BP Knew of Deepwater Horizon Problems 11 Months Ago 438
jkinney3 was one of several readers to send in news of recently discovered internal documents from BP which indicate the company knew "there were serious problems and safety concerns with the Deepwater Horizon rig far earlier than those the company described to Congress last week." According to the New York Times, "The documents show that in March, after several weeks of problems on the rig, BP was struggling with a loss of 'well control.' And as far back as 11 months ago, it was concerned about the well casing and the blowout preventer." Reader bezenek points out this troubling quote about BP's inconsistent risk assessments: "In April of this year, BP engineers concluded that the casing was 'unlikely to be a successful cement job,' according to a document, referring to how the casing would be sealed to prevent gases from escaping up the well. The document also says that the plan for casing the well is 'unable to fulfill M.M.S. regulations,' referring to the Minerals Management Service. A second version of the same document says 'It is possible to obtain a successful cement job' and 'It is possible to fulfill M.M.S. regulations.'"
Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this really surprise anyone?
Liability caps (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay... so now what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Okay... so now what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have to wonder what goes on inside BP (Score:4, Insightful)
Beyond Petroleum, of course of $$$.
CC.
Re:Liability caps (Score:5, Insightful)
If because of these fees BP has higher priced oil than say Exxon, people will flock to Exxon and ignore BP. Of course due to governments creating artificial monopolies, kickbacks, bailouts and the like this doesn't happen for many businesses.
More likely, Exxon will simply raise their prices to be the same as BP's.
Re:I have to wonder what goes on inside BP (Score:4, Insightful)
Did they not honestly believe that a disaster could occur? Did the right people not talk to each other? Or was the urge to cut corners simply so great that people ignored the risk?
From the ABC interview with one of the survivors, the BP people were arguing with the Transocean people, insisting that it would be ok to skip some phases of sealing the well because they wanted to move the schedule up. I wonder what that BP manager was thinking.
If BP is like every other big monster multinational corporation, there were multiple departments or divisions arguing with each other and with the contractors. As far as they were concerned, they knew what was the thing to do and everyone else was a bunch of stuffed shirts and the contractors were morons.
As far as the contractors were concerned, the BP guys were big corporate paper pushing morons that if they knew anything, would be working with the contractors.
The 'BP' in the above statement can be searched and replaced with any big corporation and their outsource "partners".
Don't confuse malice with corporate bureaucracy, internal fighting, politics, and the arrogance of people in the field and in the offices.
Now, this being the typical corporate fuck up, everyone will be pointing fingers at the others stating "We told them so!" but the were: too stupid, political, arrogant, or didn't listen and therefore the disaster happened. If only they listened to us.
The CEO will still get his hundred million dollar paycheck but the peons are probably gonna be axed without much compensation. It's good to be king - CEO.
Re:Liability caps (Score:5, Insightful)
Any damages applied to them would simply be passed on to the consumers.
BP has competitors. If BP "passes on" the damages to consumers in the form of higher prices, those competitors can easily undercut BP's prices.
Re:Liability caps (Score:2, Insightful)
Except oil is a fungible commodity, so BP oil being more expensive will affect the entire market.
"I wonder what that BP manager was thinking." (Score:5, Insightful)
20% bonus if I come in ahead of schedule. etc etc etc.
Re:President Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
... seize BP and all its assets. Take the assets of ALL the top level execs and board, use that to pay for the clean up. Hold those same people criminally responsible for ALL of this and imprison them.
Hypothetically, that sounds like what dictators of certain countries would love to do to companies and newspaper publishers that don't support them. Just find an excuse, or create one.
You honestly think this is a correct course of action?
Re:Liability caps (Score:3, Insightful)
More profits for BP's competitors, then.
Re:Okay... so now what? - Revoke corporate charter (Score:3, Insightful)
After seeing this proclaimed "biggest US environmental disaster" [bbc.co.uk], I think we might consider all the other massive impacts of industrialization on the US and question not how bad the Gulf is (terrible and worse every moment), but just how bad everything else that has been allowed to become. (mountain top removal, pesticide and medications in water supplies, species extinctions, massive deforestation, Hanford Nuclear Reservation, etc) Can we really be sucked into believing that this is just one bad thing on one bad day?
Long jail sentences for management chain (Score:5, Insightful)
Fines don't amount to much, even if they're huge -- shareholders get hurt, but the decisionmakers don't get hurt enough.
