BP's Poster Child Hayward Moves On 18 Million Richer

It was announced by the British and American news sources that Tony Hayward has been "mutually" relieved of his position as BP's CEO by their Board of Directors, although reportedly 18 MILLION richer for his efforts.

Mr. Hayward has been the poster child for BP since the disaster which claimed 11 American lives, and the BP Board in another public relations attempt it appears, has chosen an American for the pilot position of this London based global giant who will be charged with managing all future efforts with respect to the ongoing oil containment (how many new caps will it take?) and cleanup off Louisiana's shores before the spill reaches Greenland by next spring.

Another ploy for the American public, apparently, since although Mr. Hayward definitely was missing a "sensitivity chip" with respect to his scripted appearance before a Congressional Board of Directors over the incident, and also his faux pas in released statements about the ongoing cleanup efforts, his ouster and replacement by an American does appear to be so much of a publicity move mainly for the consumption of the U.S. press most of all and their ongoing spins.

Who have continued and failed to ask the fundamental questions throughout this now three month disaster.

Just how and why did our Congress give mineral rights to a foreign global corporation to America's offshore oil reserves, when we are and have been fighting wars in the Persian Gulf and now Iraq and Afghanistan also to primarily secure "lease rights" for the British over those oil reserves (and, of course, minimize Israel's perceived threat, a country which has enough nuclear power to wipe out at least that half of the world many times over), much of which was lost when the Shah of Iran was removed from power back in the 1970's and the Ayatollah gained control of that country's government.

Just why is America buying not only foreign crude oil from the Middle East, but also now refined barrels from the British of its own oil, taxed at that, in this ongoing partnership with this global corporation that has now resulted in the loss of 11 American lives due to their negligence and a loosey goosey oversight policy by the U.S. regulatory agencies over this global giant whose is now responsible for two major accidents?

I mean, U.S. domiciled oil and gas corporations are better watched than apparently this foreign one was or has been.

It seems BOTH Washington and BP executives and managers were asleep at the wheel, and there are so many unanswered questions left which led to this disaster, and the initial containment efforts thereafter with Washington putting BP in charge of the cleanup once again without oversight, it is truly astounding.

Add to that this presidents arrogance then denying Constitutional due process rights to the American victims of this disaster through the establishment of that "reserve" fund and it appears more and more that Washington is more interested in protecting this foreign global corporation's bottom lines and future federal and state gas tax revenues than it is in actually actively getting this spill contained forthwith, and protecting both America's mineral reserves, and American lives and businesses in the Gulf region.

BP has a huge presence in Louisiana and New Orleans, with the Brits primarily owning many of those older homes in the French Quarter and the Garden District, especially post Katrina (over which the actual events surrounding the breaking of those levees flooding the poorer areas of New Orleans while that "release" instead protected the Quarter and those Brits properties, has caused much local buzz in Louisiana with lawsuits flying with now new building standards and ordinances causing even more of those Americans whose homes were affected to lose their properties now five years later who were left high and dry after those waters receded and with the expense then of these "ex post facto" laws which have majorly impacted those who owned those little bayou fishing shanties without central air).

I mean most of those people cannot get loans to rebuild those shanties, but the developers aren't having much trouble getting financing for redevelopment of many of those areas - and high density housing does bring in more revenue to the state and local coffers, after all, rather than those sleepy little fishing villages along the bayou did.

Just how many barrels of extra oil under those leases has BP sailed out of the Port of New Orleans at this point in order to refine, and then sell back to the American people while Washington and the Southeastern states collect all that extra tax revenue levied on those domestic barrels that have been outsourced for Britain's ultimate gain?

Or is BP also, as a foreign domiciled corporation, exempt from actually paying those gas corporate taxes unlike American based oil and gas corporate entities?

Outsourcing our oil and mineral rights?

Just where is that power enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, since it would appear that this is one "free trade" agreement that is nothing more than a "gimme" to the British at the cost of the American people, also controlling then the price all Americans pay at the pump under "global" market prices.

For their own oil?

Trade agreements were to be mutually beneficial under the common law upon which this country's government is based at least on a "need" basis, although "free trade" wasn't meant to be "free" at all insofar as duties and import taxes on those trade agreements with foreign entities, and it does appear that the British arrogance has not changed much since '76 with respect to the Colonials.

Or the Tories on the Hill who are letting the Brits continue to call the shots, including apparently the newest CEO tagged by the British to continue their publicity campaigns, and damage control while they scam some more of the Americans wealth and precious resources - both mineral, and wildlife (and businesses, homes and lives in this instance).

Washington appears content with the fines it is collecting over this disaster, while serving up its citizenry once again to the Brits who are, after all, hiring those adjusters in order to settle the claims without also any oversight.

Just why haven't those illegal leases been pulled at this point since from news reports, BP also has a big deal going on in Alaska too.

And I wonder how many of the MSM corporate owners own shares in BP due to continuing to carry the spins, without asking the right questions?

And is it just me, or doesn't Tony Hayward look almost like a twin of that actor who played Tony Blair in the movie, "The Queen?"

I hear his next gig is in Russia, after collecting his "golden parachute" payout approved by the BP Board, a better fit it would appear, so he can get his "life back" with a pension, exit bonus and renegotiable salary to boot.

And I'm waiting to see how American this new American BP CEO really is.

Or whether he, too, is just another wannabe Brit, and royal pain in the a** actor with a Yank accent whose faux pas will get wider media publication as a result, or worse than Hayward so that Hayward's yachting while the oil spread will seem ever so more civilized.

The replacement: Robert Dudley.

Now how much more of a Brit by lineage can you be, although expect the Southern drawl to kick in since he did, after all, reside in Mississippi for a time during his tenure with BP which is being played up in the media for all it's worth. Now it is even being reported by the Christian Science Monitor that he actually was "born in Mississippi."

I wonder, truth or desperation with this newest detail? The roots of the surname "Dudley" certainly do run deep in Britain, back to the 14th century, it appears.

It was also reported that BP is a source of national pride in Britain since they hold the wealth of a good percentage of the Brits with investments in their pension plans (the royal family did own it up through the 90's, after all, so may have been by Parliamentary decree and another of their "takings" apparently for Britain's dominion).

I wonder how many Brits write for the AP, another one of those "global" corporations?