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?
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: 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:Duh (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, like this.
First of all, the sections of pipe are joined mechanically, and sealed with O-rings. The O-rings are specified for shallow water pressures (and temperatures), and rather than use adequate deep water parts, the shallow water parts were continued to avoid mandatory Federal oversight and testing.
On top of that, deadlines for completion were already tight, as no schedule variability was provided for unforeseen events, such as severe weather, that might hamper drilling and well conversion efforts. The conversion from an exploratory/research structure into a production well was a hard deadline, and pressure was on internally from the otherwise stagnant middle managers clamoring for achievement. There was no room for failure with a project named Deepwater Horizon.
As engineers' warnings flowed up the chain of command, the wording changed from "grave concern" to "concern" to "noted comment" to eventually "thumbs up!". Inter-hierarchical presentations followed a strict time schedule, so power point mentality and "no bad news up" reigned.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, like this.
First of all, the sections of pipe are joined mechanically, and sealed with O-rings. The O-rings are specified for shallow water pressures (and temperatures), and rather than use adequate deep water parts, the shallow water parts were continued to avoid mandatory Federal oversight and testing.
On top of that, deadlines for completion were already tight, as no schedule variability was provided for unforeseen events, such as severe weather, that might hamper drilling and well conversion efforts. The conversion from an exploratory/research structure into a production well was a hard deadline, and pressure was on internally from the otherwise stagnant middle managers clamoring for achievement. There was no room for failure with a project named Deepwater Horizon.
As engineers' warnings flowed up the chain of command, the wording changed from "grave concern" to "concern" to "noted comment" to eventually "thumbs up!". Inter-hierarchical presentations followed a strict time schedule, so power point mentality and "no bad news up" reigned.
That reminds me of this old classic:
In the beginning was the Plan.
And then came the Assumptions.
And the Assumptions were without form.
And the Plan was without substance.
And darkness was upon the face of the workers.
And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of shit, and it stinks."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung, and we can't live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying "It is a vessel of fertilizer and none may abide its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves, saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company with powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became Policy.
And that is how shit happens.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You note that as satite, but that's basically exactly what happened with the Challenger. The engineers had reliability reports and lots of testing data that showed launching in the cold was a Bad IDea... however, poorly constructed presentations didn't highlight THAT aspect of the data, and their warnings were generally misunderstood or ignored.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that what they can afford is vastly different from they'll end up paying.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Good, then they can move on to third-world countries where such control isn't in place, let impoverished foreigners suffer.
Last I checked, corporations drilling for oil have to operate where the oil is.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)
Like Nigeria [guardian.co.uk]. From that article,
.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course not. Anyone with half a brain knows that private companies are utterly amoral entities beholden to no law or regulation beyond those they set themselves; Not even the profit motive--though this is most often their creed.
If you look at the problems seen in this spill, the financial crisis and elsewhere, you see that each and every single person involved in the poor and negligent decisions that were made acted in their own interests to the exclusion of all else. It's obvious why they did so; no-one was accountable for anything. And what happens when people can do whatever they want with no consequences?
Forget fines. Fines on large companies count as paperwork to them. No-one cares. Who's going to jail over this. Who will have to personally pay fines? That is the only type of punishment that people, human beings will understand. If the supervisors and managers of Deepwater Horizon knew that their jobs, pensions and freedom was on the line if anything happened at that plant, you can be certain that all measures would have been taken to ensure safety. Instead, punitive measures are passed on to the company in the form of (minor) bureaucratic fines, all while bonuses are paid out to employees for illegal/dangerous behaviour. Deepwater Horizon was one disaster amid millions waiting to happen under our current corporate system.
The problem is the corporate system, and the unnecessary and dangerous insulation it gives to individuals. Corporations and their actions are ultimately a result of the decisions and actions of individuals and those must be the people who are held to account, not some abstract entity. The science fiction cliché of mega-corporations who commit all kinds of outrageous crimes is not a fantasy so much as it is a logical extrapolation of what the corporate system will ultimately allow to happen; indeed, that is has allowed to happen.
This is of course the whole point of corporations. There whole purpose is to shield their owners and managers from liability, financial and otherwise, while enabling them to maximise profit. The net result is incompetent oil drilling safety measures with no contingencies in the Gulf, and bankers getting paid bonuses for every dollar of other people's money they shovel out the door. The only people who are surprised when things finally go belly up are those under some kind of ridiculous delusion that the people who run corporations are "good, reasonable, upstanding businessmen". The notion of the corporate suit as anything other than a pantomime villain is rapidly becoming obsolete.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this really surprise anyone?
