285 replies to this topic

[McGuire]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, a recent Diane Rehm show on the BP oil spill was quite ridiculous.

Just curious.... what didn't you like about the Rehm episode? The panel was comprised of a WSJ reporter, a BP vice president, an independent energy consultant, and an environmental activist. Pretty well rounded I would think, on paper at least.

[dosco]

Just curious.... what didn't you like about the Rehm episode? The panel was comprised of a WSJ reporter, a BP vice president, an independent energy consultant, and an environmental activist. Pretty well rounded I would think, on paper at least.

To be fair, I only started listening to that program when the BP VP had about 5 minutes left and then signed off.

Many of the callers sounded like loonies coming out of the woodwork.

The WSJ reporter and energy consultant sounded pretty reasonable, but I thought they got railroaded by the activist. One thing that I recall was a discussion about how "we shouldn't drill in the water unless we can be sure this will never happen again" (paraphrased). One of the panelists responded by saying, "there is no way anyone can guarantee that this will never happen again." I thought that part of the discussion could have been elaborated on by discussing the fact that we need energy and the tradeoffs between our needs and the environment. Instead that part of the conversation was dropped.

Another thing that I thought was ridiculous was the energetic discussion about "our addiction to oil." A well reasoned discussion about how affordable energy contributed to increasing our standard of living by facilitating mass-production, affordable goods, overall economic growth, etc etc etc. Some historical context about the struggle of humanity to survive and how warm food and shelter are core needs that require energy would have been nice as well. This could have been contrasted against the "cost" of our standard of living to the environment and what can be reaonably done in the future to balance energy needs and protecting the planet. Instead I heard several minutes that sounded like ranting with no "counter-opinion" or other informed discussion by the panelists ... as I think we've discussed before I often wonder if environmentalists think that we should eschew all things modern and go back to "living with nature" by dwelling in caves, using wood for fires, and the all the rest.

Edited by dosco, 09 June 2010 - 12:33.

[malbear]

One option that the US DOD have been looking at is generators in the army boots. Not entirely silly as you have a pre-supplied reciprocating power surce always available so storage can be minimised.

not too far away from my original rant "The fuel should be chocolate pudding mixed with honey rolled oats and dates, laced with brandy and coffee, about 2 KG, in addition to the normal field ration. The batteries should be the best lithium type rechargeable 1.5KG and the recharging mechanism similar to the windup radios in Africa or those windup torches but hooked up to leg motion with the option of neutral or hand winding .5 KG. "
I just like the chocolate pudding
I wonder if Iris inc actually has a running working prototype.
cheers
malbeare

Edited by malbear, 09 June 2010 - 17:18.

[McGuire]

Another thing that I thought was ridiculous was the energetic discussion about "our addiction to oil." A well reasoned discussion about how affordable energy contributed to increasing our standard of living by facilitating mass-production, affordable goods, overall economic growth, etc etc etc.

Can't we get all that from any oil company commercial?

Personally, I don't see the point of prefacing every discussion with that boilerplate. It presumes that disasters such as these are necessary to maintain our standard of living. To me, that is baloney. This catastrophe occurred only because BP failed to anticipate this mode of well failure, compounding the error by failing to recognize the consequences of such a failure. In the process of responsible risk management to which you allude, the company gets an F minus minus. Beyond fail. Clearly, there never was any objective risk analysis. For this the company has earned the death penalty and is going to receive it.

We see this over and over in catastrophic failures in large systems. The consequences of the failure are too large or horrible to contemplate, so we simply stop looking in that direction in the hope that it never happens.

[dosco]

Can't we get all that from any oil company commercial?

Personally, I don't see the point of prefacing every discussion with that boilerplate.

If a panelist is going to start using the phrase "oil addiction" or "cheap energy addiction," then IMO the roots of the "addiction" ought to be explored. Otherwise it's inflammatory rhetoric.

It presumes that disasters such as these are necessary to maintain our standard of living. To me, that is baloney. This catastrophe occurred only because BP failed to anticipate this mode of well failure, compounding the error by failing to recognize the consequences of such a failure. In the process of responsible risk management to which you allude, the company gets an F minus minus. Beyond fail. Clearly, there never was any objective risk analysis. For this the company has earned the death penalty and is going to receive it.

Do you think that "zero mishaps" is a realistic/attainable goal? This is an interesting philosophical debate that I've been involved in (off and on) for several years.

We see this over and over in catastrophic failures in large systems. The consequences of the failure are too large or horrible to contemplate, so we simply stop looking in that direction in the hope that it never happens.

Indeed. Which points out a series of problems with humans - short memory, they think that "this doesn't apply to me," peer pressure, don't know what they don't know, etc.

Which is precisely why if it is a human designed system, it will fail in some manner. The question is will the failure be prevented or not, and if not how bad will the consequences be.

[McGuire]

Do you think that "zero mishaps" is a realistic/attainable goal? This is an interesting philosophical debate that I've been involved in (off and on) for several years.

I think that's a total red herring on the part of BP, a means to obfuscate or divert the discussion. We aren't talking about a puddle of unleaded on the driveway. This is the largest accidental crude oil release in American history. Of course there are going to be environmental accidents. However, the only way to manage these incidents is by making the acceptable standard zero -- just as in zero defect manufacturing. Establish an acceptable failure rate and it will be met every time -- and most often exceeded.

Again, disasters on this scale are not necessary to maintain our standard of living. This catastrophe was not caused by an unforeseeable convergence of unpredictable events. This was no fluke. Only days into the fiasco we learned that this well was an accident waiting to happen. Accepted safety practices were not merely neglected; they were willfully flouted. I don't want to hear BP say that catastrophes like this are part of its cost of doing business. That's a lie. And it's also a very cynical mendacity, just another way of saying that profits trump everything -- including the public welfare. Let's be clear: this is not a case of the environment vs. need. This is the environment vs. greed.

If the cost of deep-ocean drilling is a periodic environmental nightmare of this magnitude, then deep-ocean drilling cannot possibly be justified. It makes no sense in any rational cost/benefit analysis. One estimate of the daily spillage is 25,000 barrels a day. As we have seen, this volume is sufficient to seriously damage the gulf's entire ecosystem and eliminate perhaps one or two million livelihoods for years to come. Meanwhile, in terms of usage, this volume amounts to only about 90 seconds of the USA's daily oil consumption. In terms of cost vs benefit, it's insane. If this really makes sense to anyone, "addiction" doesn't begin to describe our economic and moral calculus at this moment -- all our values are then twisted and perverted by the lust for oil.

[carlt]

I think that's a total red herring on the part of BP, a means to obfuscate or divert the discussion. We aren't talking about a puddle of unleaded on the driveway. This is the largest accidental crude oil release in American history. Of course there are going to be environmental accidents. However, the only way to manage these incidents is by making the acceptable standard zero -- just as in zero defect manufacturing. Establish an acceptable failure rate and it will be met every time -- and most often exceeded.

