestine (Hampshire College), Feb. 12, 2009

Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, has become the first of any college or university in the US to divest from companies on the grounds of their involvement in the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

This landmark move is a direct result of a two-year intensive campaign by the campus group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The group pressured Hampshire College's Board of Trustees to divest from six specific companies due to human rights concerns in occupied Palestine. More than 800 students, professors and alumni have signed SJP's "institutional statement" calling for the divestment.

The proposal put forth by SJP was approved on Saturday, 7 February 2009 by the Board. By divesting from these companies, SJP believes that Hampshire has distanced itself from complicity in the illegal occupation and war crimes of Israel.

Meeting minutes from a committee of Hampshire's Board of Trustees confirm that "President Hexter acknowledged that it was the good work of SJP that brought this issue to the attention of the committee." This groundbreaking decision follows in Hampshire's history of being the first college in the country to divest from apartheid South Africa 32 years ago, a decision based on similar human rights concerns. This divestment was also a direct result of student pressure.

The divestment has so far been endorsed by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Rashid Khalidi, Vice President of the EU Parliament Luisa Morganitini, Cynthia McKinney, former member of the African National Congress Ronnie Kasrils, Mustafa Barghouti, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, John Berger, Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire and Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, among others.

The six corporations, all of which provide the Israeli military with equipment and services in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip are: Caterpillar, United Technologies, General Electric, ITT Corporation, Motorola and Terex. Furthermore, our policy prevents the reinvestment in any company involved in the illegal occupation.

SJP is responding to a call from Palestinian civil society for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as a way of bringing nonviolent pressure to bear on the state of Israel to end its violations of international law. SJP is following in the footsteps of many noted groups and institutions such as the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education in the UK, the Israeli group Gush Shalom, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the American Friends Service Committee.

As well as voicing our opposition to the illegal occupation and the consistent human rights violations of the Palestinian people, we as members of an institute of higher education see it as our moral responsibility to express our solidarity with Palestinian students whose access to education is severely inhibited by the Israeli occupation.

SJP has proven that student groups can organize, rally and pressure their schools to divest from the illegal occupation. The group hopes that this decision will pave the way for other institutions of higher learning in the US to take similar stands.


This was published on Electronic Intifada - Related Links

* BY TOPIC: Boycott, divestment and sanctions

To get involved in the NC & SC area contact Carolinas Boycott Israeli Apartheid Campaign at 704-492-5226 or see http://charlotte4palestine.ning.com

Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction

Naomi Klein, thenation.com, Jan. 7, 2009

In July 2005 a huge coalition of Palestinian groups laid out plans to do just that. They called on "people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era." The campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions--BDS for short--was born.

Every day that Israel pounds Gaza brings more converts to the BDS cause, and talk of cease-fires is doing little to slow the momentum. Support is even emerging among Israeli Jews. In the midst of the assault roughly 500 Israelis, dozens of them well-known artists and scholars, sent a letter to foreign ambassadors stationed in Israel. It calls for "the adoption of immediate restrictive measures and sanctions" and draws a clear parallel with the antiapartheid struggle. "The boycott on South Africa was effective, but Israel is handled with kid gloves.... This international backing must stop."

Yet many still can't go there. The reasons are complex, emotional and understandable. And they simply aren't good enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective tools in the nonviolent arsenal. Surrendering them verges on active complicity. Here are the top four objections to the BDS strategy, followed by counterarguments.

1. Punitive measures will alienate rather than persuade Israelis. The world has tried what used to be called "constructive engagement." It has failed utterly. Since 2006 Israel has been steadily escalating its criminality: expanding settlements, launching an outrageous war against Lebanon and imposing collective punishment on Gaza through the brutal blockade. Despite this escalation, Israel has not faced punitive measures--quite the opposite. The weapons and $3 billion in annual aid that the US sends to Israel is only the beginning. Throughout this key period, Israel has enjoyed a dramatic improvement in its diplomatic, cultural and trade relations with a variety of other allies. For instance, in 2007 Israel became the first non-Latin American country to sign a free-trade deal with Mercosur. In the first nine months of 2008, Israeli exports to Canada went up 45 percent. A new trade deal with the European Union is set to double Israel's exports of processed food. And on December 8, European ministers "upgraded" the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a reward long sought by Jerusalem.*

It is in this context that Israeli leaders started their latest war: confident they would face no meaningful costs. It is remarkable that over seven days of wartime trading, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange's flagship index actually went up 10.7 percent. When carrots don't work, sticks are needed.

2. Israel is not South Africa. Of course it isn't. The relevance of the South African model is that it proves that BDS tactics can be effective when weaker measures (protests, petitions, back-room lobbying) have failed. And there are indeed deeply distressing echoes: the color-coded IDs and travel permits, the bulldozed homes and forced displacement, the settler-only roads. Ronnie Kasrils, a prominent South African politician, said that the architecture of segregation that he saw in the West Bank and Gaza in 2007 was "infinitely worse than apartheid."

3. Why single out Israel when the United States, Britain and other Western countries do the same things in Iraq and Afghanistan? Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic. The reason the BDS strategy should be tried against Israel is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work.

4. Boycotts sever communication; we need more dialogue, not less. This one I'll answer with a personal story. For eight years, my books have been published in Israel by a commercial house called Babel. But when I published The Shock Doctrine, I wanted to respect the boycott. On the advice of BDS activists, I contacted a small publisher called Andalus. Andalus is an activist press, deeply involved in the anti-occupation movement and the only Israeli publisher devoted exclusively to translating Arabic writing into Hebrew. We drafted a contract that guarantees that all proceeds go to Andalus's work, and none to me. In other words, I am boycotting the Israeli economy but not Israelis.

Coming up with this plan required dozens of phone calls, e-mails and instant messages, stretching from Tel Aviv to Ramallah to Paris to Toronto to Gaza City. My point is this: as soon as you start implementing a boycott strategy, dialogue increases dramatically. And why wouldn't it? Building a movement requires endless communicating, as many in the antiapartheid struggle well recall. The argument that supporting boycotts will cut us off from one another is particularly specious given the array of cheap information technologies at our fingertips. We are drowning in ways to rant at one another across national boundaries. No boycott can stop us.

Just about now, many a proud Zionist is gearing up for major point-scoring: don't I know that many of those very high-tech toys come from Israeli research parks, world leaders in infotech? True enough, but not all of them. Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, the managing director of a British telecom company, sent an e-mail to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax. "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company."

When contacted by The Nation, Ramsey said his decision wasn't political. "We can't afford to lose any of our clients, so it was purely commercially defensive."

It was this kind of cold business calculation that led many companies to pull out of South Africa two decades ago. And it's precisely the kind of calculation that is our most realistic hope of bringing justice, so long denied, to Palestine.

Further Reading: Disengagement and the Frontiers of Zionism

____
* On January 14, in response to Israel's aggression in Gaza, the EU called off its plans to upgrade the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a sign of growing understanding that political sanctions can be brought to bear to bring an end to the war.


Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (September 2007); an earlier international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies; and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (2002).