Yes, I am surprised. In one really important regard:
That NYT piece [nytimes.com] is an excellent piece of reporting. It gets to the facts - some of which are decidedly uncomfortable for both the government & BP and many of which required considerable research and effort - it ties everything nicely together and, without commentary, innuendo or logical fallacy, manages to paint a compelling picture of corporate and bureaucratic laxity.
Congratulations to Brown and Lehren for an excellent and important piece of work. This kind of journalism is exactly what we need.
Liability caps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liability caps (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except oil is a fungible commodity, so BP oil being more expensive will affect the entire market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More profits for BP's competitors, then.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oil is a commodity traded on the open market at a price that people will pay for it. Also all crude oils are not the same. The gulf of mexico mainly supplies sour crudes which are traded far more cheaply than the west Texas intermediate crudes (the price quoted in the news). Yet some refineries are especially kitted out to process sour crudes, and some only process sweet crudes. As such a price rise by BP for oil from the Gulf of Mexico will ultimately still lead to it being sold in the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Any damages applied to them would simply be passed on to the consumers.
That's only true if you are a monopolist, and there are no substitutes for your product. BP by itself can't e.g. raise gas prices, because of the competition - so any fines will have to be out of their profits or capital.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe we should give them money then ? 'coz if taking money from them help them, then giving them money must hurt ? either that, or you're a moron ?
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is definitely what will happen. I used to work with the retail pricing team at Shell, and the prices at the pump are set almost entirely based on what the competitors in the local market are charging.... where 'local market' may be as specific as a single intersection with gas stations on 3 corners, and local prices being set and re-evaluated twice every day.
If BP has higher costs, and is therefore forced to charge (for example) 4 cents a litre more at a given location, then the other retailers that
Re:Liability caps (Score:5, Funny)
We have anti-monopoly laws and investigators to deal with these kinds of things.
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: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: (Score:2)
Chevron is just as much in Collusion as Exxon and BP. Have you noticed how much gas has dropped in the last 2 weeks? right before the big 3 day weekend, when more drivers were supposed to hit the road than in the last few years? If I was a smart better, I would think, that because Demand is going up, and supply is going down, (a few million gallons are sitting in the ocean, instead of at the refinery) price SHOULD go up.
However, price has dropped 30Cents/gallon here in the last 2 weeks or so. As the oil
Re:Liability caps (Score:5, Informative)
blahblahblah. More Libertarian nonsense.
When I'm out of town and don't know the area, and my car nearly dies running out of gas, I really don't have a choice about what the next gas station is. Whether BP, Citgo, 76, Gulf, etc.
Speaking oil and monopolies, yes, Standard Oil became a monopoly with out the Government's interference. So did many other monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
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:Liability caps (Score:5, Interesting)
Oil is a much more transparent market that food commodities, but it still charges what the market will bear. For instance, prices right now are around $70 and that is a magical number, a number that has little to do with what the product is worth. In Saudi Arabia, for example, I have heard it costs much less than $10 a barrel for exploration, drilling, transport, administration, everything. That could be $20, but the point is that it is the lowest int he world.
Oil is a commodity, it costs the same no matter where it comes from, pretty much. A refinery is going to buy oil from whoever it needs to. The US only has 1-3% of the worlds reserves, so US refinaries are going to buy from whomever. The fact that it cost 5X as much to produce oil in the gulf is not going to raise the oil to $350 a barrel.
And here is the problem. Gulf oil producers have to compete with essentially free. This means that they are going to always be corners cut and safety compromised. If oil were $150 a barrel and we paid $4.50 a gallon at the pump, then life would be different. But offshore oil rigs are competing with free. Half the oil reserves are likely on easily drilled land based properties, just waited to be drilled for $20 a barrels or so. The rest of us have to compete with it. We are either going to live with the risk, or change our outlook.
The US produces at most 2% of the worlds oil, we don' have to. It would make many people poor if we don't, it would make me poor, so I hope we don't, but this crocodile tears outrage, and blaming the government, it pathetic. Energy is running in a free market. The only government control is Saudi Arabia trying to keep prices low enough so developing alternatives are not cost effective. The only thing that the US government could do is subsidize shale oil so it is cost effective at $70 a barrel instead of $100, cut drilling in sensitive locations, pull out of the middle east and develop peaceful ties with central and south america, and promote efficiency and short and long term alternatives to crude oil. Otherwise they can leave the free market alone and cry with the citizens when something goes wrong.