Again, disasters on this scale are not necessary to maintain our standard of living. This catastrophe was not caused by an unforeseeable convergence of unpredictable events. This was no fluke. Only days into the fiasco we learned that this well was an accident waiting to happen. Accepted safety practices were not merely neglected; they were willfully flouted. I don't want to hear BP say that catastrophes like this are part of its cost of doing business. That's a lie. And it's also a very cynical mendacity, just another way of saying that profits trump everything -- including the public welfare. Let's be clear: this is not a case of the environment vs. need. This is the environment vs. greed.

If the cost of deep-ocean drilling is a periodic environmental nightmare of this magnitude, then deep-ocean drilling cannot possibly be justified. It makes no sense in any rational cost/benefit analysis. One estimate of the daily spillage is 25,000 barrels a day. As we have seen, this volume is sufficient to seriously damage the gulf's entire ecosystem and eliminate perhaps one or two million livelihoods for years to come. Meanwhile, in terms of usage, this volume amounts to only about 90 seconds of the USA's daily oil consumption. In terms of cost vs benefit, it's insane. If this really makes sense to anyone, "addiction" doesn't begin to describe our economic and moral calculus at this moment -- all our values are then twisted and perverted by the lust for oil.

HURRAH

All our values are being twisted and perverted by GREED


Anyway , why do we need to waste any more resources on developing ways to kill each other

[mariner]

"Clearly, there never was any objective risk analysis. For this the company has earned the death penalty and is going to receive it".

I would suggest politely that such comments are a bit strong. Yes, BP has a poor record of safety in the USA but the current wave of attacks in the US led directly by the President is turning into a hysterical witch hunt. BP almost certainly has the financial resources to pay for any economic costs of the spill over the likely clean up period. The US president or attorney general have no legal right to try to stop it paying dividends as it is a UK registered company and demanding that it pays for unemployment pay to people laid off by the US government's decision to freeze offshore licences ranks roughly with the sort of demands on Oil companies made by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Such theats will, I fear cause a very nasty anti US backlash espeically as many UK pensioners rely on BP dividends for their income. That is also true of US companies with UK pension liabilities and, as about 39% of BP shareholders are in the USA a "death penalty " for BP will cause direct financial loss to milions of Americans too. BP actually employs twice as many people in the USA as it does in the UK so a "death" may well cause loss of many US jobs.

The danger in thse sort of attacks by politicians is shown by the news that part of the international banking community is now proposing that the Chinese company PetroChina buy up BP whilst it is under US government attack and thus cheap. So one possible outcome of all this rhetoric is that the US could end up with a significant part of its internal oil production in Chinese hands and as BP is legally registered outside the USA it would be powerless to stop such a takeover.

[dosco]

The danger in thse sort of attacks by politicians is shown by the news that part of the international banking community is now proposing that the Chinese company PetroChina buy up BP whilst it is under US government attack and thus cheap. So one possible outcome of all this rhetoric is that the US could end up with a significant part of its internal oil production in Chinese hands and as BP is legally registered outside the USA it would be powerless to stop such a takeover.

Talk about unintended consequences. Wowza.

[dosco]

Of course there are going to be environmental accidents. However, the only way to manage these incidents is by making the acceptable standard zero -- just as in zero defect manufacturing. Establish an acceptable failure rate and it will be met every time -- and most often exceeded.

What manufacturing operation has zero defects?

Again, disasters on this scale are not necessary to maintain our standard of living.

You have 2 arguments going on simultaneously.

I agree that BP looks to be massively negligent, and surely the investigation into the mishap(s) will illustrate this.

With regards to oil, perhaps this event will be the lever to force the gradual shutdown of oil rigs and will push us to alternatives. Frankly, I doubt it, with India and China as growing superpowers. A more likely scenario is that as China and India become modernized their "addiction to cheap energy" will force the price of crude so high as to make it untenable for Americans to drive inefficient vehicles. The demand for alternatives will spark inventions and push the 1st world on to alterntaive energy sources. Something to keep in mind, though, is that wars are fought over energy resources.

[J. Edlund]

Don't hear steam engines discussed much these days. I wonder why (with head below the parapet)?

'Steam engines', usually in the form of steam turbines produce a significant portion of the electricity and heat we use. But they are generally limited to stationary installation and larger ships. To provide a high efficiency they use superheated steam under very high pressures, and the steam is condensed before returning to the boiler, nuclear reactor or whatever is used to provide heat. Using a steam temperature of 600 degC, typical of a boiler, gives an efficiency of around 45%, using a steam temperature of 280 degC, typical of a nuclear reactor, gives an efficiency of around 35%. Combined heat and power efficiencies can exceed 90%.

One of the main points of the discussion was that, in today's times, there has been little "radical technological change" as there was in the early/mid 20th century. The panelists were discussing ways to try and facilitate these changes so we can make the leap to "the next generation" or tech that will presumably also be "green" (low environmental impact).

I think they should have had a few more panelists, especially more guys with practical knowledge and perhaps even someone who didn't toe the line that the others were. One guy (a PhD professor type who also has a side gig blogging for The Atlantic) wasn't sure if Wankel engines are used in production cars or not(!!). Clearly an ivory-tower type with little practical knowledge.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, a recent Diane Rehm show on the BP oil spill was quite ridiculous.

I'm not sure if the programming is starting to suffer from groupthink, or if my perspective is changing. Or both.

As a technology matures the rate of development decrease. Most technologies we talk about here are very mature and there are well known methods to increase the performance of them. So today there are less radical technoligical changes, it's more about continuous improvements. Often the big issue is not the limits of the technology itself but what is cost effective to do, and if a technology isn't cost effective, there won't be an interrest for it.

Cost effectiveness is the main reason why we today waste so much energy. It's simply cheaper to waste energy than invest in more energy efficient technology, even when such technology exist and is well known. For instance, we waste huge amounts of energy heating and cooling our building even though better insulation which could significantly reduce the energy used for this purpose exist. When a building is cooled a heat pump is usually used, this heat pump consume about 1 kWh of electricity to produce a cooling effect of 2 kWh, the 3 kWh heat produced is just wasted outside the building. If we used a combined central heating/cooling system we could use all of the energy produced by the heat pump instead, we could use waste heat from powerplants and industries, natural cooling by seawater and so on. Centrally placed plants in an urban area could also use biofuels to produce combinations of synthetic biofuels, heat (and from heat also cooling) and electricity.

Similar we could produce much more energy efficient cars using known technologies. But in the end it is about cost effectiveness. If it cost less to use 2 kWh of energy to meet a need than it does to use 1 kWh it is the latter that will lose. The same applies to fossil fuels, if a kWh coal is cheaper than a kWh biomass the latter will lose.

We can make fossil fuels less competetive by adding a tax on them, similar, an energy tax can make it less economical to waste energy. There problem here is that poor people spend a larger portion of their income on energy (aswell as food). So energy can't just be clean, it needs to be cheap too.

Can't we get all that from any oil company commercial?

Personally, I don't see the point of prefacing every discussion with that boilerplate. It presumes that disasters such as these are necessary to maintain our standard of living. To me, that is baloney. This catastrophe occurred only because BP failed to anticipate this mode of well failure, compounding the error by failing to recognize the consequences of such a failure. In the process of responsible risk management to which you allude, the company gets an F minus minus. Beyond fail. Clearly, there never was any objective risk analysis. For this the company has earned the death penalty and is going to receive it.