The solution: long jail sentences, from the CEO on down to middle management. If you knew about this and were anything but a prole, you need to go to jail. A policy like this and management will consider safety far more important than they do now.
P.S. Same goes for Massey up in West Virginia, etc.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
What I would really like to see is the risk analysis report. How cautionary were the warnings of the engineers and how did the pencil pushers at the top translate this as an acceptable risk?
Re:Yes. (Score:1, Insightful)
This incident has a lot of visibility, and the government can not afford to let it go with a slap.
BP *WILL NOT* come out of this unscathed, if they come out at all.
That's like saying "I'm twelve years old and what is this?". Seriously, corporations that size have nothing to fear.
There will be a few token publicity actions from politicians and BP but that'll be it. All they have to do is convince the idiot population that they did something and quickly move on to some petty squabble to overshadow the affaire. Too many bribes went into their pockets to really hurt BP.
Hell, even if politicians suddly grow a spine and take the blame when their bribes get exposed, BP could stil run any government into the ground by exploiting every single legal loophole for the next 100 years.
While we are at it, how's ExxonMobile doing these days? ;)
Re:Liability caps (Score:5, Insightful)
Any damages applied to them would simply be passed on to the consumers.
Not a problem in my book. The consumers create the demand for the oil in the first place.
doesn't work with oil. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oil is almost as fungible as any national currency -- more so than most. The nature of oil moving in the global market is such that unless a boycott is nearly universal in its application, there is virtually no penalty against the boycotted firm. The only place consumers can really have an impact would be at BP stations in their community, and in general that would only impact the local owners and operators, while the refinery simply sold their products to other retailers.
Re:President Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
the united states used to dissolve the charters of thousands of corporations a year. Way back when, it was a valid punishment for fucking up. Then, suddenly, corporations became people too.
Re: Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
and how did the pencil pushers at the top translate this as an acceptable risk?
Apparently they just changed "unable" to "able".
Re:Liability caps (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. BP is already pricing its oil to whatever brings it most profits. It can't pass anything to consumer since rising prices would send consumers to competitors instead, leading to less profits for BP.
Bullshit.
The gasoline retail industry is notorious for having a pricing strategy of "the maximum the consumer can withstand". As soon as BP raises prices (which they won't have to, that's not where they make their money anyway) the neighbouring stations would raise their prices too.
In any case BP, Exxon, Chevron etc. don't make their profits at the pump. They run refineries, they supply fuel direct to major consumers like airlines, they sell raw crude on the commodities market. What average Joe pays at the station is not their cash cow - any small fluctuations in price benefit the individual station owners, not the big mega-corp.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Liability caps (Score:4, Insightful)
We have anti-monopoly laws and investigators to deal with these kinds of things.
Hehe!
Oh dear, you were being sarcastic, right?
Re:Liability caps (Score:2, Insightful)
the idea is not to wait until you're almost running out of gas to check local prices and shop smart.
you don't HAVE to, though.
Depends on where you are. Some parts of the country, you leave one town with a full tank and at less than half by the time you hit the next town. You fill up at whatever station is there, you really have no choice, because the alternative is to run out in the middle of the desert before you hit the next town.
Re: Does it Matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
You and I both know, no matter what comes out...no matter how bad and damning the evidence is against BP...the USA taxpayer and consumer will bear the brunt of the cost of the cleanup.
That's "privatize profit, socialize risk" in action.
This is good for the United States (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait a minutes.... you guys got lawyers by the hundreds of thousands, that will SOLVE all your problems. Just sue yourselves while you're at it, you could use the Ca$h I'm sure....
Perhaps,... just perhaps this epic MAN-MADE eco disaster will wake up enough of your patriots (are there any left anywhere in the world these days?) to take back the agenda and start acting like you deserve the moniker, Superpower...
BTW, this isn't a flame, I'm a Canuck and I believe that the US is the greatest country on the planet...Americans are awesome, Hell, I even work for the US government (via third party)! In conclusion; Show some vision will ya? WAKE UP!
Re:I have to wonder what goes on inside BP (Score:1, Insightful)
Its not a shame its criminal negligence. Even if its never "proven" in a court any child can understand that greed killed this well, the gulf, billions of dollars in lost income for local residence, 11 lives of the platform workers, and is probably going to extinct a few species. I have never been for the death penalty until now.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Well since BP's unconscionable business practices are being thoroughly exposed, you don't necessarily have to give them a second chance. There's a point where their organization is so flawed that it would be an unacceptable danger to have these people continue to drill when millions of lives can be affected. The best solution may be to dismantle BP's US operations entirely and let it serve as a warning to the rest.
