BP Cancels Dividend, Shares Leap

All the scheme does is define that BP must pay in a defined schedule. It makes no difference to the as yet uncapped liability. The share price rise does indicate some capping of political risks.

In theory by being committed to the payment schedule its free cash flow is reduced and risks are slightly higher. But in the context of overall cash flow its rather small.

Interestingly, past experience of major oil spills shows that the consequential damage, clean-up costs etc have been far less than first anticipated, with shorelines and fish stocks recovering remarkably quickly (fish stocks even increasing, due to less intensive fishing during the clean-up period). Furthermore, most major spills have been much closer to the shore than this one and the vast volume of water in the Caribbean (measured in QUADRILLIONS of gallons) means that the volume of oil leaked is relatively miniscule. In any case, most of the oil is "eaten up" by bacteria in a short space of time. At current prices, I'm a buyer of BP.

Where you say 71% say BP is a buy, the markets have been the exact opposite with massive sell-offs. The 71% of buyers must be buying relatively small (or just talking the talk but not even standing up to walk) while huge amounts are wiped off the stock market. Surely then the correct zag option is to buy (actually buy and not just vote about it on a website).

This here lies the problem with polls on this website. If the majority of traders here think like Ben Graham (and this is my assumption for this website compared with the rabble of fund managers and day traders that don't research) then to zag you will be following the wrong group?

What troubles me as a shareholder is the crass management of BP's communications from both CEO and chairman, combined with their willingness to accept the full blame. There was no attempt to reflect on the market environment they operated in, which was determined by the quality of regulatory supervision. There has been no attempt to rebut any of the sickening accusations from BP's supposed partners in the offshore site, no challenge to the insane idea of paying for other workers laid off because the Government suspended offshore drilling and no defence to Obama's accusations of slow payments. I will be looking for major changes at the next AGM at Board level, in the US management team supervising this rig and their PR team

I think the new company name should be OP. (Obama's Piggybank).

As the other poster says, getting BP to pay the wages of other oil workers because the government has introduced a moratorium on drilling is blatant political manoeuvring.

With $20bn to be handed out, I wonder how carefully the claims will be scrutinised. It's a juggling act to employ the right amount of administration. Too little, and there will be huge fraud; too much, and the costs of administration are higher than the fraud would have been.
One way or another, when there's this amount of money being effectively given away, I'll bet there will be plenty of willing hands reaching out for it - not all of them deserving!

Bruce - how can we take you seriously when you keep changing your mind? BP is a fantastic opportunity, and you will kick yourself for not buying in.

The following is a quote from the leading article in The Times today:-

"Sadly, the current management is not capable of resurrecting BP as an energy company of the future. A takeover - by Exxon, Chevron, Shell, or, if the US authorities allowed, Russia's Gazprom - currently seems quite possible." Is that why the price went up today?

Before investing money in BP take a view on the fines and penalties likely to be imposed on top of the $20Billion fund. There is plenty of evidence of gross negligence in the decisions made on the completion of this well. See http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6604
Tony Hayward will be having an uncomfortable afternoon with those questions from the Oversight and Investigations committee today. I'll wait for the dust to settle

Did Hayward answer those specific questions? So far as I can gather, he just said they'd have to await the results of the enquiry but perhaps I missed something.

Doesn't sound as though the right people had the responsibility for decision making.

OK, so I can't type! The last sentence should end "because without the income from BP we can't afford to be there."

The questions were not answered and that is a shame as getting the dirty washing out at this stage would probably be beneficial. As the committee chairman said, Hayword has only "Kicked the can down the road". I'm guessing they want to share the blame with Transocean in the longer term. Check their submission though and you see that the suspect BOP passed all tests up to the blowout (although it certainly failed when it was needed. BP mismanagement of the casing completion puts them in a vulnerable legal position.
BP short cuts and complacency is the smoking gun and it looks like a management problem of epic proportions.
Exxon had the luxury of being able to point the finger at a pissed ship's Captain to take the blame in the Exxon Valdez incident which is being used often for comparisons.
No comparison at all!

New name should be Slick.

Will the old "Beyond Petroleum" slogan be used ever again.
In maintenance, BP stratedgy over the last few years is not to use their own people but contract out. Just look at the little imput they have in the North Sea, with most of their rigs / instalations manned by cheap and dubious contracted labour.

The reality is BP has lost control of its standards and is now paying for it, sadly in this case and in Texas City, with lives.
Let us not forget the rig in the Gulf was, A - American and operated to their standards.
B - The faulty shutdown valve was American made and to their standards.

All this might sound a bit like blowing ther British trumpet but as someone who had to witness the official video of what caused the Texas City disaster, Amercian Standards are appauling compared with British.

Yet here we are again being lectured by the Americans on what we should do to improve our standards, its disgusting and degrading for every British Oil Worker.

The company used to be called BP-Amoco. Just call it Amoco and that may help put an end to the "British" aspect.

Now here's a thought. Perhaps Russia could use TNK-BP to take over BP if the shares drop low enough. That would give President Obama something to take his mind off all the pollution.....

An appropriate name could be BurP...