Mike Papantanio:It's not even close. Look, our experts tell us that the best analysis for BP -- we are talking between $60-80 billion, which sounds like a lot of money, but in the big picture, this is a $115-billion company. They are way undervalued marketwise. They have staying power because they have assets that are the perennial kind of sources of money. They are always going to be there.
And so, even though that sounds like a big number, it really isn't. And I don't think anybody went into this with their eyes closed, thinking $20 billion was going to be enough it's not. Feinberg surely understood; he is very sophisticated. This is going to affect people in a diverse way, from a prioritize standpoint. You know they've lost their boat, they can't make the payment on their boat, they are losing their home, they can't feed their family that's what this $20-billion trust fund is for. And I think he [Feinberg] will prioritize it.
Kathleen Wells:And then there will be subsequent damages, because with the dispersants we are seeing personal injury damages -- health concerns.
Mike Papantonio:Riki Ott has incredible history of data. I was with him yesterday. The stories he tells are just phenomenal. It's serious. So, yeah, that's a whole different claim.
Kathleen Wells:Are you in Louisiana right now?
Mike Papantonio:I'm in Pensacola right now, and it's certainly not as affected as Louisiana, but from a tourist's standpoint, this area is dead -- the harm has already been done. We have tar balls already coming up on the beach. We have total slick that is three or four miles off shore. Everything is there [so] that a family in Topeka is not going to say: "Hey, kids, let's load up the station wagon and go to Pensacola."
Kathleen Wells:President Obama, in his speech, characterized BP's conduct as reckless. Do you think that characterization is accurate?
Mike Papantonio:I think it was kind. It's criminal! Listen, we are so upside down in the way we view this picture. This is a company that already has a history of being a felon they killed 15 people over in Texas City; they pled the felonies. Shortly after that, they had to plead to a $350-million fine for price-fixing.
They are in business with a company that had to plead to a $500-million fine for bribery, a company that the GAO looked at, which is Halliburton, a company that the GAO determined overcharged taxpayers by $5 billion -- a company, that allowed supervisory employees to rape and sodomize a 20-year-old employee and lock her up in a container for 24 hours so she couldn't tell her story.
These are the people we are dealing with.
So, when I use the word criminal, a reporter that is not used to dealing with corporations like this, their first reaction is: That's an odd characterization. But I deal with them all the time and I deal with corporations that aren't criminal.
This is a criminal corporation. They are sociopaths in the way they view the world. They are predatory, and the President was very kind to them when he merely called them reckless. They are well beyond reckless.
Kathleen Wells:But will they face criminal responsibility/liability?
Mike Papantonio:If they don't, it will be a travesty. We throw people in jail for carrying around five ounces of marijuana, and they can go to jail in excess of a year. And here, we've killed 11 people, and for the people responsible not to go to prison will be a travesty of justice.
Simply because they are dressed up in an Armani suit and expensive shoes and a silk tie doesn't mean they are not criminals. It simply means we see them differently: They are not in an L.A. hood; they look different; they look like business people.
I've been in courtrooms with many corporations like this, and I've been in courtrooms with corporations that don't function like this: They are not sociopaths; they are not predatory; they are simply negligent.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