Re:Liability caps (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I weren't. Then again, I don't live in US. If it seems sarcastic to you, then maybe you should start by fixing your government.
Re:I have to wonder what goes on inside BP (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
FWIW, I believe that under law the top level executives and the board of directors ARE personally liable. But somehow the prosecutors don't find those targets appealing, and they get to choose which cases they prosecute.
It doesn't *have* to be corruption. That's only one possibility. Personally, I think it is, but only if you give corruption a very wide interpretation. If a DA prosecutes someone powerful, whether they win or lose their career is probably over. Same for the Attorney Generals, but with a tougher criterion for powerful. And judges also, for whatever reason, tend to give favorable treatment beyond the bounds of law or reason to the more powerful.
They *laws* are fair (in the sense recognized by François Villon: simplified"The law forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under the bridge."), but the enforcement isn't even fair in that sense.
Re:I have to wonder what goes on inside BP (Score:3, Insightful)
Iff you start holding management (top level and their immediate subordinates) and the board of directors personally responsible, this will stop...or at least vastly slow down.
Originally that "iff" at the start was a typo, but as I went to correct it, I changed my mind. I think "If and only if" *is* the correct operator.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
You and I will probably forget in a year. But the thousands of fishermen who can never fish in the gulf again will never forget.
Just like thousands of fishermen who can still not fish in Prince William Sound. Exxon is still the biggest publicly traded company.
Re:I have to wonder what goes on inside BP (Score:5, Insightful)
The CEO and the board both serve their bonuses, nothing less, nothing more. And they are going to get bonuses, after which the CEO - if he's going to be fired - will get a golden parachute.
Personal responsibility is for the serfs.
Re:Liability caps (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil is a commodity and commodities are the freest market in the world, largely devoid of government control. Their costs tend to based on what the market will bear, not what the government mandates.
- pure nonsense. Look at BP, previously known as Anglo Persian Oil company, or the guys who pumped oil in Iran before the fifties and then, when the Shah was removed and a democratic government came to power, this company went crying to Governments of UK and US and those governments killed democracy in Iran and helped the oil company to get a more favorable contract.
If that is not government 'control' or help, then what the hell is?
--
Nixon set price controls on food and where did this lead? It lead to food manufacturers making sure that the government provides strong subsidies to the farmers to grow corn and soy and wheat (and cotton, whatever) and this destroyed the health of first Americans and second of citizens of many other countries because in order to keep with the inflation, instead of setting the food prices at market rates, the companies had to concentrate on cutting costs only and this lead to the health disaster that is provided by fructose. [youtube.com]
Re:President Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with nationalizing a company - any company - by the US government is that is pretty much opens a door that is very hard to close.
Further, once that door is open just a tiny little bit it makes it pretty obvious to anyone with sizable assets and either potential or actual large-scale liabilities that the same thing might happen to them. Suddenly, the US is a very bad place to have any assets because they might get seized.
Sure, you could claim that the US needs to nationalize BP because of the oil spill. So what about nationalizing Toyota because of their car problems? A whole lot more people may have been killed from Toyota's problems than will ever die because of the oil spill. Same thing really applies to GM and Ford for exactly the same reasons. Would GE be safe, considering they make a huge percentage of the jet airliner engines?
The problem isn't even that the government doesn't want to be in business. It is that once it is "acceptable" take stuff over where exactly do you draw the line and how do you keep Congress from not crossing over that line? Short answer is that you don't.
I'd say if BP was nationalized anyone with sizable assets in the US would simply pull out. If they needed some resource that was in the US there would be a subsidary set up to operate it and it would be treated as something that could disappear in a moment.
Basically, the US would be a third-world country overnight and there would be nothing anyone could do to stop it because it would be 1,000 independent decisions by boards of directors. I'd expect the unemployment to go from 20% to 40% in a year and stay that way basically forever.
It would be an incredibly stupid move. But, given the current government in Washington, it isn't anything that I would say would be impossible to do. And it would be extremely popular. For a while.