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: (Score:2)
If the CEO didn't know about the individual decisions that led to the problem (which, in the GoM situation, is likely) surely they are no more criminally culpable than the persons who reviewed them or those who made them. So, folks lower down in the chain should, at a minimum, get punished at least as severely.
For example, if a software programmer's bug or bad design contributed to the disaster (in the GoM situation, that's probably not the case), they should do hard time as well. Mo
I have to wonder what goes on inside BP (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I have to wonder what goes on inside BP (Score:4, Insightful)
Beyond Petroleum, of course of $$$.
CC.
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: (Score:2)
I wouldn't suggest any malice was involved. The manager who was arguing for the schedule to be pushed up was, as far as I know, one of those killed in the initial explosion.
I guess my original "questions" were full of hyperbole - it's just a shame when people cut corners in industry like this.
oh, don't worry, CEO Tony is going away over this (Score:2)
he won't be broke and broken, living under a bridge, but he's going away.
the question at hand should resolve over whether BP PLC is going away. there is ample proof of negligence and recklessness over the Mondero well, so there is no cap on liability.
Re:I have to wonder what goes on inside BP (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't confuse malice with corporate bureaucracy,
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
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.
Then we need to start plugging the well with BP executives. From what we've all seen, they are largely worthless and incapable of making the decisions for which they supposedly earn their astronomical rock-star pay.
And then we need to regulate their sorry asses. Incapable of doing the right thing? You've earned onerous regulation. BP was arguing in front of the Canadian parliament that they don't need to drill relief wells in the same season as the production wells *after* this disaster started. They are obviously fucking nuts and need to be *told* what to do - with teeth. There needs to be fines targeting not just the company but the executives themselves. Jail time would be nice too, but then the only people who really serve jail time are those who are poor or of color, so that appears to be asking for too much.
Stop excusing BP.
--
BMO
Re:I have to wonder what goes on inside BP (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
"I wonder what that BP manager was thinking." (Score:5, Insightful)
20% bonus if I come in ahead of schedule. etc etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
That's exactly how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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.
Okay... so now what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Okay... so now what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)
You honestly think BP will face more than token consequences and maybe a name change?
Yes.
This incident has a lot of visibility, and the government can not afford to let it go with a slap.
Beyond that, lawsuits arising from this will fill the courts for YEARS. The lawsuits will cost BP much more money and bad publicity that any government action.
BP *WILL NOT* come out of this unscathed, if they come out at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Yes. This incident has a lot of visibility, and the government can not afford to let it go with a slap.
If what happened to Exxon after Valdez is any indication, then there will be an initial, very large and very public fine, which they will eventually find a way to avoid paying. See here [nytimes.com]. In short: They were told just after the disaster to pay $2.5 billion, but years later the Supreme Court reduced that number to just $500 million.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
"HP *WILL NOT* come out of this unscathed,"
Exxon did. Their fine was a drop in the bucket.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope so. Obama seems to be determined to make a show out of it to prop up his own position, but, for once, this may actually be a positive thing - if only coincidentally.
Re: Okay... so now what? (Score:5, Funny)
and maybe a name change?
Too bad "Gulf Oil" is already taken.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Old memo deja-vu (Score:5, Interesting)
From here [cnn.com]:
Was anyone else reminded of that little gem?
Yeah right... (Score:5, Funny)
Like 9/11 and terrorism have anything to do with oil... err wait.
President Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
This is something the people would gladly see happen. It may restore some faith in us, letting us know the gov't is not completely corrupt and run by these bastards. And it would go a long way to prove you are not just a puppet who provides lip service on the news. It could show you actually give a damn.
So, are you willing to be the change you spoke about?
Re: (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: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:President Obama (Score:5, Interesting)
If a corporation wishes to be treated as an entity then hold it responsible as such. If you or I went out drinking and slammed our car into a McD's we would be held criminally and civilly liable for those actions. The courts would imprison us, take the car and seize worldly assets to pay the damages.
I am tired of corporations (globally now, but clearly the US set the stage) completely raping local resources (labor, infrastructure, taxation abatement, natural resources) and being patted on the back when the well runs dry. Their upper echelon walks away with well lined coffers and the local area gets shit.
I do not care where this company is "located" they played in the Gulf, they fucked it up, they can pay for it (criminally and civilly). I highly doubt if you did something this egregious they'd (BP Execs) would want you to just walk away from it.