We see this over and over in catastrophic failures in large systems. The consequences of the failure are too large or horrible to contemplate, so we simply stop looking in that direction in the hope that it never happens.

The well is equipped with a Blow Out Preventer or BOP just because accidents like this are known to happen. What nobody yet seems to have an answer to is why the BOP failed to activate. This is particulary serious since the BOP is the 'last line of defence'.

In any case, there is rarely one guilty part in a big accident. An accident are rarely a single event, but a chain of events that leads to the accident. And if this chain of events are stopped at any place the accident can be prevented. This accident no different and I think the blame have to be shared between BP, Transocean (the rig operator), suppliers of safety equipment that didn't work as it should have and the government body that have authorized the drilling, Mineral Management Service in this case. BP have the primary economical responsebility to pay the costs caused by the accident, but that is a different issue.

In all sorts of activity, including energy production there are also risks involved. The question is if those risks are motivated by the possible benefits. If it is, then the goal is to minimize the risks as much as technically and economically possible.

[McGuire]

I would suggest politely that such comments are a bit strong. Yes, BP has a poor record of safety in the USA but the current wave of attacks in the US led directly by the President is turning into a hysterical witch hunt.

No, my statement was literally true in every sense. There never was an objective risk analysis. How can I say this with absolute certitude? One of the requirements for drilling is to file the aforesaid analysis with the U.S. federal government, along with an emergency accident plan. This week that document for Deepwater Horizon was released to the public under our sunshine laws. Turns out it was a complete fabrication. BP simply took previous studies from other drilling sites and cut and pasted them together. So what part of my assessment do you find inaccurate or unfair?

No offense, but I don't give a rat's ass what the British people think about this catastrophe. In the first place, they would need to know something about it (beyond how it affects their dividends). Had the disaster occurred off the English coast, I'm sure attitudes would be remarkably different. Bring on the backlash. I'm sure all the shrimpers in Louisiana and hoteliers in Florida are staying up nights worrying what you think about them.

So far, BP has been getting off easy here. Witch hunt? The company has been evading its responsibility since this fiasco began. They still haven't come clean about anything, including the daily spillage rate. It's been one blatant lie after another. They were lying the day it occurred, they are lying today, and they will be lying tomorrow. They lie about the attempts to cap the well. They lie about the cleanup effort. They lie about their compensation to victims. Nothing they say so far has turned out to have any resemblance to reality. So you will forgive me for not taking the company in good faith. These are not simply businessmen who made mistakes. These are criminals, regardless of their country of origin. Any Americans working within BP who have any part of this are criminals as well.

In a truly moral world, this would be the solution: BP would be surrendered into receivership, broken up, and its assets distributed to the victims, with zero compensation for the officers and stockholders. This is the only way to give the victims anything approaching true compensation, as well as the best way to ensure that no oil company acts with such criminal recklessness again. If BP were an American company my view would be exactly the same. It's not in the least bit a nationalist issue for me, though it obviously is for you.

[meb58]

Risk = unknown and that's why we perform risk evaluations. But above what ever risk evaluation was or was not performed, BP's action following the explosion would have been critical to containing the spill. The fact that action on par with this tragedy did not occur says something about BP's ingnorance and arrogance.

mariner, with all due respect, any backlash against any of the countries bordering the Gulf is without conscious in my opinion. This incident will cause a catastrophic loss of wildlife, habitat and livelihood and those earning dividends from this company ought to stop and think for at least three seconds about the long term damage caused by their company. The US - and other Gulf contries - may not have a legal right to demand anything, but I think they certainly have the moral right to expect a very sensitive gesture. Define off-shore deep drilling? Seems to me any country, with or without a conscious, can park a ring of rigs just out side our waters...with the same potential ill affects. At what point does international drilling activity become US soveriegn interest? It seems to me that a very strong line needs to be drawn...if I were President one of my potential plans would inlcude a complete military take-over of that rig. A very strong line needs to be drawn or we accept the same from anyone along all of our coastal waters.

...England may well find this oil floating upon its shores if this stuff enters the Gulf Stream...perhaps the Chinese will do a better job...but if they decide to take of BP they inherit the cost of cleanup. Perhaps BP's strategy is to align with a partner it feels can stand up to any complaint the US might have...

I am sorry if I appear to fall off the deep end here, but I don't think we can balance the suffocating wildlife with dividends...in the end a rich and diversified ecosystem is much more important.

Edited by meb58, 10 June 2010 - 20:48.

[carlt]

How much of BP is British ?
I would guess about as much as most Multinational companies -
This is not a National issue -

One national issue that this might awaken [ hopefully] is the US general disregard / disdain for its exploitation and consumption [ greed ] of the globes natural resources especially oil

Will this have any bearing on the continued plan to invade Alaska for oil ?

[PJGD]

Until this disaster, I suspect (but obviously don't know) that BP's performance and those of their sub-contractors was essentially Standard Operating Procedure within the Industry so that this could have happened to just about any of the off-shore rigs. One would like to believe that everyone is scrutinizing their procedures now that it has been shown that the unthinkable can happen and they will be making the necessary changes. But no doubt there are other "black swan" risks out there waiting to happen.

Possibly the Brits are a little more sanguine about this event than the Gulf Coasters feel they should to be, since the worst drilling platform disaster to date was the American-owned Piper-Alpha that exploded off the coast of Britain in 1988.

I suppose it is SOP for politicians to grandstand to their constituents, but if someone had their boot on my throat, it would constrain me from getting on and fixing that which I had broken. As Joe Q Public, I would prefer to feel that the administration was deploying all available resources at their disposal to assist resolution rather than pandering to misplaced outrage. Yes, what happened is outrageous, but I feel reasonably confident that that sentiment is universally shared and thus the point only needs to be made once.

PJGD

[GreenMachine]

What is the shareholder /investment spread across the world, and the employment spread?

I have seen a newspaper report that says the bulk of both is US. Not that this should make any difference of course, but US interests will (also) be hurt in any precipitate punitative action against BP. (if the report is factually correct).

Just saying.

Edited by GreenMachine, 11 June 2010 - 11:21.

[McGuire]

Nearly 40 percent of BP's shares are held in the USA. The U.S. federal govt is BP's largest customer worldwide. British Petroleum is about as British as Cadbury Chocolates. This is in no way a nationalistic issue, as much as Fleet Street and some British politicians would like to make it one. Every word uttered by BP's British CEO or its American COO is a demonstrated falsehood. Why anyone would come to the defense of this lying pack of weasels is a puzzle, the most reliable supposition being they were manipulated.

[meb58]

I hope we do stay out of Alaska...unfortunately the disgregard/disdain will continue until we run out of oil...

How much of BP is British ?
I would guess about as much as most Multinational companies -
This is not a National issue -

One national issue that this might awaken [ hopefully] is the US general disregard / disdain for its exploitation and consumption [ greed ] of the globes natural resources especially oil

Will this have any bearing on the continued plan to invade Alaska for oil ?

[McGuire]

I suppose it is SOP for politicians to grandstand to their constituents, but if someone had their boot on my throat, it would constrain me from getting on and fixing that which I had broken. As Joe Q Public, I would prefer to feel that the administration was deploying all available resources at their disposal to assist resolution rather than pandering to misplaced outrage. Yes, what happened is outrageous, but I feel reasonably confident that that sentiment is universally shared and thus the point only needs to be made once.

PJGD

Nope, BP still isn't there. Not even close. They're not listening to anyone or keeping their word on anything. They don't get it, they don't want to get it, and they are not ever going to get it. Even now they are still dissembling and stonewalling with every fiber of their existence. Every word they have uttered and continue to utter is a blatant lie, from the volume of oil being spewed into the gulf daily to what the company is doing to limit the damage. They are still screwing around with all their transparent PR games even at this late date, when everyone knows they are lying. It's the most arrogant and cynical corporate behavior I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. That's why the company needs to be broken up and liquidated. It's a diseased corporate culture that can't be allowed to exist.

[McGuire]

I would suggest politely that such comments are a bit strong. Yes, BP has a poor record of safety in the USA but the current wave of attacks in the US led directly by the President is turning into a hysterical witch hunt. BP almost certainly has the financial resources to pay for any economic costs of the spill over the likely clean up period.

Well first, BP has a record not just for shoddy safety but for shady business practices in general, and not just in the USA but around the world. The current CEO was originally billed as the reformer, ironically.

BP has a moral obligation to suspend dividends until the extent of the damage can be determined and a system of compensation is established. As of today, the total liability could well exceed the net value of the company, let alone its ability or willingness to pay.

We have all seen how corporations often respond to liabilities of this magnitude. They make lots of promises, then stonewall every claim through the courts for decades by any means necessary. Meanwhile the officers and managers continue to draw their huge salaries and bonuses as the company's assets are peeled off one by one, often into the pockets of themselves and their associates. By the time the victims have their day in court, there is nothing left; often, the company no longer exists. The executives of the company have profited greatly despite the catastrophe, and often as a direct result of it. (Which is fairly impressive when you think about it, if morally repugnant.) Meanwhile, the victims get nothing except 10 or 20 years of legal harassment.

Will BP take this route if given the opportunity? We have no reason to believe it won't. So far in this catastrophe, these thieving pirates have lied, cheated and chiseled in every way imaginable, even when it serves no purpose. They do it just for practice. It's in their blood, they can't help it. They're weasels. This is who they are. This is what they do. They don't even think these practices are wrong; to them this is just clever business. We can't let them get away with it this time.

[blkirk]

Do you think that "zero mishaps" is a realistic/attainable goal? This is an interesting philosophical debate that I've been involved in (off and on) for several years.

Shell Oil certainly thinks so.

http://www.uacontrac...-zero_final.wmv

[dosco]

Shell Oil certainly thinks so.

http://www.uacontrac...-zero_final.wmv

Plenty of companies set goals for "zero mishaps" (similarly "zero defects" and "zero rework") ... the point of the philosophical debate is that if everyone is doing everything they can to prevent mishaps, sometimes "**** happens" and a mishap results.

The other end of the scale is "zero mishaps" as empty rhetoric ... leadership does not enforce standards and mishaps result due to negligence and stupidity. The :zero mishaps" makes for nice PR and warm fuzzies for incompetent or malicious managers.

There are also permutations that span the range of these examples. I wonder where Shell fits into that spectrum?

[Greg Locock]

Bhopal

[Canuck]

Some of the comments here are delusional. Short of intentional negligence on the part of BP for the express purpose of committing suicide, there's absolutely zero reason for them to do anything but try to stop the disaster in progres (unless of course you like conspiracy theories). It's astounding...actually it's not come to think of it, to read a bunch of arm-chair critics who know less about offshore drilling (or drilling in general) spouting off on how poorly BP is reacting as if they were doing sfa and don't really care.

-BP the greedy corporate entity cares enormously. To date they've seen over 70
billion (early last week, assuming more now) wiped out of their stock valuation. That's a lot of zeros by anyone's measure.
-BP, like all major corps has a significant amount of policy built solely as protection for their brand. BP offshore rigs have some of the most stringent safety regs in the industry. This from my co-workers that have worked on their platforms. As an Megacorp employee that is in this industry, I can say without any hesitation that any action which might damage the brand, directly or indirectly, through negligence, human error or willful violation is dealt with severely. This includes taking liberties with safety policies in the interest of "just getting it done", "shipping this quarter" or "making the numbers". Pressure to make numbers, get it done and ship it yesterday? Hell yes. Blind eye to bend the rules - absolutely not. I would be amazed if a company that lives and breathes an already controversial product in an incredibly risky environment had a policy, even unspoken, of taking liberties on a platform.

The cost to BP is enough to wipe them out. How can anyone suggest that the leaders of these companies would risk that much carnage, even if they were held to the max 75 million damages limit? I think some people see bigger boogymen than my manufactured-aids-as-population-control even. Talk about your tin-foil hats.

FWIW, as far as I'm aware, BP-USA Inc.is the company drilling in the Gulf, not BP proper.

Stonewalled claims...well that there is an American invention, grown out of a combination of corporate greed, shareholder greed and coffee that's too hot. In a society that litigates and sues anyone and everyone for anything, you don't really think BP, or anyone else for that matter, is going to make it easy do you? Their attitude is not one iota different than any other large corporation in business today, not one. Their job is to make money for shareholders and to keep money for shareholders. If you get hurt, we don't admit any guilt and here's your large shut-up cheque, now go away and keep quiet. This is the world my parent's generation built. Thank you very much.

[McGuire]

Some of the comments here are delusional. Short of intentional negligence on the part of BP for the express purpose of committing suicide, there's absolutely zero reason for them to do anything but try to stop the disaster in progres (unless of course you like conspiracy theories).

So in the hell what?

Here is the real problem: they have no way to stop this leak whether they want to or not. The technology to plug a well blowout like this -- one mile below the ocean surface -- does not exist. They knew that before they drilled and they drilled anyway.

They also lack any means to block a spill of this scale from reaching the shore to do billions of dollars in damages. They knew that too, but they went ahead and drilled anyway. Oh, and they also filed a report with the federal government that claimed they could.

BP knowingly created a monster it could not control. Here is the operational analog: your neighbor's trained pit bull attacks and kills your child, while he stands at the fence yelling at it to stop. "Sorry," he says. "I did what I could."

So while at this point they can do what they can to "try" to stop the disaster in progress, in fact they are powerless. Even the relief wells they hope to sink by sometime in August have at best a 50/50 shot. Meanwhile the well continues to spew 40,000 barrels per day (probably more, that's just the latest estimate) into the Gulf. When the estimate was ramped up yesterday, this went from a Top 10 spill in global history to a top 5. By Sept 1, this could well become the largest oil spill in history, surpassing even the Gulf war oil spill -- which was on purpose.

So sure, they'd love to stop the leak if they could. But they can't; it's simply not possible at this point. Nor can they do very much about the oil reaching the shore. Even in ideal conditions, booms and skimmers are at best 20 percent effective. And these conditions are far from ideal. The oil is not pooled on the surface as with a tanker spill. The oil is rushing up from one mile below the surface under tremendous pressure, mixed with natural gas and emulsifying with the seawater. Goes right under, over, around, and through the booms. Just as it will with sand berms. And at this moment there are at least two gigantic clouds of colloidal water, oil, and dispersant, the size of principalities, drifting around in the gulf. Scientists are tracking them now, even as BP denies their existence.

