Posted on 12/19/2005 10:14:48 PM PST by HAL9000
I should have said that BP is precluded from operating. Alaska tanker company is the straw company that I mentioned. Due to the Jones act, no foreign company can
own and operate a shipping company that operates between US ports. Alaska tankers was set up to take over ARCO Marine, because BP wasn't allowed to operate it. But the gov't wouldn't even let that happen and made them sell it along with the Alaska interests to Phillips.
I should have said that BP is precluded from operating. Alaska tanker company is the straw company that I mentioned. Due to the Jones act, no foreign company can
own and operate a shipping company that operates between US ports. Alaska tankers was set up to take over ARCO Marine, because BP wasn't allowed to operate it. But the gov't wouldn't even let that happen and made them sell it along with the Alaska interests to Phillips. Alaska tankers has built some new double hulled tankers but they don't compare to the ones that CONOCO has. BP is so cheap that they didn't even put in an elevator.
And SeaRiver Maritime is owned by ExxonMobil Corporation.
BP owns 25% of Alaska Tanker Company.
25% is probably the maximum amount allowed, but BP runs the company. That's why I called it a straw company. It was set up to skirt the law. BP had designs on ARCO Marine for years, prior to the take over of ARCO. They were trying to convince ARCO to form a sort of voluntary merger of transportation companies, but BP wanted to run the new merged company. BP thought that ARCO was not bottom line oriented enough to suit them, but didn't want the competition. There really isn't enough business for two marine companies on the west coast. (Sea River does not restrict their trade to just the West Coast.)
I would really like to know more about a US Shipbuilder building the first LNG ship in the US.
I don't understand why you are so aggressively, dogmatic in you defense of BP. The company is a fascist, global giant that poses a threat to capitalism. Restricting trade is part of their MO.
BP once threatened to destroy my husband in open court if he testified against them and EXXON in the EXXON Valdez spill. My husband was the Environmenatal guy for ARCO marine at the time and had run an oil spill drill that almost exactly predicted the actual spill, six months before the occurance. He warned BP and EXXON that they were unprepared for a catastrophic spill and that their contigency plans were nothing but paper tigers. I hate BP.
Why, I don't know the name, but we have an archetect's model of the tanker that the ship was based on.
I should have added to the story about the Valdez spill, that BP subpoened my husband's computer to get his notes, but my husband didn't have a lap top at the time and all his notes were hand written. He still has a whole notebook, full of documentation of all his dealings with BP and Exxon, from that time period.
To use your words, I am aggressively dogmatic against spreading false information about the industry the feeds, clothes and provides shelter for my family. You have contradicted yourself several time in the above posts.
Only if you parse my wording. You obviously have no understanding of the Jones act and are trying very hard to trip me up by parsing my statements. Typical BP type behavior. Much like BP claiming a thirteen year safety record that belonged to ARCO, when in reality, BP had owned another refinery in the county in that same period, where two deaths occurred. Parse and twist to benefit THE COMPANY.
Post one link showing an LNG ship has been built in the US.
Will you please point out even one single statement I've made in this thread defending BP?
Not to mention add words to articles. But the reason is crystal:
"I hate BP." -Eva
Your remarks regarding the 25% share that BP owns in ATC appear as an attempt to trip me up. 25% is hardly a controlling interest. You sir, are the one who didn't know what he was talking about, yet you continued to try to trip me up. The only reason could be in defense of BP.
I can tell you that nearly all the former ARCO management, that are now working for BP, have no respect for the company and are just putting in time until they can retire.
The last thing anybody would want to do is bring up safety from a ConocoPhillips standpoint. I can assure you of that.
That is a long story, mostly based on conditions following the take over. I am not at liberty to discuss due to on-going legal suits.
Not just ARCO (very few left now) but mostly old Amoco managers. And one of the main reasons for it is because those old 'cowboys' in the pipeline field are having their feet held to the fire to obey Health, Security, Safety and Environmental (HSSE) rules that they never even knew existed. (or acted like it anyway)
Well, down here, the reason is more or less the opposite, it is too much emphasis on bottom line, and bully tactics.
What area is 'down here' might I ask?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.