B.P. = Bit of Perspective?

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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!

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!

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. 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 from the area, requiring cleanup workers to sign a contract forbidding them from talking to the media and using dispersants (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 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?

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by 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!

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!

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. 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 from the area, requiring cleanup workers to sign a contract forbidding them from talking to the media and using dispersants (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 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?

John

You, Sir, are a machine. Awesome post.

Dave

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by 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!

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!

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. 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 from the area, requiring cleanup workers to sign a contract forbidding them from talking to the media and using dispersants (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 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?

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 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]

Originally Posted by Combwork

<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.

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Case in point Mine Safety.

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.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Combwork

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

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by Boreas

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]

Originally Posted by Combwork

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 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. 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.