BP Loses $17 Billion, CEO Gets Life Back

As was reported over the weekened, BP CEO Tony Hayward, famous for complaining about how the Gulf of Mexico oil spill had eaten into his private time, is officially being pushed to the side. The news comes on the same day the petroleum giant posted a record $17 billion quarterly loss.

Parting words from the Tone-Bone:

The Gulf of Mexico explosion was a terrible tragedy for which — as the man in charge of BP when it happened — I will always feel a deep responsibility, regardless of where blame is ultimately found to lie… BP will be a changed company as a result of Macondo and it is right that it should embark on its next phase under new leadership.

As a parting gift, Hayward will be nominated as a nonexecutive director of TNK-BP, the company’s Russian business.

Hayward is set to be replaced by U.S.-born exec Robert Dudley, who is currently in charge of BP’s cleanup efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP Posts $17 Billion Loss, Confirms Hayward Departure [NY Times]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. ShruggingGalt says:

    I wonder if the Libyan fiasco is also at play here; then again…look up TNK-BP – it’s not doing so well.

  2. Daverson says:

    When did Robert Dudley change his last name to Hayward?

  3. oldwiz65 says:

    17 billion an counting. Wonder what it will be after the lawsuits? BP will be tied up for years. The only reason BP is upset with the oil spill is that it impacts their profits. They could care less if they killed millions of fish, birds, and sea animals and destroyed the livelihood of fishermen and people living along the gulf. I wonder how many years it will take for the ecosystem to recover? 10? 20?

    • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

      Ask the victims of the Valdez spill. Their ecosystem is *still* massively screwed up. Barring some massive leap in cleanup technology, this is going to be a problem for the gulf for 50 years.

    • Enduro says:

      I agree. It’s time to multiply all the fines related to environmental spills so they are proportional to the size of the company. These million dollar fines don’t affect these companies. Swap the m with a b and now we’ve got their attention.

      • jurupa says:

        And yet this already has the attention of BP. The real problem is what are we going to do to fix the government end of things. In case you forgot the government regulators didn’t exactly do their end of the job to make sure the rig was up to code and what have you.

        • Enduro says:

          There needs to be fear there too, no doubt. No kick backs, no working in the same industry you’ve been policing after you leave your government job and perhaps criminal charges (the industry too) given the potential for death and destruction.

          But fear of huge fines will help the “self-regulation” the right is always preaching have some teeth.

  4. Nick1693 says:

    Will he still be on 30 Rock? :D

  5. Narmical says:

    I don’t really understand why Leaders do this or why outsiders like this.

    He did not solely cause the spill so that can’t be it. What did he do that makes you think he should no longer be the CEO?

    • ShruggingGalt says:

      Probably his public comments made after the fact.

      Also, like I mentioned before, there is more details coming out about Libya and BP, so I’m wondering if there is more at play here. And he’s becoming a defacto fall guy for all of BP’s problems.

    • Mr. Pottersquash says:

      his handling of the oil spill cost BP some major PR. Ppl are protesting BP gas and their name is now mud. Sure, some of this was outside of his control, but some of it was due to his own direct actions. I am from La, there was a point where ppl were openly calling for him to be arrested and held in LA until the spill was cleaned up….and if you know anything about LA law theres a chance we actually have a provision to do it.

    • grucifer says:

      Because ultimately the CEO is in charge. If he had even heard rumors of short-cuts being taken he should have put a stop to it and made sure the people under him were doing things the right way not the fast way.

      If such a failure takes place it’s best to get rid of the old and bring in the new. You have to hope the new is going to pay more attention and make better decisions.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      As the de facto public face of the company after the disaster, he seemed to lack empathy or understanding of just how bad of a situation it was – his poorly worded and poorly timed comments made him seem extremely unsympathetic to the people who were most affected.

    • josephpr says:

      Since there was nothing he could do or say (short of inventing a time machine and preventing the spill in the first place), he (or anyone else) was just the punching bag. The only acceptable narrative is “callous, evil, BRITISH! despoiler of America’s coastline.”
      They kept him in place since he (or anyone else) would be toast anyway; why waste another executive?.
      Naming an American is a brilliant tactic; as for station boycotts, BP would probably be happy to let that business go anyway, and just supply others, and with no corporate BP face at the pump, make boycott attempts even more ineffective than they are now.

    • ARP says:

      Because CEO’s set the tone of an organization, decides its priorities, and (at a higher level) decides how important safety is. If, from the top down, employees knew there were serious consequences if they didn’t follow all safety proceedures/requirements, this may not have happened. BP would have strong armed the other companies to play by the book and even spend the $500k for the valve that other countries require.

      BTW- until I can have the same excuses as a corporation for my failures and get paid $1M to have them, my sympathy only runs so deep.

    • jurupa says:

      And yet all of the comments here got it wrong. He is no longer the CEO because he caused BP stock to drop to much. It has nothing to do with the bad PR mess BP has nor how they are handling it. It comes down to money plain and simple.

  6. Tim says:

    Can anyone think of some good “In Soviet Russia …” jokes?

  7. HoJu says:

    Whats the difference between executive director and nonexecutive director? Private washroom key?

  8. narcs says:

    A 1 million a year pension for Tone-Bone ain’t too bad. Good luck buddy.

  9. QuantumRiff says:

    So this has been rumored for weeks.. But the company denied it, and said flat out a few times that it was not true. So what I am wondering, is how can companies deny, or flat out lie about these things, and not get in trouble. If I was a shareholder, I might be kind of upset if the company was lying to me about what it was going to do with its CEO. I’ve seen this happen far too often at other companies and have never been able to figure out why this is okay?

  10. Coelacanth says:

    Hope he enjoys a nice Siberian winter!

  11. dolemite says:

    Anyone recall when they said they would only spend around 3-6 billion in compensation, and 14 billion total for cleanup efforts for the entire spill? We still don’t have it capped and they are already 3 billion over their max estimate. I think my estimate was more around 60 billion, just as a top of my head guess. I’m thinking more like 100 billion since they are going to have to actually finishing cleaning up, then pay the wages for all those people for the rest of their lives (since those fish are all dead and won’t be back in the next 20 years).

  12. diasdiem says:

    Wow, so they’re exiling him to Siberia? Awesome.

  13. CWG85338 says:

    At least if you spill something in Siberia, it freezes in place. Even this bozo can clean it up.

  14. Horselady says:

    I wish it was 170 billion…….

  15. El_Fez says:

    The Gulf of Mexico explosion was a terrible tragedy

    *WAS* a terrible tragedy? Past tense? How about ongoing and will be ongoing for years! What a fucking tool.

    • drizzt380 says:

      Well, its not exactly exploding anymore. The explosion was a terrible tragedy. And it led to the poisoning of gulf.

  16. dragonfire81 says:

    Anyone else love the awesome tag for this one?

  17. Paladin_11 says:

    I haven’t looked at the quarterly report, so take this with a grain of salt…

    I call shenanigans on the $17 billion loss. Are they simply counting the one time charge of $20 billion that the Obama administration demanded from them to cover potential damages? Theoretically they could get some of that money back if damages don’t exceed that amount. Declaring this loss does give them a huge tax benefit for the quarter though… in a way, shifting some of the recovery costs to the taxpayer…

    • montusama says:

      Is this lost from BP America or BP plc (UK)?
      Also I think it’s stupid that companies can get a tax break for losing money.

      • drizzt380 says:

        They don’t exactly get a tax break. If they don’t make any money, they don’t have any income. The income tax tends to tax income.