Tarheeltalker

Should you boycott BP ?

There has  certainly been  a lot of talk about that very thing. And there are probably  people doing that. After all, their stock has dropped some 16% in recent weeks. Boycotting a company that has allowed such a disaster to occur and that seems unable to fix it or fix it quickly enough has a certain populist appeal. Boycotts have happened before as a way to force a company to do something or other.

But what does a boycott of  BP accomplish? Well, hurts their bottom line , costs them money and maybe in the minds of some boycotters “gets them back” for what they have done not done  the case may be. And I can certainly empathize with those folks in the Gulf  Coast area, in Louisiana, Mississippi who want nothing to do with the company.

Projecting the boycott’s results out there, one could envision a significant loss of revenue for the company. What are  they doing with  a lot of that revenue right now? Of course, the ongoing clean up with lawsuits etc sure to follow. Locally, an article in the Daily Advance indicated that buying habits here have been largely unaffected. Admittedly, the sample is small and unscientific. On the other hand, the threat of new penalties  by the Obama Administration could be the real engine driving down the stock price.

So, sadly the spill and its effects continue with even modest  clean up  results  doing little to alleviate concerns about the long-term impact on the Gulf and beyond. A very tough situation indeed.

Advertisements

June 9, 2010 - Posted by | Business, economy | , , , , , , ,

4 Comments »

  1. Actually, I could give one argument to boycott BP. In order to survive, BP must maintain relationship with it’s customers. However, BP’s allegiance is only to their shareholders, The citizens of the gulf and the United States hold no value to them EXCEPT as customers. We must remind BP that the customer is also important.

    Comment by Marla Louise | June 9, 2010 | Reply

  2. The more money it cost BP the higher our oil becomes! Obama should have sent a task force asap to keep the oil off the shores. The military has oil skimmers that could be used to skim the oil off the top of the water. I worked at one of the largest fuel depots the Navy has and during my career have picked oil up using these skimmers. Quickness is the word! Someone needs to tell Obama that he was slow to react. Sending lawyers to the oil spill area was not the smartest thing for a president to do! I heard today that they don’t have a ship (tanker) in the area big enough to load what oil they’re catching at the well to load it into, another thing that the Navy could have provided! Shame on our government! BP should bare the cost of the clean up, but that could be settled after the job been completed! What say you?

    Comment by goodtimepolitics | June 9, 2010 | Reply

    • Good stuff gtp. Too bad you cannot go down there and give them a hand- lol- Plenty of lawyers, too few tankers. Another Obama triumph, huh?

      Comment by tarheeltalker | June 11, 2010 | Reply

  3. Now 60 days later Obama sends the military and skimmers to help with the oil spill, yes he’s a day late and a dollar short….the oil is inside the marshes where it’s harder to clean up! Obama and the democrats are more interested in pushing their Cap and Tax agenda. He shut down 30 oil wells. We can soon look for $5.00 to $10.00 per gallon for gas, how many people can afford that price?

    Comment by goodtimepolitics | June 16, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: