B.P. = Bit of Perspective?

[Combwork]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but B.P. bashing seems to have become the new contact sport. It's maybe worth thinking of the following. On July 16th 1998, 167 people died when the offshore rig Piper Alpha, wholly owned by Occidental Petroleum (Los Angeles) exploded off the Scottish coast. The heat was so intense one of the rescue boats caught fire. The subsequent inquiry found Occidental Petroleum partly liable on the grounds of inadequate safety and maintenance procedures and guess what? No prosecutions followed.

U.S. companies were directly involved with Bhopal, Exxon Valdez and the Torry Canyon and in all cases, the first thing they did was run to their lawyers and start building walls. "It wasn't our fault, a big boy did it and ran away".

It's arguable who was actually responsible for what happened on Deepwater Horizon; The owners? The operators? The designers? The maintenance crew??? I guess that's yet to be decided on but it's worth noting that the first thing B.P. did was try to fix the problem. OK, their P.R. people are a joke, but it was their designers and engineers who tried again and again to solve the problem. Now it looks as if they might have succeeded so how about some applause instead of more ball kicking.

"Who's ass to kick". Would that be his by any chance?

[Charles]

People forget that BP stock is owned by millions of people. If all of this hammering of BP causes them to take bankruptcy, not only will it cause a lot of people to lose their retirement funds, but they won't be able to pay for the cleanup.

The law of unintended consequences.

Chas

[merrylander]

The sad part is that there is plenty of money to be made in the oil business, but one or two individuals seeking corporate fame or attaboys made shortcuts to save $$$ and a whole hell of a lot of innocent folk suffer.

[Combwork]

The sad part is that there is plenty of money to be made in the oil business, but one or two individuals seeking corporate fame or attaboys made shortcuts to save $$$ and a whole hell of a lot of innocent folk suffer.

True. If some attaboy is proven to have made shortcuts to line his pockets, he'll be praying to be put inside before he's hung up by the balls.

[BlueStreak]

Everything you say is true.

But screw BP anyways. Every bit of this from failing to maintain their equipment, to bribing inspectors, to the manifold lies and attempts to mislead lay squarely at their feet. Don't attempt to ameliorate the blame.

Millions of pensioners and investors at risk? Unfortunately true. BP execs should have thought of that before they created this mess.

See what corporate incompetence and corrupt government inspectors gets us?
And the answer is to simply stop regulating?

Sorry, but that's insane.

Regards,
Dave

[westgate]

when this disaster is all said and done, ie hopefully safely ended, i have little faith that bp or any other entity will be brought to any kind of justice. they may pay some of the claims and for some of the cleanup but imo, that will be about all that happens.

i hope i'm wrong.

[d-ray657]

The fallacy is assuming that BP is a British company and Occidental is (was) a US company. The largest corporations no longer respect any citizenship. They put their tentacles into any corner of the earth where they can find a buck, or a euro or a yen or a peso. The tentacles are around our testicles too, because they control access to jobs, to energy, to medicine, to agriculture, etc. The corporations are psychopathic beings programmed to maximize profits at all costs.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

I have a hard time viewing the original post as little more than jingoistic America bashing. It would seem that Combwork is equating anti-BP sentiment with anti-British sentiment. I think that conclusion is entirely unjustified.

As a result, I'll try very hard not to draw similar conclusions about his litany of catastrophes perpetrated by US companies. Rather, I'll limit myself to some of the specifics in his post.

Let me begin by saying that I agree that US companies have indeed acted in horrifyingly irresponsible ways in the past. That they did doesn't somehow disqualify us as US citizens from criticizing non-US corporations when they commit similar outrages.

Combwork's list of offenses includes the Liberian tanker, the Torrey Canyon. The Torrey Canyon ran aground off the Cornish coast and broke up. The disaster was largely the result of human error. The cleanup, which was largely unsuccessful, was conducted by the Royal Navy.

He is correct, by the way, that the Torrey Canyon was owned by a Union Oil subsidiary. Guess who it was leased to though.

That's right! BP! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrey_Canyon)

Now, let's move on to the Exxon Valdez. Again, a case of human error on the part of the tanker crew and again a tanker running aground and leaking. There was also the matter of a broken radar system that Exxon knew about and failed to repair.

That being said, the real problems came from the botched cleanup effort. Guess who was in charge of that!

Aw, you peeked! (http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/052610/sta_644797651.shtml)

Now, the matter of who's to blame for the current catastrophe. True, the investigation is yet to come but the press reporting all seems to point to BP ordering that the drilling be sped up and that drill mud be replaced with sea water (http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/hearings_bp_representative_ove.html). The operation was behind schedule and over budget and BP wanted to cut its losses. The operators objected to this but, since BP was paying the bills, their decision carried the day.

As to BP trying to "fix the problem", I'd have to say that their idea of that was to conceal the magnitude of the problem by barring "outsiders" and media (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/conversation-press-hassled-gulf-coast/story?id=10877263) from the area, requiring cleanup workers to sign a contract (http://thinkprogress.org/?p=100483) forbidding them from talking to the media and using dispersants (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/17/bp-dispersant-toxic/) (despite being told not to by the EPA) to make it impossible to quantify the amount of leakage (and therefore their liability). And you don't think the first thing they did was run to their lawyers?

Finally, Combwork claims that it appears BP is succeeding in stopping the leak. All one need do is look at the live video feed (http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3) to see just how absurd that notion is.

Anyone want me to go through the list of other disasters that BP has been responsible for? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7062669.stm)

John

[Boreas]

People forget that BP stock is owned by millions of people. If all of this hammering of BP causes them to take bankruptcy, not only will it cause a lot of people to lose their retirement funds, but they won't be able to pay for the cleanup.

The law of unintended consequences.

Chas

So, what's your solution?

John

[Boreas]

True. If some attaboy is proven to have made shortcuts to line his pockets, he'll be praying to be put inside before he's hung up by the balls.

Surely you know how that will go (if it goes at all). The flunky who delivered the message from the BoD will get hung out to dry while the BP boffins who actually made the decision will get bonuses.

John

[merrylander]

According to the economists BP has enough cash flow to cover their but and if they do not pay the dividend that's another 10 billion - yes 10 billion with a b. What that will do to a lot of pensions I won't even hazard a guess.

[Charles]

So, what's your solution?

John

Drop the blame blame and proceed in a responsible manner.

Of course, perception once again trumps reality, and this has become a media driven event.

I have no idea what is being done, or not. But I do assume that folks are doing the best they can, all things considered.

A little less rhetoric is in order, IMHO.

Chas

[merrylander]

The one thing that concerns me is the Gulf Coast fishery. I imagine that many of the fishermen have loans on their boats. Now are the loan companies going to wait until BP comes up with compensation? It would be no advantage to call the loan because fishing boats are probably a dead loss on the market just now.

I did write to the Pres suggesting that the goverment should take some of the left over stimulus funds and pay off any such loans and settle with BP later. I mean what earthly good would it be if the fishing grounds re-open and no one has a boat?

I understand that some fishermen have headed for the Texas coast where the fishing is still open but can that area accomodate all of them?

A few thoughts that occured;

Blow out preventers - had they ever been tested in a pressure chamber to determine they would operate at one mile down, pretty high pressure down that far.

Has anyone developed an automated fail-safe system to set off the BOP valve in the event there is no human around?

Have the 'skimmers' been tested in rough water? I hear stories of skimmers sitting at the dock, if so why?

Recent adverts suggets that rough seas in Alaska's north slope see twenty foot waves in winter - you can't guarantee squat in those conditions.

Decisions regarding off shore drilling should be left to coastal states, this because I saw a Senator from Wyoming suggesting the ban of deep water drilling should be lifted. I am not aware of any deep water in Wyoming.:rolleyes:

[davidb]

I'm no expert on offshore drilling but it is my understanding that here in Ms. they cannot drill close to shore. It has been claimed that there is just as much oil closer to shore but regulations by our all kowing government prevent this. I'm with Charles. Stop the politics and focus on the problem. There is no such thing in fail safe when your doing something like this. Everyone knew there are very real risks in these kind of operations. Did we stop shipping oil when the Exxon had it's accident? It seems like everytime there is an accident here in the US the only thing that matters is who to blame it on.

[Boreas]

I'm no expert on offshore drilling but it is my understanding that here in Ms. they cannot drill close to shore. It has been claimed that there is just as much oil closer to shore but regulations by our all kowing government prevent this.

There has been some confusion about a brand new ban on shallow water drilling but it's apparently not true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060302738.html?hpid=topnews).

I'm with Charles. Stop the politics and focus on the problem. There is no such thing in fail safe when your doing something like this. Everyone knew there are very real risks in these kind of operations.

Everyone knew so the government asked for assurances from the industry that deep water drilling could be done safely. The industry said not to worry because the methodology was fool-proof and, in any event, they had the means to stop leaks at that depth. They lied.

It seems like everytime there is an accident here in the US the only thing that matters is who to blame it on.

That must be why everyone on the right is trying to figure out a way to blame Obama.

John

[BlueStreak]

I have a hard time viewing the original post as little more than jingoistic America bashing. It would seem that Combwork is equating anti-BP sentiment with anti-British sentiment. I think that conclusion is entirely unjustified.

As a result, I'll try very hard not to draw similar conclusions about his litany of catastrophes perpetrated by US companies. Rather, I'll limit myself to some of the specifics in his post.

Let me begin by saying that I agree that US companies have indeed acted in horrifyingly irresponsible ways in the past. That they did doesn't somehow disqualify us as US citizens from criticizing non-US corporations when they commit similar outrages.

Combwork's list of offenses includes the Liberian tanker, the Torrey Canyon. The Torrey Canyon ran aground off the Cornish coast and broke up. The disaster was largely the result of human error. The cleanup, which was largely unsuccessful, was conducted by the Royal Navy.

He is correct, by the way, that the Torrey Canyon was owned by a Union Oil subsidiary. Guess who it was leased to though.

That's right! BP! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrey_Canyon)

Now, let's move on to the Exxon Valdez. Again, a case of human error on the part of the tanker crew and again a tanker running aground and leaking. There was also the matter of a broken radar system that Exxon knew about and failed to repair.

That being said, the real problems came from the botched cleanup effort. Guess who was in charge of that!

Aw, you peeked! (http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/052610/sta_644797651.shtml)

Now, the matter of who's to blame for the current catastrophe. True, the investigation is yet to come but the press reporting all seems to point to BP ordering that the drilling be sped up and that drill mud be replaced with sea water (http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/hearings_bp_representative_ove.html). The operation was behind schedule and over budget and BP wanted to cut its losses. The operators objected to this but, since BP was paying the bills, their decision carried the day.

As to BP trying to "fix the problem", I'd have to say that their idea of that was to conceal the magnitude of the problem by barring "outsiders" and media (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/conversation-press-hassled-gulf-coast/story?id=10877263) from the area, requiring cleanup workers to sign a contract (http://thinkprogress.org/?p=100483) forbidding them from talking to the media and using dispersants (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/17/bp-dispersant-toxic/) (despite being told not to by the EPA) to make it impossible to quantify the amount of leakage (and therefore their liability). And you don't think the first thing they did was run to their lawyers?

Finally, Combwork claims that it appears BP is succeeding in stopping the leak. All one need do is look at the live video feed (http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3) to see just how absurd that notion is.

Anyone want me to go through the list of other disasters that BP has been responsible for? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7062669.stm)

John

You, Sir, are a machine. Awesome post.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Everyone knew so the government asked for assurances from the industry that deep water drilling could be done safely. The industry said not to worry because the methodology was fool-proof and, in any event, they had the means to stop leaks at that depth. They lied.

Of course. Expecting corporate bosses to be honest is like expecting ice to be hot, or the sun to turn purple. It's an absurdity.

That must be why everyone on the right is trying to figure out a way to blame Obama.

John

Bingo! We have a winner!

Dave

[Grumpy]

BP is only getting what they deserve. 50 days of sitting on their hands was a crock of crap.

[Boreas]

BP is only getting what they deserve. 50 days of sitting on their hands was a crock of crap.

Sometimes covering your ass can resemble sitting on your hands. Covering their asses has been BP's sole objective since day one.

John

[BlueStreak]

For your perusal;

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=1

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thing just yet. But it actually seems to be the most realistic, unbiased article I've seen yet.

Enjoy,
Dave

[Boreas]

For your perusal;

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thing just yet. But it actually seems to be the most realistic, unbiased article I've seen yet.

Enjoy,
Dave

Yup! Fair and Balanced! ;) Makes everyone involved look really bad.

By the way, your link takes everyone to the second page of the article. For some reason the first page of the article is numbered "0". I've corrected it in the link above.

John

[davidb]

I don't think anybody is sitting on hands. It's just a very unfortunate accident that everybody including the gubment is trying to fix. Blame Blame Blame. It is a shame that we can't blame China or Obama for it. Wake up America. We are not perfect. I'm loosing my beautiful beaches as we speek but I don't blame anyone. Let's just do what Americans do and fix this shit.

[Boreas]

I don't think anybody is sitting on hands. It's just a very unfortunate accident that everybody including the gubment is trying to fix. Blame Blame Blame. It is a shame that we can't blame China or Obama for it. Wake up America. We are not perfect. I'm loosing my beautiful beaches as we speek but I don't blame anyone. Let's just do what Americans do and fix this shit.

Yeah, we can fix it again and again and again and again and never manage to prevent future catastrophes as long as we refuse to investigate what happened and how it happened. When there's blame to apportion it's a good idea to find the right person to blame. It's an important part of making sure nothing like this happens again.

John

[Combwork]

I have a hard time viewing the original post as little more than jingoistic America bashing. It would seem that Combwork is equating anti-BP sentiment with anti-British sentiment. I think that conclusion is entirely unjustified.

As a result, I'll try very hard not to draw similar conclusions about his litany of catastrophes perpetrated by US companies. Rather, I'll limit myself to some of the specifics in his post.

Let me begin by saying that I agree that US companies have indeed acted in horrifyingly irresponsible ways in the past. That they did doesn't somehow disqualify us as US citizens from criticizing non-US corporations when they commit similar outrages.

Combwork's list of offenses includes the Liberian tanker, the Torrey Canyon. The Torrey Canyon ran aground off the Cornish coast and broke up. The disaster was largely the result of human error. The cleanup, which was largely unsuccessful, was conducted by the Royal Navy.

He is correct, by the way, that the Torrey Canyon was owned by a Union Oil subsidiary. Guess who it was leased to though.

That's right! BP! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrey_Canyon)

Now, let's move on to the Exxon Valdez. Again, a case of human error on the part of the tanker crew and again a tanker running aground and leaking. There was also the matter of a broken radar system that Exxon knew about and failed to repair.

That being said, the real problems came from the botched cleanup effort. Guess who was in charge of that!

Aw, you peeked! (http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/052610/sta_644797651.shtml)

Now, the matter of who's to blame for the current catastrophe. True, the investigation is yet to come but the press reporting all seems to point to BP ordering that the drilling be sped up and that drill mud be replaced with sea water (http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/hearings_bp_representative_ove.html). The operation was behind schedule and over budget and BP wanted to cut its losses. The operators objected to this but, since BP was paying the bills, their decision carried the day.

As to BP trying to "fix the problem", I'd have to say that their idea of that was to conceal the magnitude of the problem by barring "outsiders" and media (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/conversation-press-hassled-gulf-coast/story?id=10877263) from the area, requiring cleanup workers to sign a contract (http://thinkprogress.org/?p=100483) forbidding them from talking to the media and using dispersants (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/17/bp-dispersant-toxic/) (despite being told not to by the EPA) to make it impossible to quantify the amount of leakage (and therefore their liability). And you don't think the first thing they did was run to their lawyers?

Finally, Combwork claims that it appears BP is succeeding in stopping the leak. All one need do is look at the live video feed (http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3) to see just how absurd that notion is.

Anyone want me to go through the list of other disasters that BP has been responsible for? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7062669.stm)

John

Jingoistic American Bashing? I don't think so. It's just that at least on a corporate level, you guys are seen to run to the lawyers before the clean-up crew. I still stand by what I said; the blame game started before the public realised how serious it was. In a country where litigation is the first call, can you blame B.P. for putting the shutters up?

Finally, Combwork claims that it appears BP is succeeding in stopping the leak. All one need do is look at the live video feed (http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3) to see just how absurd that notion is.


What I wrote was "seems as if they might have succeeded", not that they had succeeded. Whatever you think about B.P. it's not all smoke and mirrors. B.P are not daft, they're a big corporation. They know they can't hide 'the truth' forever and again as far as I know, whatever happened comes under American jurisdiction and is subject to American law. B.P are a prime target with enough assets to make them worth going for.

Let me begin by saying that I agree that US companies have indeed acted in horrifyingly irresponsible ways in the past. That they did doesn't somehow disqualify us as US citizens from criticizing non-US corporations when they commit similar outrages.

Agreed, but in this case the blame game started way too quickly. When the Exxon Valdez ran aground and broke up it was the worst oil spillage at sea ever. No-one knew how to tackle it but well before the blame game got underway the Royal Navy tried to deal with it. Did Exxon ever admit that they with their undertrained crew and faulty radar (which they knew about beforehand) were to blame?


It would seem that Combwork is equating anti-BP sentiment with anti-British sentiment. I think that conclusion is entirely unjustified.

I don't think the U.S. is inherently anti-British but again, the speed with which B.P. was assumed by the U.S. to be entirely to blame just doesn't add up. Going back to their 'unsuccessful' attempt to repair the damage, did any U.S. company try anything or did they sit back and wait? If B.P. had solved the problem, great but if they couldn't? It would just be something else to blame them for in any subsequent litigation.

B.P. are damned if they do and damned if they don't. What to the best of my knowledge has yet to be established is what actually happened. Was it a mistake by the crew, cost cutting by the operators, bad design or just bad luck? One thing there's speculation about here is the possibility that they drilled into a large pocket of highly compressed gas; something they could not know about until they hit it. Finally a genuine question. Although B.P. owned the rig, were they directly responsible for operating it or was this done by sub-contractors?

This is not blame shifting; somewhere down the line there's a sign saying "the buck stops here" but we all know it doesn't. There are always advisers to blame; a willing (or unwilling) fall guy to take a hit.

I've just read this through and it all seems a bit vague, but no more than your post Boreas 31037. You admit there have been screw-ups by U.S. companies on the same scale as the Deepwater Horizon, my point is that U.S. corporations are seen as being better at avoiding responsibility than anyone else I can think of. Your legal system encourages this; lock everything in litigation for long enough in the hope that it will all go away.

[merrylander]

For your perusal;

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=1

Admittedly, I haven't read the whole thing just yet. But it actually seems to be the most realistic, unbiased article I've seen yet.

Enjoy,
Dave

The only problem with what they propose - getting all the revolving door people out of government - is that there would probably be no one left. Face it people, in a country that thinks legalized bribery is covered by the First Amendment, corruption is the rule not the exception. Latest count is that over 1400 former politicians, aides, congressional workers are now over at K Street and I will bet that is just the tip of the iceberg. Abramoff's only mistake was getting caught.

[merrylander]

<snip>I've just read this through and it all seems a bit vague, but no more than your post Boreas 31037. You admit there have been screw-ups by U.S. companies on the same scale as the Deepwater Horizon, my point is that U.S. corporations are seen as being better at avoiding responsibility than anyone else I can think of. Your legal system encourages this; lock everything in litigation for long enough in the hope that it will all go away.

Case in point Mine Safety.:rolleyes:

[Combwork]

Case in point Mine Safety.:rolleyes:

At least you've still got operating deep mines. In the 1970's Ted Heath (British Prime Minister) took on the miners and lost. Come round 2 in the 1980's, Margarette Thatcher took them on and won. Most of the mines were closed down and the few that were left sold to private companies.

Mines that had good accessible coal closed because the government thought oil was the cheaper fuel. Plus they wanted to break the N.U.M. We still needed coal so imported it from Poland; a country that used child labor in the mines and had an appalling safety record.

The N.U.M. was led by Arthur Scargill who predicted "if we lose the strike they'll close the mines". This turned out to be 100% accurate but he was such an abrasive arrogant fool that most people rejected anything he said. He refused to have a strike ballot in case he lost it; without a ballot he could not ask the T.U.C. for backing so the strike failed.

Now we're relying on burning oil (much of it imported), burning gas (running out), nuclear power (old ones being decommissioned; it takes at least 10 years between initial planning application and building new ones). We're relying on imported oil from the Middle East, electricity imported via an extremely heavy duty cable from France, and wind farms.

Now oil's been discovered off the Falklands. The Argentinians say that any British company even thinking about drilling for oil has to ask them nicely. The British are telling them to sod off.

We live in interesting times.

[merrylander]

That is the ancient Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times."

[finnbow]

How's this for cluelessness? From BP's corporate website (http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062827), the company states "BP notes the fall in its share price in US trading last night. The company is not aware of any reason which justifies this share price movement."

Not aware of any reason, eh? I wonder what it could be.:confused:

[Boreas]

I still stand by what I said; the blame game started before the public realised how serious it was.

Perhaps but that doesn't mean that the accusations weren't justified. In fact, as more and more becomes known, it becomes clearer and clearer that BP was indeed in the wrong both before and after the blowout.

In a country where litigation is the first call, can you blame B.P. for putting the shutters up?

Well, yes. Not only have they "put the shutters up" but behind those shutters are attempting to conceal their own culpability and the extent of the catastrophe.

What I wrote was "seems as if they might have succeeded", not that they had succeeded.

You then suggested that congratulations were in order. Apart from the fact that your statement is manifestly false, are we to get into the habit of congratulating someone for the mere appearance of success?

Whatever you think about B.P. it's not all smoke and mirrors. B.P are not daft, they're a big corporation.

I'd suggest that smoke and mirrors is exactly what it is.

They know they can't hide 'the truth' forever

Oh, I don't know about that. Their dispersant application to sub-surface oil is designed to do precisely that. By breaking up the oil and causing it to become neutrally buoyant and then linger below the surface, BP is absolutely trying to prevent anyone from ever discovering how much oil has escaped.

and again as far as I know, whatever happened comes under American jurisdiction and is subject to American law. B.P are a prime target with enough assets to make them worth going for.

Are you implying that the US is cynically out to screw poor innocent BP?

When the Exxon Valdez ran aground and broke up it was the worst oil spillage at sea ever. No-one knew how to tackle it but well before the blame game got underway the Royal Navy tried to deal with it. Did Exxon ever admit that they with their undertrained crew and faulty radar (which they knew about beforehand) were to blame?

You're merging two events here, separated by decades and oceans. The Royal Navy was involved in the Torrey Canyon cleanup off Cornwall. Exxon wasn't involved. Occidental and BP were.

The Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska. By the time of that spill people had learned a lot about cleanups. There had been quite a few. The trouble is BP had been tasked with the responsibility of responding to spills in that area but were totally unprepared. Finally Exxon literally shoved them out of the way and took over but by then most of the oil had escaped and was coming ashore.

I don't know whether Exxon ever admitted any responsibility for the untrained crew, drunken captain below decks or the unrepaired radar. Frankly, since all this is established fact, it doesn't matter what Exxon will admit.

By the way, I'm not defending Exxon.

Going back to their 'unsuccessful' attempt to repair the damage, did any U.S. company try anything or did they sit back and wait? If B.P. had solved the problem, great but if they couldn't?

Nobody is saying that the US government is without blame in either the response to the blowout or for the lax regulation and bureaucratic corruption that made it more or less inevitable. That does not excuse BP. As for other companies, many have offered their services and BP, with the assent of the Coast Guard, has refused all of them.

B.P. are damned if they do and damned if they don't. What to the best of my knowledge has yet to be established is what actually happened. Was it a mistake by the crew, cost cutting by the operators, bad design or just bad luck?

There's plenty of information about that in the links I included in my earlier post and in the Rolling Stone article Dave linked to. The operation was way behind schedule and way over budget. BP ordered that the procedure be sped up by using significantly less cement at the well head and by using sea water instead of drilling mud to save money. The rig operator (Haliburton) objected and warned BP that they would be running the risk of precisely the sort of disaster that eventually occurred.

One thing there's speculation about here is the possibility that they drilled into a large pocket of highly compressed gas; something they could not know about until they hit it. Finally a genuine question. Although B.P. owned the rig, were they directly responsible for operating it or was this done by sub-contractors?

There's no speculation about that at all. The totally corrupt and inept MMS warned BP to be very careful with this well because of all the gas pockets they were sure to encounter and it's established fact that the drill had been hitting pocket after pocket after pocket. They were bound to hit more. That's why the decision to use sea water instead of drilling mud was so irresponsible. The mud, being denser and heavier, is more capable of damping down these gas eruptions.

I've just read this through and it all seems a bit vague, but no more than your post Boreas 31037.

My post was anything but vague unless you ignored the numerous links to supporting information.

my point is that U.S. corporations are seen as being better at avoiding responsibility than anyone else I can think of. Your legal system encourages this; lock everything in litigation for long enough in the hope that it will all go away.

BP should be alright then since they're subject to our legal system in this matter.

John

[finnbow]

BP, like any big corporation, is just doing what it thinks is necessary to protect shareholder wealth after a big screw-up(not very successfully, might I add). I've come to expect nothing different from big corporations. It's not about being a responsible neighbor or a good corporate citizen, it's about amassing/protecting shareholder wealth. That's exactly why effective regulation is necessary, particularly with industries with potential for such destruction (environmental or economic).

Beyond Petroleum, indeed.

[Combwork]

Perhaps but that doesn't mean that the accusations weren't justified. In fact, as more and more becomes known, it becomes clearer and clearer that BP was indeed in the wrong both before and after the blowout.



Well, yes. Not only have they "put the shutters up" but behind those shutters are attempting to conceal their own culpability and the extent of the catastrophe.



You then suggested that congratulations were in order. Apart from the fact that your statement is manifestly false, are we to get into the habit of congratulating someone for the mere appearance of success?



I'd suggest that smoke and mirrors is exactly what it is.



Oh, I don't know about that. Their dispersant application to sub-surface oil is designed to do precisely that. By breaking up the oil and causing it to become neutrally buoyant and then linger below the surface, BP is absolutely trying to prevent anyone from ever discovering how much oil has escaped.



Are you implying that the US is cynically out to screw poor innocent BP?



You're merging two events here, separated by decades and oceans. The Royal Navy was involved in the Torrey Canyon cleanup off Cornwall. Exxon wasn't involved. Occidental and BP were.

The Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska. By the time of that spill people had learned a lot about cleanups. There had been quite a few. The trouble is BP had been tasked with the responsibility of responding to spills in that area but were totally unprepared. Finally Exxon literally shoved them out of the way and took over but by then most of the oil had escaped and was coming ashore.

I don't know whether Exxon ever admitted any responsibility for the untrained crew, drunken captain below decks or the unrepaired radar. Frankly, since all this is established fact, it doesn't matter what Exxon will admit.

By the way, I'm not defending Exxon.



Nobody is saying that the US government is without blame in either the response to the blowout or for the lax regulation and bureaucratic corruption that made it more or less inevitable. That does not excuse BP. As for other companies, many have offered their services and BP, with the assent of the Coast Guard, has refused all of them.



There's plenty of information about that in the links I included in my earlier post and in the Rolling Stone article Dave linked to. The operation was way behind schedule and way over budget. BP ordered that the procedure be sped up by using significantly less cement at the well head and by using sea water instead of drilling mud to save money. The rig operator (Haliburton) objected and warned BP that they would be running the risk of precisely the sort of disaster that eventually occurred.



There's no speculation about that at all. The totally corrupt and inept MMS warned BP to be very careful with this well because of all the gas pockets they were sure to encounter and it's established fact that the drill had been hitting pocket after pocket after pocket. They were bound to hit more. That's why the decision to use sea water instead of drilling mud was so irresponsible. The mud, being denser and heavier, is more capable of damping down these gas eruptions.



My post was anything but vague unless you ignored the numerous links to supporting information.



BP should be alright then since they're subject to our legal system in this matter.

John


I have to admit I've not followed all the links, but the one's I've read make for interesting reading. So going over your post point for point;


Perhaps but that doesn't mean that the accusations weren't justified. In fact, as more and more becomes known, it becomes clearer and clearer that BP was indeed in the wrong both before and after the blowout.


Again, fair point if it's true but with a lot of people all saying different things, I still think it's too early to tell. I'm no apologist for B.P. but is it all black and white?

Well, yes. Not only have they "put the shutters up" but behind those shutters are attempting to conceal their own culpability and the extent of the catastrophe.

With the world and its wife all watching, how could they conceal the extent of the catastrophe? It's the same with trying to conceal their own alleged culpability. Maybe possible in the short term but then when it does become public, they'll be even deeper in the shit than they are now.


You then suggested that congratulations were in order. Apart from the fact that your statement is manifestly false, are we to get into the habit of congratulating someone for the mere appearance of success?

Not congratulations, just acknowledgment that whether they are solely to blame or not they are trying to do something. Maybe way too late.


Oh, I don't know about that. Their dispersant application to sub-surface oil is designed to do precisely that. By breaking up the oil and causing it to become neutrally buoyant and then linger below the surface, BP is absolutely trying to prevent anyone from ever discovering how much oil has escaped.

If that were the case it wouldn't be public knowledge would it? Again it's down to perspective. B.P. claims keeping it neutrally buoyant will reduce the chances of it being driven ashore. Again, we're told that bacterial action in salt water can help break the oil down. Is this true? I don't know but I don't dismiss it just because it's coming from B.P.


You're merging two events here, separated by decades and oceans. The Royal Navy was involved in the Torrey Canyon cleanup off Cornwall. Exxon wasn't involved. Occidental and BP were.

True, sorry about that.


By the way, I'm not defending Exxon.

And I'm not defending B.P., but I am waiting for some of the wilder retoric to die down a bit. "whose ass to kick?" Is that playing to the gallery or not?

Nobody is saying that the US government is without blame in either the response to the blowout or for the lax regulation and bureaucratic corruption that made it more or less inevitable. That does not excuse BP. As for other companies, many have offered their services and BP, with the assent of the Coast Guard, has refused all of them.

I'm not with you; are you saying the U.S. coastguard are in collusion with B.P.?

There's plenty of information about that in the links I included in my earlier post and in the Rolling Stone article Dave linked to. The operation was way behind schedule and way over budget. BP ordered that the procedure be sped up by using significantly less cement at the well head and by using sea water instead of drilling mud to save money. The rig operator (Haliburton) objected and warned BP that they would be running the risk of precisely the sort of disaster that eventually occurred.

Interesting. I didn't realise B.P. had been warned of the dangers from an informed source and chose to ignore it.

There's no speculation about that at all. The totally corrupt and inept MMS warned BP to be very careful with this well because of all the gas pockets they were sure to encounter and it's established fact that the drill had been hitting pocket after pocket after pocket. They were bound to hit more. That's why the decision to use sea water instead of drilling mud was so irresponsible. The mud, being denser and heavier, is more capable of damping down these gas eruptions.

Again, interesting. One thought though. If MMS were "totally corrupt and inept" and B.P. knew it, how much credence should they have placed on advice from such an untrustworthy source?

BP should be alright then since they're subject to our legal system in this matter.

Hmmmm. The blind leading the blind? Is this thing going to run and run until someone runs out of money?

[Boreas]

And I'm not defending B.P.

Och, but ye are, laddie! Though why yer defending that muckle o' Sassenach gits I dinna ken!

"whose ass to kick?" Is that playing to the gallery or not?

Well, he is a politician after all but he was pretty tone deaf on this one. It hasn't played well at all.

I'm not with you; are you saying the U.S. coastguard are in collusion with B.P.?

More like Stockholm syndrome, or so it seems at times.

Interesting. I didn't realise B.P. had been warned of the dangers from an informed source and chose to ignore it.

Apparently so. Witnesses to the meeting where the decision was made have gone public. It all came down to getting things done as quickly and as cheaply as possible despite the increased risks.

Again, interesting. One thought though. If MMS were "totally corrupt and inept" and B.P. knew it, how much credence should they have placed on advice from such an untrustworthy source?