That's what is so heartbreaking about this disaster. BP can go through the motions and issue statements saying they are sorry and they are doing what they can -- pretty much as they are doing -- but really there is nothing to be done. The people of the Gulf coast and its environs are essentially screwed. Is BP going to own up to that fact and face the music for their actions? Hell, no. They are going to keep lying through their teeth that they are doing the best they can and everything is going to be all right.

The failure here is not in failing to foresee the accident and its consequences. The failure is in recognizing these risks and then simply dismissing them. There is your intentional negligence, right in front of your face.

Edited by McGuire, 12 June 2010 - 11:51.

[McGuire]

-BP, like all major corps has a significant amount of policy built solely as protection for their brand. BP offshore rigs have some of the most stringent safety regs in the industry.

Great, glad to hear it. In the first hearing, surviving rig workers identified at least seven live safety violations on the Deepwater Horizon when the blowout occurred, including two with the BOP. For example, the BOP has two sets of controls. One set wasn't working. Also, the annular seal on the BOP had been damaged but was not replaced.

A key part of this disaster was the decision to stop pumping drilling mud and start pumping seawater in order to save rig time. Recognizing the far greater risk, DPH personnel objected. They were overruled by the rig's company man (BP representative). So when we say BP's safety measures are some of the most stringent in the industry, what does that mean? They weren't as stringent as the measures DPH personnel ordinarily employ. Clearly, BP cut corners at a crucial juncture, a decision that led to the disaster.

The cost to BP is enough to wipe them out.

Yes, it certainly is. The true damage caused by this catastrophe (as opposed to the one finally negotiated by armadas of lawyers many years from now) no doubt exceeds the net worth of the company. But you can bet they will do their best to weasel their way out of it. And there will be plenty enough in the accounts to keep paying the million dollar salaries as the legal actions grind on.

[McGuire]

FWIW, as far as I'm aware, BP-USA Inc.is the company drilling in the Gulf, not BP proper.

Quite so. Meanwhile, BP USA is wholly owned by the BP parent company. BP is said to be 40 percent "British owned" and 40 percent "American owned," as determined by the geographic distribution of its shareholders. The Deepwater Horizon flew a Marshall Islands flag of convenience, if that matters. National boundaries are fairly irrelevant here. This is not a nationalist issue, as much as complete twits like Boris Johnson would like to make it one in order to score their cheap political points. Jingoistic horseshit of that nature is always good for a few votes.

BP is a multinational company. Like all multi-national companies it is a British company when that is profitable, an American company when that is more expedient, a German or Swedish company when that is convenient. (GM recently decided it was a German company to seek a handout for Opel.) And wherever it goes, a multinational company hires the best lawyers and lobbyists available in that jurisdiction to keep the local skids greased and in working order. Its only true allegiance is to its own bottom line. Anyone who blames the British people for this disaster is a bigger idiot than Boris Johnson, if that is even possible.

Personally, I only wish BP were a 100 percent American company, the better to put the screws to these motherfukcers unencumbered by international legal complications.

Edited by McGuire, 12 June 2010 - 11:50.

[Canuck]

Lots of good points McG, but I think you're missing some of what I'm saying. I've read the same survivor accounts regarding the BP man. I don't doubt them for a second - what I do doubt is that he acted under any company authority (written or not). I have zero doubt that this man was a "cowboy" in the worst sense -
an EHS nightmare just waiting to happen. This may have been his first round of such gross safety negligence or simply the first time everything that could go wrong did. Either way it was against written BP rules and while the more cynical might say he did so with the company's quiet blessings, the reality is EHS would have him strung up.

Your comments about BP's inability to do anything meaningful is spot on, but a little narrow. This state of affairs is applicable to every deep-water drilling platform in the world. This is not a BP thing, it's an offshore thing. It exists because our governments permit it to exist. They permit it because we as consumers demand it. We desire cheap energy and they deliver. We, or rather you in this case, ask for more "secure" supply and less dependance on "foreign" oil. This spill is akin to unexpectedly being walked through the abbatoir to get your meat. This is the cost of how we live today.

Edited by Canuck, 12 June 2010 - 17:38.

[McGuire]

Lots of good points McG, but I think you're missing some of what I'm saying. I've read the same survivor accounts regarding the BP man. I don't doubt them for a second - what I do doubt is that he acted under any company authority (written or not). I have zero doubt that this man was a "cowboy" in the worst sense - an EHS nightmare just waiting to happen. This may have been his first round of such gross safety negligence or simply the first time everything that could go wrong did. Either way it was against written BP rules and while the more cynical might say he did so with the company's quiet blessings, the reality is EHS would have him strung up.

As a troubleshooter, I found the episode sorta interesting. I have no way to know if the company man on this job is a cowboy or not. But what I can see is that neither side finds this it particularly astounding. This has happened before. The company man has told people to modify procedure and the commander has pushed back. It's a not unfamiliar transaction is all I am saying. This is a red flag for me. In the typical case, unless the company man's direction is completely idiotic, they will almost certainly get away with it. So the next time the company man can say, "we've done it before," and the next time he can say "we do this all the time."

Checking around a bit, I was somewhat surprised to learn while the people on these rigs are highly trained and professional, the lines of authority and command and a good part of the procedure are not as well-defined as they might be. On the other hand, sort of makes sense. They are part ship, part oil derrick; owned by one company, operated by another, directed by another. It's sort of a mess from a systems perspective.

Folks might find this interesting. Forum discussion of the disaster among professional sea drillers. It's 90+ pages, but enlightening...

http://gcaptain.com/...l-rig-fire.html

[McGuire]

our comments about BP's inability to do anything meaningful is spot on, but a little narrow. This state of affairs is applicable to every deep-water drilling platform in the world. This is not a BP thing, it's an offshore thing. It exists because our governments permit it to exist. They permit it because we as consumers demand it. We desire cheap energy and they deliver. We, or rather you in this case, ask for more "secure" supply and less dependance on "foreign" oil. This spill is akin to unexpectedly being walked through the abbatoir to get your meat. This is the cost of how we live today.

Can't buy that. We don't need to deep-sea drill to meet our energy needs. It's a small percentage. And while I might be wrong about this, I don't believe catastrophes on this scale are um, required to perform deep-sea drilling. But if they are, we certainly shouldn't be doing it. The cost/benefit isn't supportable. And we definitely need to rethink it in populated, ecologically fragile areas including the Gulf of Mexico. To me you are only rationalizing the status quo. You certainly aren't defending it.

But I especially have to reject the idea that as long as a government allows it, go ahead and do it and it's the government's fault if it goes wrong. That's totalitarian. In a civil society, we are responsible for our own moral behavior. No good robbing a bank and then blaming the police for shoddy law enforcement. Regulation, yes. We need more. But BP is ultimately responsible for the safety of its drilling. They are the experts over their own affairs, not the government. We think of government as all-powerful but that is an illusion. In regulatory enforcement, the actual match-up is between an $80B corporation and a $32K/year clerk in a cubicle somewhere, totally outgunned. It's no contest; companies can run rings around the loopholes and they do. Government agencies depend greatly on industries to craft their own regulations, and they mainly do anyway through lobbying and influence. These companies are in large part powers unto themselves. BP must be responsible for the consequences of its own actions, and that can happen only is if it is held totally accountable for them. Their decision to drill in the gulf, their responsibility for the consequences. You broke it, you buy it.

