BP Lobbied Brits Ahead of Lockerbie Bomber Release

UPDATE from the Washington Examiner Morning Reads:

The Hill -- Senate Democrats blame BP and Britain for Lockerbie bomber’s release

The well is capped, but not capped, as the feds and BP continue to squabble over the safety of clamping down the new lid. At one point, BP even stopped drilling on the relief wells for safety fears.

It’s hard to get people to work together when each discussion is part of a criminal investigation being led by one of the parties.

But the effort to nail BP took an interesting turn Wednesday as the Senate delegations from New York and New Jersey suggested that the British government sought the release of Libyan Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi at the behest of the oil company, then locked in negotiations with the Quaddafi regime over a $900 million oil project.

The Senators admitted a circumstantial case, but did not stint in demonizing BP and, by extension, the British government for trading the release of a convicted terrorist for oil leases.
This is ticklish for President Obama in two ways.

First, PM David Cameron is headed to Washington for a White House visit next week. To have four members of Obama’s party pushing hard on such an unflattering story will make their reunion a little more awkward

Second, it’s believed that the Obama administration had at least a heads up, if not a sign off, on the release of al-Megrahi, whose terminal illness has seemingly abated in the desert climes of his homeland. If BP lobbied Gordon Brown’s government, did it also lobby Obama’s? Did the ample access provided by being the favorite Democratic energy company make the task easier?

So far, the Senators are only asking Hillary Clinton to investigate herself, but these things have a way of taking on lives of their own.

Writer Alexander Bolton explains:

“On Tuesday, the four Democratic senators sent a letter to Clinton demanding an investigation, writing, ‘Evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster seems to suggest that BP would put profit ahead of people — its attention to safety was negligible, and it routinely underestimated the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf. The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profits?’

Lautenberg has also asked Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) to hold a hearing on the decision to free al-Megrahi.”
__________________________

The release of the Lockerbie Bomber never made a lot of sense especially when they used 'he was on his death bed' but when he got off the plane, he looked just fine. Knowing that BP was partially behind this doesn't shock us that much because our impression of BP prior to the spill was not very high. They seem to have put profits over safety for years as witnessed by the BP refinery fire in 2005 at Texas City which killed 15 workers and injured over 170. They had numerous safety violations at this refinery but chose to ignore.

That is why when in the spring of 2009 when the former Minerals Management Office granted them waivers on safety inspections, it made no sense. Neither did BP changing procedures for cementing days before the explosion and ignoring the pressure numbers when they could have evacuated the rig. Once again it saved money but at what cost in terms of lives and creating an ecological disaster in the Gulf and to the Gulf states?

It is also why we questioned Obama and his Administration allowing BP to be in charge of stopping the spill and the clean-up, ignoring the plans in place in 1994 to deal with this type of explosion, putting the Coast Guard in charge not the Navy, and turning down assistance from foreign countries, oil producers, and renowned professors in the oil and gas community for starters. At the same time Obama refused to grant the requests of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for weeks and then only approved a small portion of those requests. Why weren't the booms readily available as required by the 1994 plan which is still in place? Why didn't they allow the skimmers in place right away? A lot of questions with no answers.

It is not only BP which acted in a reckless manner putting dollars over safety but the Obama Administration allowed them to continue without seeming to care what was happening in the Gulf for weeks. Then their answer was to put a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf for six months until the Interior Department was satisfied with their plans for a disaster when the other oil companies have not had 1/10th the safety problems of BP and have their plans in place. Salazar doesn't have a clue but yet is planning to issue a 2nd Moratorium after the 1st one was overturned by the Courts. The economy in Louisiana is suffering already because of the spill and now Obama wants to kill it more.

Obama has sent $2B to Brazil for their offshore drilling for Petrobaus, but by the actions of this Administration, they want to cripple our offshore drilling operations with their useless moratoriums. Is it a matter of Obama and Salazar telling the petroleum producers that "we are in charge and you will do what we say?" or is there an ulterior motive behind all of this. The six-month moratorium (could go longer) that they want to put in place will lead to more drilling leaving the Gulf and require more import of oil from foreign sources who do not have the best interest of the United States at heart. What did Obama promise the Saudi King after bowing early in his Administration?

Where is Obama? He hasn't spoken again for days about the disaster. Must be time for another vacation because the man is working too hard out raising dollars for Democrats. What if President Bush would have done that during a disaster? The media would have been relentless how he was neglecting the duties of President. But what do we hear now? Crickets chirping out of the media on Obama's lack of interest on the Gulf disaster.

BP Lobbied Brits Ahead of Lockerbie Bomber Release

LONDON (July 15) -- Amid a new U.S. furor over trading a terrorist for commercial considerations, BP confirmed today that it had lobbied the British government in late 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya prior to the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. The London-based petroleum giant said it had voiced concerns that the slow pace of negotiations risked impacting an offshore drilling deal with Moammar Gadhafi's North African country.

"BP told the U.K. government that we were concerned about the slow progress that was being made in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya," BP said in a statement. "We were aware that this could have a negative impact on U.K. commercial interests, including the ratification by the Libyan government of BP's exploration agreement."The company's statement appears to have been prompted by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's announcement on Tuesday that she was considering a request by four senators to investigate whether BP pushed for last year's release of Megrahi in exchange for lucrative drilling concessions off the Libyan coast.

"Evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster seems to suggest that BP would put profit ahead of people -- its attention to safety was negligible and it routinely underestimated the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf," read a letter sent to Clinton by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York, and Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. "The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profits?"

Read More at AOL News