BP Ignored Safety Modeling Software To Save Time 203
DMandPenfold writes "BP ignored the advice of safety modeling software in an attempt to save time before the disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, according to a presentation slide (PDF) prepared by US investigators. The slide in question briefly appeared on the Oil Spill Commission's website in error, but was quickly retracted. Advanced cement modeling software, provided by BP's cement contractor Halliburton, had highlighted serious stability concerns with the well."
Re:Easy peasy (Score:5, Informative)
BP gas stations are independently owned and operated... and they don't necessarily sell BP gas. Furthermore, even if every BP station were to shut down tomorrow, BP would still be able to sell their gas to every other gas station, none of which are locked into buying their gas from a single provider.
In short, boycotting BP won't do anything but hurt locally owned gas stations that had nothing to do with the spill.
Re:And this is a surprise? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Seriously (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, BP gas stations are mostly franchises. I believe that they pay an annual fee to use the brand name. BP still gets their money unless the gas station goes bankrupt. Because there isn't much excess refining capacity in the US, BP could still sell their gas to the other stations. A boycott would hurt BP's public image, but wouldn't cost them much money.
Re:A Question of Scale (Score:3, Informative)
My understanding is that the modeling software was not of sufficient quality that it could be trusted.
I would like to know more about the way in which the model's prediction of failure was communicated to BP. It would be consistent with common practices in the industry for Haliburton to go on record with a negative report while dismissing its findings off the record and urging a go-ahead behind the scenes. It is more than possible-- it is highly likely-- that Haliburton brought forth this negative report solely for the purpose of diverting blame if something went wrong.
I note that Haliburton had no trouble at all in going ahead with its part of the project despite this negative report.
Re:Seriously (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, FWIW, here in Alabama, a lot of people *have* been boycotting BP. A number of gas stations here in Birmingham have changed from BP to some other brand because their business dropped off precipitously after the spill. (Anecdotal evidence alert, no hard evidence, just what I've noticed while driving around.)
As for boycotting BP ... well, a lot of people figure the buck had to stop somewhere. To me, it's indisputable that BP made some terrible decisions. The fact that (sadly) they had already determined that the well wasn't economically viable, and BP was planning just to cap it and leave it for the time being, is irrelevant.
I'm a good free market conservative, but I do believe in responsible behavior on the part of those companies that enjoy the benefits of it. If someone were to open a large manufacturing plant in Central Alabama, we'd welcome the jobs . .. .. but we would NOT welcome them cutting corners and poisoning the streams, for example. Stereotypes aside, we ain't ENTIRELY stupid here. :)
Re:A private company rushed in for profit (Score:5, Informative)
If someone really couldn't do better than a Walmart job, then they probably couldn't run a business either.
Many of these people *were* running their own business, until Walmart drove them out of business by selling at close to zero margin until the competition went under.
Re:Seriously (Score:3, Informative)
Franchises play an incredibly minor part in BP's revenue. It is nearly impossible for consumers to damage a company whose product is a commodity, short of organizing a boycott of that commodity in its entirety (and hence, every other company who produces/markets that commodity).
While I'm not saying a gasoline boycott is out of the question, a consumer-lead campaign to financially punish BP would have to be far larger in scope than BP itself. There are, of course, other BP subsidiaries that produce non-commodity products. I doubt they'd notice much of a boycott there though...
Re:Easy peasy (Score:3, Informative)
BP has a consumer solar division, sells LPG directly to individuals, has a consumer lubricants division, and produces a vast array of petrochemical products for business use (and in quantities far smaller than "supertanker").
Not that I believe a boycott will do much to a company that derives their income primarily from producing a product that is traded as a commodity, but the above comment was too asinine to pass up.
http://www.bp.com/productsservices.do?categoryId=37&contentId=2007985 [bp.com]
Re:A private company rushed in for profit (Score:3, Informative)
And in a "free-market", libertarian modeled world, BP would be sued out of existence. Every fisherman, hotel owner, casino owner, Gulf Coast resident & Gulf Coast tourist would line up to take a bite out of BP for damages sustained. BP would be nibbled to death.
Of course, there's several obstacles to that happening:
1) The vast majority of the plaintiffs are too small to fund the legal challenge necessary. It'd be interesting if the States affected could/would go after BP on behalf of their citizens.
2) BP has the resources to keep any lawsuits tied up in court indefinitely. By the time any payout judgement did come through, most of the claimants would be dead and buried.
3) BP is important to the British economy. That raises the politics to the international level. Even the individual US States can't play there.
BP is too big to be punished significantly. The people of the USA have had their environment degraded measurably for who knows how long, and the residents of the Gulf Coast have had their lives changed permanently. My one hope is that the USA will learn the lesson that not all regulation is bad like the Tea Party is chanting.