[Canuck]

Didn't mean to imply the fault was the government's. By all accounts, it appears to be a result of the decisions pushed through by "BP's man" and those that ultimately allowed it. Having said that, I haven't read the 97 pages and don't know what the normal course of action is when put between policy and practice. The blame ultimately rests with BP. That we allow them to drill in scenario's like this is our fault via our governments, and as shareholders in these companies. We demand economic accountability when our dividends are threatened or our share prices take a beating, but unless there's a disaster taking place like what we have now, we happily pretend that in the pursuit of profits, these companies that we own are not acting in a way we would find reprehensible.

[Canuck]

I think this about sums things up - straight from the horse's mouth. BP on their spill

[mariner]

I thought this thread was ending but as it is not may I add something

Firstly I agree with McGuire that it would maybe have been better if it was an American only oil company because the factors which have caused so much transatlantic tension are really issues of US constitutuional law. Does the US President have the power to override comapny law and stop dividends and can a President issue an executive order ( stop drilling) and then bill a single company for the cost. I am neither American nor a constituional law expert so I don't know but those things are not oil rig safety issues or clean up liability issues they are US law items.

What genuinely puzzles me about the conversations not just on this forum but generally is the fundemental difference to what happens when a plane crashes and this oil spill. When a plane crashes all initial reports are treated as such until a formal FAA report is published. Despite there being a very real and ongoing threat to life planes are often allowed to continue flying whilst the reports are done. Take for example the BA 777 crash at Heathrow due to fuel icing. It was pure chance that at least 300 people were not killed and fuel icing was quickly suspected. Neither the FAA not the UK CAA ( the two responsible safety units) grounded the world's 777 fleet. Had the 777 have been grounded I do not think any govenment ( US or UK) would have demended that Boeing pay compensation to all the airlines and passengers that suffered income loss due to the government decision. That was a decision involving a large threat to human life , maybe 100's of deaths but it was not made.

In air safety things are not left to company responsibilty, the regulations are tough and applied strongly by governments, licences to operate can and are pulled by govenment inspectors. There is a moral responsibilty on companies but governments have found it practical to back it up with binding action which stops excessive risk by commerical companies so the social risk factor is shared between the corporate entity and society as a whole ( via its elected officials) . that logic seems to have been thrown out in the BP debate.

to take another flight example an Alaskan MD 80 crashed off LA due to the tailplane actuator seizing up.

http://www.nytimes.c...k...rash&st=cse

88 people did die . I am not going to make moral judgements about whether 88 is eight times worse than 11 on the BP rig nor whether 11 plus spoilt coasts and wildlfe equals 88 deaths but the process applied was totally different. Alaska was found by the FAA to have basicaly caused the accident by skipping maintianance on the actuator,. Whether that was poor management controls or an attempt to cut corners to boost profit who knows but it caused 88 deaths. I believe Alaska was fined and the pasengers got insurance but the " punish to destruction" principle was not applied and Alsaka still flies. You could argue that Boeing as McDonnel's legal sucessor was to blame because the screw actuator was a single unit so they broke one of the basic airframe safety rules by having no redundancy. So maybe Boeing should have ben punished to destruction for willingly taking risks to save costs. But then the FAA signed off the design just as it has signed off long ETOPS flights by twin engine aircraft. So far in 35 years no 777 or A330 has gone down due to both engines failing but no jet engine builder has ever claimed its engines will never fail in flight, they calculate that one day two will fail but the chance is remote. That is accepted by the FAA/CAA/government, and hence society that elects governments, as an acceptable risk even if poor local mainatainance could jepordize the safety margins. That is different to the way this oil spill is being viewed but why?

So if a 777 does go down should Boeing be punished to death and 100,000 workers lose their jobs. Should all the FAA officials who did the review be fired and have their pensions cancelled? The rest of the USA can still fly on Airbuses but they will pay more and if a A330 goes down Airbus is European so beyond the reach of US law in terms of punishment to destruction so was it worth punishing only those who are reachable by law. Following that path will encourage every company to register offshore and is not very likley to help FAA recruitment.

I trust that none of what I have said is nationalistic, I would say the same if it was Exxon or if the BP disaster had been in England with the same reaction, but I do stuggle to understand how the penalties being demanded by US politicana ( not just Obama) and the US public over an oil spill seem for more draconian and retrobutional than when many more people diue in a plane crash where ( as in the Alaska case) where the same issues of bad risk anticipation and corporate lack of concern for safety also existed.

I think in the end society has to accept risks in order to survive let alone prosper, the problem is how society handles risk transfer be it about the plane that flies you to enjoy your holiday or the auto company that builds your car or the oil company that lets you get to work in that car and so earn a living.

[McGuire]

I thought this thread was ending but as it is not may I add something

Firstly I agree with McGuire that it would maybe have been better if it was an American only oil company because the factors which have caused so much transatlantic tension are really issues of US constitutuional law. Does the US President have the power to override comapny law and stop dividends and can a President issue an executive order ( stop drilling) and then bill a single company for the cost. I am neither American nor a constituional law expert so I don't know but those things are not oil rig safety issues or clean up liability issues they are US law items.

No, but he does have enough brooms and sticks at his disposal to inspire the company to suspend its dividend voluntarily. If nothing else, the federal government is BP's largest customer. Next, his Justice Department and Attorney General can prosecute the oil spill through various routes. For example, some fines and penalties are tax deductible to BP while some are not, and the difference amounts to billions of dollars for BP. And so on.

But mainly the President can simply make a strong moral case, which is the course here. For BP to issue a dividend while the failed well is still, even now, spewing oil into the gulf -- and no way yet to stop it -- is in incredibly poor taste at the very minimum. It is surely morally repugnant to the residents of the gulf. It's just one more humiliating gesture demonstrating that BP will stomp on them with impunity, intends to do its harm and go on its way, does not accept responsibility, refuses to acknowledge the scale of the catastrophe... in short, one more example of Tony Harward smiling and then giving them the up yours sign.

I have been following how the British press and some British politicians have been handling the issue, and all I can say is wow, do you folks not get it. You have no idea what BP has done over here, nor how badly the company has behaved since. If dividends are your concern here, be very ashamed. I bore no bad feelings whatsoever toward the British people in this disaster... until I read this garbage. Far as I am concerned, you can all lose your shirts on your BP shares for all I care. To be whining about your pensions while an entire way of life is being destroyed -- it's a little much. I will say that Cameron at least appears to get it.

EDIT: I would add this: There is no "transatlantic tension" in this disaster except that generated by some selfish Brits who are more concerned about their dividends than about the people suffering in the gulf. There is no anti-British sentiment here. I haven't seen any. Anti-BP sentiment, that's another matter.

Edited by McGuire, 13 June 2010 - 11:43.