MMS was the issuer of the drilling permit. They wrote their admonition to be careful of gas pockets right into the text of it. Forgive me if I doubt BP ever even read it.

Hmmmm. The blind leading the blind? Is this thing going to run and run until someone runs out of money?

Exxon still hasn't paid damages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#Litigation_and_cleanup_cost s) for the Exxon Valdez spill. They had the amount of the settlement drastically cut on appeal and still haven't paid that. They recognize that they'll still be around long after the last of the Alaskan fishermen and their families are dead.

John

[Combwork]

[QUOTE=Boreas;31110]Och, but ye are, laddie! Though why yer defending that muckle o' Sassenach gits I dinna ken!

Ok I surrender. As an Englishman living in Scotland I know when to keep my head down.:D Incidentally, my wife's Scottish and her father told me that originally, Sassenach was a term of abuse used by the Highland Scots against the Lowland Scots.

The English were recognized as 'the enemy', but in siding with them the Lowlanders were seen as traitors.

[merrylander]

I wonder about the stories of the Coast Guard not accepting foreign aid originated? According to the Post this AM there are booms from Mexico and Canada, state of the art sweepers from The Netherlands, etc.

[d-ray657]

Apparently so. Witnesses to the meeting where the decision was made have gone public. It all came down to getting things done as quickly and as cheaply as possible despite the increased risks.


Were the witnesses to the meeting where Haliburton objected and warned BP about the danger Haliburton representatives, BP representatives or both? If the only witnesses were Haliburton representatives I would be skeptical of the assertions, in that Haliburton is facing big-time exposure too. OTH, is is essentially an admission against interest by Haliburton too, because it establishes that both of them operated with the knowledge of the enhanced risk. I don't think "just following orders" cuts it.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Incidentally, my wife's Scottish and her father told me that originally, Sassenach was a term of abuse used by the Highland Scots against the Lowland Scots.

I'd always heard that Sassenach was just the Gaelic word for Saxon.

John

[Boreas]

19]Were the witnesses to the meeting where Haliburton objected and
[/LIST] warned BP about the danger Haliburton representatives, BP representatives or both?

According to this article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575266560930780190.html), the disagreement was between BP and Transocean.

John

[Combwork]

I'd always heard that Sassenach was just the Gaelic word for Saxon.

John

Looks like you're right; the following is from Wikipedia.

Sassenach is a word used chiefly by the Scots to designate an Englishman
[1] It derives from the Gaelic Sasunnach meaning, originally, "Saxon". The modern Scottish spelling is 'Sasannach'. As employed by Scots or Scottish English-speakers today it is usually used in jest, as a (friendly) term of abuse. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives 1771 as the date of the earliest written use of the word in English.

I'm not 100% sure about "(friendly) term of abuse", I guess it depends on how and were it's said.

[Boreas]

Looks like you're right; the following is from Wikipedia.
[I]
Sassenach is a word used chiefly by the Scots to designate an Englishman


I think the Highlanders may well have used it as an insult to the Lowland Scots who sided with the English since by doing so they would have been "nae better than a Sassenach".

John

[Combwork]

I think the Highlanders may well have used it as an insult to the Lowland Scots who sided with the English since by doing so they would have been "nae better than a Sassenach".

John

I think it may have been more than this. The English 'though hated, were seen as the enemy (especially after the Highland clearances) but kind of respected. Some lowlanders not only fought on the English side, they benefited from the subsequent land grab and loathed as traitors. As an Englishman married to a Scottish girl, in 26 years living in Scotland I've only got involved in trouble in a bar once, when a drunken Scott took exception to my English accent.

To go back a bit further, despite not happening directly between England and Scotland, Scots have long memories.

Accurate or not, the following is from Wikipedia.

The Massacre of Glencoe occurred in Glen Coe, Scotland, in the early morning of 13 February 1692, during the era of the Glorious Revolution and Jacobitism. In Scottish Gaelic, the event is named 'Mort Ghlinne Comhann' (murder of Glen Coe). The massacre began simultaneously in three settlements along the glen—Invercoe, Inverrigan, and Achnacon—although the killing took place all over the glen as fleeing MacDonalds were pursued. Thirty-eight MacDonalds from the Clan MacDonald of Glencoe were killed by the guests who had accepted their hospitality, on the grounds that the MacDonalds had not been prompt in pledging allegiance to the new monarchs, William and Mary. Another forty women and children died of exposure after their homes were burned

Are you from Scotland John?

[noonereal]

I don't think anybody is sitting on hands. It's just a very unfortunate accident that everybody including the gubment is trying to fix. Blame Blame Blame. It is a shame that we can't blame China or Obama for it. Wake up America. We are not perfect. I'm loosing my beautiful beaches as we speek but I don't blame anyone. Let's just do what Americans do and fix this shit.

how?

.