Re:Not entirely true. Here's some insights (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is valid that the company did not rationally considered options and did not prepare for the disaster as a coherent unit, in a way that is meaningful and that could be used. My point is valid that the technology of trying to stop the leak has not advanced since 30 years ago and probably longer than that. They are doing the same thing and failing in the same way they did before.
Re:Liability caps (Score:2, Insightful)
the Radio business? This is tightly regulated and controlled by FCC, which is a government agency if I am not mistaken. However I find it difficult to see how this is a monopoly with all the alternatives including the Internet radio, FM/AM etc. In its own niche it could as well be a monopoly but that does not make it an industry monopoly. It competes with different types of media as well as with the Internet radio, cable etc. A monopoly in a particular segment can arise and hold IF it is as efficient as possible and nobody can undercut it. Once the prices rise, it will be undercut by a competitor.
Re:Liability caps (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it highly ironic that many libertarians decry consumerism but when pressed about problems that largely have been seen by the mainstream as being solved by regulation, Libertarians start suggesting that you plan your life around your life as a consumer.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing would ever get done. Food for thought. And thanks to all the corner cutting, BP can afford an environmental catastrophe of this magnitude.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:President Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with rushing to create new laws is that is saying "This isn't covered under current law", which is another way to let those responsible go scot free, and undermines a real investigation and prosecution. We can make new laws that cover very specific situations like this, but common law regarding criminal negligence should suffice.
The more detailed and specific you make a law, the more difficult it is to actually enforce.
Re:Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
They can't go on to a third-world country if we sue them out of existence & charge their executives with negligence. Some time in prison would serve as a good warning for their idiocy. I doubt it'll happen to that effect, but the notion that we need BP to fuck-up our Gulf Coast because no one else can or that we need them to fuck-up our coastline so as to protect other nations, is retarded. If we really want to do something, then the executives responsible need to be punished & the company needs to be dismantled.
Re:Long jail sentences for management chain (Score:3, Insightful)
We put people in prison in this country because they smoke a joint, or sell a "feel good" drug to someone else who wants it, or jaywalk too many times, etc. The trials are short, for the most part (excepting celebrities).
Greedy asshats who fuck up thousands+ lives haven't even been indicted.
The "justice" system in the US has been bought and paid for, and those who flaunt it don't even have to hide anymore.
The quote at the bottom of this load of the article is " If you don't drink it, someone else will. "
Koolaid.
SB
Re:Duh (Score:1, Insightful)
And thanks to all the corner cutting, BP can afford an environmental catastrophe of this magnitude.
Maybe that's the problem in the first place...
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that what they can afford is vastly different from they'll end up paying.
Re:Flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
Engineers can take all the offense they like, but this is simply the truth. Engineers are not running BP or Transocean or Halliburton. Engineers matter only to the question 'how much more money can we dig out of the earth' and not 'how do we deal with a disaster we may cause'.
Engineers matter to the question 'what could go wrong and how do we keep it from happening?'
I doubt that engineers would design the BOP stack with a discharged battery, or with shear rams undersized for the weight of drill-pipe in the hole. I doubt that engineers designed the well-suspension program to proceed regardless of the results of the positive and negative pressure tests on the cement job or without a retrievable bridge plug set before pulling out of the hole.
Other people are often responsible for carrying out the plans of engineers, and the causes of accidents are often attributable to failure by others -- whether workers or management -- to follow the designs and recommendations of the engineers. Not always, of course, which is why engineers sit on boards of inquiry in an effort to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. The classic example is the Challenger accident, where management overruled the caution of the engineers with a well-known result.
So, in short, I think your excoriation of engineers' work generally is a bit misplaced.
DISCLAIMER: I am one.
What do we expect? (Score:2, Insightful)
What do we expect when we (not the US, the entirety of the Western Hemisphere at the moment) have a corporate culture where spending the least possible, while still charging the most possible is the major determiner for success?
What bonuses (boni?) did BP management receive for bringing this impending disaster on us? Will they have to be paid back? Doubt it. Pat on the back, well done, we'll just fire some low-level workers to cover costs or just transfer them to the idiot customers (to which competitors to BP will just say "hooray", meet the price and pocket the higher profits).
Same situation for the toxic debt problem. Same situation for the rushed Iraq invasion. Same situation for most other environmental disasters.
This is evident in every facet of our lives. In my industry (education), we're trying to pack more students into smaller spaces with fewer teachers. We're wondering why we're seeing things like lesser empathy in tertiary students [slashdot.org]... DUH.