[McGuire]

I don't think the airline crash analogy is particularly apt. For one thing, I have never seen a plane crash go on for 55 days with no way to stop it.

[McGuire]

In air safety things are not left to company responsibilty, the regulations are tough and applied strongly by governments, licences to operate can and are pulled by govenment inspectors. There is a moral responsibilty on companies but governments have found it practical to back it up with binding action which stops excessive risk by commerical companies so the social risk factor is shared between the corporate entity and society as a whole ( via its elected officials) . that logic seems to have been thrown out in the BP debate.

If an aircraft manufacturer flouted regulations and falsified records to the extent BP did in this disaster (no hyperbole here, it's on the record) it would very soon be out of the aircraft business. The sheer duplicity demonstrated by BP here does not exist in the aircraft industry, where regulations are taken seriously, not simply winked at. A falsified compliance document is a very big deal for an aircraft manufacturer, a felony among other things, but the assortment of overpaid circus grifters who operate BP regard it as equivalent to rolling a stop sign.

I agree with you that to date, we have probably been too easy on the oil industry in allowing this monkey business. I propose we stop that, and one good way to start is by liquidating BP and distributing the former assets to its victims. That sends a fairly clear message, I think. Companies such as BP simply flout the existing regulations. If we write more they'll just flout those too. What we lack is an effective deterrent.

[mariner]

I do accept that there is no real anti british sentiment at the sharp end ,just very understandable anger at BP and it is quite likely that , say, the California Teachers Pension Fund , will suffer more than most brits as it is a big investor.I would add that when Britain had a series of passenger train crashes the then government minister deliberately forced the railroad infrastructure company ( Railtrack) into insolvency just to prove he could hurt people, so I would never single out US politicians as they are, it seems, the same worldwide.


What I truly do get about all of this is why coastline damage causes more moral and political outrage then people dying en masse. The media/political/grassroots anger seems to have very rapidly moved beyond any anger at the rig deaths to outrage about wildlife damage and job losses. In truth the coastline will recover, it did after the Uk Torrey Canyon disaster,it largely has after the Exxon Valdez. I suspect that the Lousiana coast will have largely recovered well within the probable missing lifespan of the dead rig crew.

It is also worth pointing out that offshore drilling and oil in general has been a large source of Louisiana governent income right back to Huey Long but I have yet to hear the current Governer quoted on that . President Obama was I think very quick to say initially this should not stop offshore drilling because in reality the USA needs the oil. Of course people in the Gulf are hurting but in the real world oil made a lot of jobs in the Gulf states as well as now costing them. Also if oil safety has been less well executed than airline safety whose fault is that, I would think the government body who ran the oil rules clearly performed less competently than the FAA/transport safety boards. On that basis they should be punished by being fired and having all pensions withdrawn for ever otherwise any demonstrations of dire consquences for private industry will be wasted in terms of better safety.

[McGuire]

In air safety things are not left to company responsibilty, the regulations are tough and applied strongly by governments, licences to operate can and are pulled by govenment inspectors. There is a moral responsibilty on companies but governments have found it practical to back it up with binding action which stops excessive risk by commerical companies so the social risk factor is shared between the corporate entity and society as a whole ( via its elected officials) . that logic seems to have been thrown out in the BP debate.

No offense but that is perfectly backward. Regulations do not exist to protect companies from themselves (though that is often a fortunate side effect for the most blatant malefactors). The regulations exist to provide we, the citizenry, with the barest minimum of protection against potential bad actions by these companies. While government has some limited power to compel companies to act legally, it has no power whatsoever to compel them to act ethically, ethics and law being by far two different things. There is nothing to compel any company to behave ethically but for the ethics of the company and its officers.

So it is entirely the responsibility of the company and officers to behave in an ethical manner -- nobody else's. Any company that asserts that by following the bare minimum of the law it is also behaving ethically is knowingly deluding itself. A sharp 10-year old knows better than that. We all have moral responsibility for our actions, companies too. Corporations are legal fictions designed to limit the financial liabilities of their owners and officers. However, in any rational moral philosophy, their moral and ethical responsibilities remain perfectly intact -- identical to any sole proprietorship or citizen.

It is impossible for governments to regulate and legislate every aspect of industrial and corporate activity. (The Soviet Union tried that.) Government's powers are not limitless nor are its treasuries bottomless. We already have huge bureaucracies regulating a number of industries, most of which incessantly whinge about "government interference" and "cumbersome regulations." Many industries, including banking (derivatives) autos (Toyota) and now oil (BP) have evolved beyond the capability of government to supervise them. These industries are too large, too specialized, too technical, and too powerful to be governed effectively. They must in large part govern themselves... and so far they haven't been doing so well. These companies need to be made responsible for their actions, and the only way to do that is to make them totally accountable for their actions.

[McGuire]

What genuinely puzzles me about the conversations not just on this forum but generally is the fundemental difference to what happens when a plane crashes and this oil spill.

I would guess it's the craven nature of it all. Sensible people understand that no matter how cautious the measures, a plane is going to crash every so often, often due to circumstances beyond human control, including weather. However, this is no unavoidable accident. After nearly two months, tens of thousands of barrels of crude are still rushing from the failed wellhead every day, and the oil will continue to spew from the well for months to come, but BP has no means to stop it. Risks were taken with the welfare of the Gulf and its citizens that are totally and unfathomably out of all proportion to any conceivable benefit that could possibly be obtained. Obviously, BP was playing in the Gulf of Mexico like an 8 year-old on an ant hill with a magnifying glass.

[McGuire]

What I truly do get about all of this is why coastline damage causes more moral and political outrage then people dying en masse. The media/political/grassroots anger seems to have very rapidly moved beyond any anger at the rig deaths to outrage about wildlife damage and job losses. In truth the coastline will recover, it did after the Uk Torrey Canyon disaster,it largely has after the Exxon Valdez. I suspect that the Lousiana coast will have largely recovered well within the probable missing lifespan of the dead rig crew.

Before you can supply that assurance, I think first you need to cap the well. Any damage estimates are at this point premature. After all, the well is still venting and the damage is still growing. Good luck with that -- it's 5000 feet below the ocean surface. BP has sorta avoided mentioning this so far, but no well blowout has ever been successfully capped at that depth, by any means.

Some say this is a grand technical experiment akin to putting a man on the moon. To me it's more like putting a monkey in space, but with monkeys at the control panel.

[Canuck]

How does the EEZ work? If the Gulf is, after 12 miles, international waters but with US claims on the resources, does the US have the power to enforce anything other than a ban on future activity in the gulf? I know that folks who are in the US on work visas can not travel to and from the platforms as that constitutes leaving the US which is a no-no on a work visa. The rig was flying a 4th country's flag, owned by Transocean which is a hodge-podge of French, American and Norwegian companies glued together into a (I think) Cayman-based outfit, under contract by BP Drilling, a wholly owned, but publicly traded subsidiary of BP in London, staffed by Americans. That's a mess and a half.

[McGuire]

Stonewalled claims...well that there is an American invention, grown out of a combination of corporate greed, shareholder greed and coffee that's too hot.

