BP Conspiracy Theory

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but you have to wonder why it has taken BP so long to slow down the leak of oil from the damaged undersea oil well. Before some of the attempts BP has almost expected to fail, perhaps downplaying expectations, but perhaps also indicating that the company is possibly not as motivated to fix the spill as they say they are. Recent efforts to place a cap on the spewing oil head have been met with only limited success, and the August deadline for the drilling of a relief well could be in doubt if a hurricane strikes.

But who is BP anyway?

BP is the third largest oil company and the fourth largest company in the world, and is also the largest company in the United Kingdom. BP is also a so-called a "supermajor" oil exploration company, which means that they do everything from oil exploration, natural gas production, to other activities. The company started looking for oil in Iran in 1901 and recently has been working to develop oil fields in Russia. Such a large company with such a long history must certainly have connections at all levels of government. Perhaps that is how these large oil companies have been basically allowed to police themselves in the United States.

BP has taken a very aggressive approach with regards to it business practices over the years, and has been accused of engaging in price fixing. In 2007 BP had to pay a $300 million dollar fine for attempt to fix the price of propane in the United States. In 2010 a Russian court found that BP was guilty of price fixing the price of gasoline in 2009, and fined them as well. Mother Jones magazine listed BP as one of the worst ten corporations in 2001 and 2005 based on its human rights record and environmental problems. And this was before the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

BP has contributed more than $5 million since 1990 to political campaigns in the United States, making the company the 100th largest campaign donor, and 72% of the contributions went to Republican candidates. Obviously, BP's leadership may have feared the recent election of Barack Obama to the White House in the United States. Democrats have traditionally favored laws protecting the environment over business expansion and big oil. While the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig was an unplanned tragedy, the response thereafter has been almost entirely under the control of BP. A corporation as gargantuan as BP is always watching and analyzing the global political climate, and may hire analysts to monitor new environmental laws and figure out how to subvert them.

While any delay in stopping the leak will continue the public relations nightmare for BP, it is hard to see how their public appearance could get any worse. Though the longer the leak continues the more political damage will be done to the president and the democrats in control of Congress. While President Obama didn't cause the leak, the public has grown increasingly angry with how the White House has handled the crisis, which is seen as increasingly incompetent and hands offish. For whatever reason the White House has ceded control of the clean up, and operations to stop the leak to BP. While perhaps BP has the best deep water subs and machinery to attempt a novel engineering solution to stop the leak, BP's handling of cleanup may be putting the health of fishermen at risk, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5456458/bp_oil_spill_poses_huge_health_risk.html?cat=5.

The general anger and hostility of BP's CEO, Tony Hayward, towards the press is concerning. Given how BP normally operates, and how they are currently operating in the Gulf, it appears that in someways BP is a de facto government given how much impact the decisions it makes have. Protesters who rally against globalization are essentially protesting against large companies such as BP who are overly aggressive and damage the environment, and value profits over human safety.

Considering that BP has engaged in price fixing in the past, and heavy contribution to political campaigns, BP might be considering changing their response to the oil spill to harm the political party in power in Washington, meaning the democrats. President Obama has already pledged stiff regulations for oil companies, however, a republican takeover in the Senate or House could in theory slow down efforts to make those changes. Would it be even remotely possible that BP might slow down the clean up, or even the capping operation on the sea's floor in order to damage President Obama's image? BP makes billions of dollars in revenue each quarter, and most likely has enough money to cover the long term cost of much of the oil spill.

Given that the legal case may take years to litigate, and the fact that President Obama has publicly declared to make BP pay for the costs associated with the spill, BP may have decided that they support a change in leadership. After all the president could have framed the recent tragedy as an accident, but instead rightfully choose to blame BP.

Perhaps the potential for a BP conspiracy is enough to justify the White House more fully taking charge of the debacle in the gulf.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/us/06spill.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/05/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T1