Have to disagree with you about that. Since the very beginning of governmental authority, denizens have sought remedies from said authorities for various injuries. The Magna Carta was devised, among other things, to discourage local warlords from inventing their own systems of torts as they went along in order to line their own pockets, imposing some justice and equity upon the nascent judicial process.

FWIW, while the McDonald's coffee story is often cited as an example of litigation run amok, urban folklore essentially, if you examine the actual case I think you will discover that the woman had a legitimate claim. She did in fact receive extensive burns requiring hospitalization and skin grafts. The woman asked McDonald's for $20,000 to cover the hospital bills; McDonald's offered $800. At that point she smartened up and got a good Texas attorney, who negotiated a $225,000 settlement via independent mediation, which McDonald's also refused. ( ! ) So he took it to a jury, which awarded $2.6 Million, which the judge reduced to $600,000. So as they say, now you know the rest of the story.

The real point to all this: All this legal dicking around was the only way to persuade McDonald's that serving coffee at 190 degrees F (the actual company procedure carved in stone, I am not making this up) might not be a perfectly great idea, and that it might be sensible to adopt the industry practice of 140 F or so, so their customers might require fewer painful skin grafts, etc. But that's simply how it works with large corporations. Unless what you have to say has at least six zeros behind it, you can't even start a conversation with these people. They can't hear you. You are just a fly buzzing around the room.

[McGuire]

How does the EEZ work? If the Gulf is, after 12 miles, international waters but with US claims on the resources, does the US have the power to enforce anything other than a ban on future activity in the gulf? I know that folks who are in the US on work visas can not travel to and from the platforms as that constitutes leaving the US which is a no-no on a work visa. The rig was flying a 4th country's flag, owned by Transocean which is a hodge-podge of French, American and Norwegian companies glued together into a (I think) Cayman-based outfit, under contract by BP Drilling, a wholly owned, but publicly traded subsidiary of BP in London, staffed by Americans. That's a mess and a half.

Of course, you know why companies do this. They search relentlessly all around the globe shopping for the governmental jurisdictions with the most stringent and exacting regulations, as well as the most powerful enforcement agencies, in order to guide them in running their companies as legally, ethically, and responsibly as possible.

EDIT: Sorry, I was so busy being a smartass I didn't address the initial question. As I understand it (which could well be wrong) all laws apply within the EEZ just as onshore and meanwhile, the Coast Guard and Navy have all the same powers they do within territorial waters. The main difference between territorial waters and EEZ is that vessels have right of innocent passage -- as long as they are not engaged in mining or other commercial activities they are free to travel through the EEZ. As I follow it, anyway; I could well be wrong.

Edited by McGuire, 13 June 2010 - 18:47.

[monaco1961]

Every word uttered by BP's British CEO or its American COO is a demonstrated falsehood.

hyperbole like this detracts from the force of your argument.

[McGuire]

hyperbole like this detracts from the force of your argument.

I suppose it's possible I missed something. Could you please post something of any meaning or specificity that is also true? We'll have a look at it.

[Canuck]

hyperbole like this detracts from the force of your argument.

Your mistake was in thnking McGuire was making an argument. Rather, he is exposing the truth and nothing but the truth. Anything that might come across as exageration, hyperbole, conspiracy or other wild claims are simply your inability to accept McGuire's truth. BP is evil and should be destroyed for what they've done. Never mind it was done with the cooperation and actions of perhaps 3 different companies, all of whom employ Americans to these jobs, all now affected by the outcome. This was not the act of one man, or even one company.

[McGuire]

Your mistake was in thnking McGuire was making an argument. Rather, he is exposing the truth and nothing but the truth. Anything that might come across as exageration, hyperbole, conspiracy or other wild claims are simply your inability to accept McGuire's truth. BP is evil and should be destroyed for what they've done. Never mind it was done with the cooperation and actions of perhaps 3 different companies, all of whom employ Americans to these jobs, all now affected by the outcome. This was not the act of one man, or even one company.

We already established that nationalities are irrelevant. Also, the subcontractors work at the bidding and under the direction of BP, as you know. Vast legal consensus is liability lies with BP and its lease partners. More importantly, the subcontractors and lease partners did not make the crucial and tragic decision: to drill at one mile depth where capping a blowout is not currently possible. BP did.

Earlier I asked if anyone could cite instances of BP representatives speaking truthfully and materially in regard to the disaster. Can you help with that?

[Canuck]

I do firmly believe the following: when Tony said he wanted this disaster "over" (whatever that means) I believe he was telling the truth. No lies there.

You've got two standards you're applying here - one for BP and one for everyone else. BP is not drilling nor do they own the drilling equipment or the talent - that's all on contract to them. They also don't make the rules regarding what should and shouldn't be drilled in the Gulf - that's the government's job. It's a little late in the game to say the goverents's had no stake because they're outclassed in the intelligence. It's clearly affecting your country and your people - if you don't haetue experience you better find it. The DW Horizon was drilling in less than half of what other Transocean units have drilled. 5000 feet isn't noteworthy and hasn't been for a long time - at least a decade, perhaps two when their other rigs were setting records at 7500, 9000 and 10,000+ feet of water. 5000 feet is passé, long industry standard. Transocean built the rig and staffed it. Who do you think knows more about it and it's use - BP or Transocean? People on several fronts made the decisions that lead to this, not strictly BP. As the oil
company in the mess, who do you think has the deepest pockets? Trans? Schlum? The BOP manufacturer? Or BP? Of course they're the favoured target. No ****.

BP knows more than the government, so it's not the government's fault. Transocean knows more than BP, but BP was paying them, so it's not Transocean's fault. I wonder how this might be different if they hadn't lost 11 people in the explosion.

All of this predicated of course on the motion that decisions made on the rig had an effect on what happened.

If I, as manager instruct my employee to perform an operation that is dangerous in his experience, outside protocol and against his better judgement, he has an obligation to tell me where to stick my instructions.

[monaco1961]

I suppose it's possible I missed something. Could you please post something of any meaning or specificity that is also true? We'll have a look at it.

I'm not going to get drawn in to a debate about 'meaning or specificity': your post referred to ALL statements made.

[McGuire]

I do firmly believe the following: when Tony said he wanted this disaster "over" (whatever that means) I believe he was telling the truth. No lies there.

Well, you identified the problem. That doesn't mean anything. He lacks the ability to make this "over." His company is powerless to stop the leak. If he were to say, "I sincerely wish we had never drilled this well in the first place," then we are starting to get somewhere.

The DW Horizon was drilling in less than half of what other Transocean units have drilled. 5000 feet isn't noteworthy and hasn't been for a long time - at least a decade, perhaps two when their other rigs were setting records at 7500, 9000 and 10,000+ feet of water. 5000 feet is passé, long industry standard.

Exactly right, drilling holes at this depth is not a problem. As you say, it's been done. The DPH set a new record for drilling depth on its previous job. The problem: Plugging the hole if it blows out. It's never been done. No blowout has ever been capped at this depth. When Hayward said "we lacked the tools in our toolkits" to deal with the blowout, that wasn't the half of it. The lie of omission: as of today, the tools to plug a well at this depth don't even exist. It's not that BP doesn't have the tools. Nobody has them. They haven't been invented yet.