Re:President Obama (Score:4, Interesting)
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 mean like "indefinite detention" for onetime-suspected terrorists and sex offenders? Sorry pal, but the "makin' shit up" method of justice has a fresh coat of asphalt, and the entire US government (as well as a large portion of its citizenry) is barreling along on that strategy bus. Might as well use it.
kick ass! (Score:2)
first intelligent suggestion I've seen in six weeks about B razen P olluters.
Re:President Obama (Score:4, Interesting)
And the legal base for this would be?
Re:President Obama (Score:5, Informative)
That is called populism, and while it might make people feel good, it doesn't have a basis in law or the constitution. Holding them financially responsible is an obvious point, but you can't seize assets of the employees (4th Amendment) nor hold them personally responsible unless you can show criminal negligence or that they broke some other law. That is entirely possible for some.
What we can't do is knee jerk react and create new laws because of this. The problem isn't that we don't have enough laws, the problem is that the current system of laws and regulations wasn't followed. Politicians love to pass new laws when the shit hits the fan, because it makes it look like are doing something, when in fact it is a useless gesture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Holding them financially responsible is an obvious point, but you can't seize assets of the employees (4th Amendment) nor hold them personally responsible unless you can show criminal negligence or that they broke some other law. That is entirely possible for some.
It looks like firms adapted to this challenge and we may indeed need new laws. It may well be impossible to collect enough evidence to convict any single executive because the responsibility was purposefully spread as thin as possible. One guy does buying, another guy does ordering, yet another one does inspection, yet another one is responsible for personnel training, and they all have supervisors of various degree. Any fuckup, no matter how bad, can be ultimately blamed on a failure to get a message throu
Re: (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.
Flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
That's right, it's not the engineers who run those companies and when I point this obvious fact out it gets a 'flamebait' score. [slashdot.org]
If it's a flamebait, then I am going for it again. ... BP, Transocean, Halliburton have not rationally considered the options and have not rationally analyzed the feasibility. They are doing exactly the same thing they have been doing for the past 30 years at least. The current oil spill is a mirror image of the Ixtoc disaster, the difference is just how deep they are drilling. They couldn't stop the spill in 50 meters of water with the blow out preventer, it did not work then, didn't work now; with the 'sombrero' = 'top hat', with the 'junk shot'= some metal balls they were throwing into the well then, they couldn't stop the leak with pumping the mud='top kill' etc.
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'.
Not entirely true. Here's some insights (Score:5, Informative)
In addition Tony Hayward [wikipedia.org] is a geologist with a PhD.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Give me a list of all offshore oil well blowouts in the last 30 years (since Ixtoc 1) and how they were capped. Just comparing two incidents, we can't possibly know whether these two events were anomalies, and sombrero/top hat, and top kill are techniques that have worked on other wells in the interim, and that could generally be expected to work.
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.
Time for the CEO to do some hardtime / the chair (Score:2)
Time for the CEO to do some hardtime / the chair!
BP: birthed out of the destruction of Iran (Score:5, Interesting)
1953 Iranian coup d'etat [wikipedia.org]
http://wearechangecoloradosprings.org/docs.php [wearechang...prings.org] (pdf source documents for OPERATION AJAX)
The Persians were dissatisfied with the royalty terms of the British petroleum concession, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), whereby Persia received 16 per cent of net profits.
In 1921, a military coup d'état—"widely believed to be a British attempt to enforce, at least, the spirit of the Anglo-Persian agreement" effected with the "financial and logistical support of British military personnel"—permitted the political emergence of Reza Pahlavi, whom they enthroned as the "Shah of Iran" in 1925. The Shah modernized Persia to the advantage of the British; one result was the Persian Corridor railroad for British military and civil transport during World War II.
In the 1930s, the Shah tried to terminate the APOC concession, but Britain would not allow it. The concession was renegotiated on terms again favorable to the British. On 21 March 1935, Pahlavi changed the name of the country from Persia to Iran. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was then re-named the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC)...
The overthrow of Iran's elected government in 1953 ensured Western control of Iran's petroleum resources and prevented the Soviet Union from competing for Iranian oil. Some Iranian clerics cooperated with the western spy agencies because they were dissatisfied with Mosaddegh's secular government...
After the 1953 coup, the Shah's government formed the SAVAK (secret police), many of whose agents were trained in the United States. The SAVAK was given a "loose leash" to torture suspected dissidents with "brute force" that, over the years, "increased dramatically".
Another effect was sharp improvement of Iran's economy; the British-led oil embargo against Iran ended, and oil revenue increased significantly beyond the pre-nationalisation level. Despite Iran not controlling its national oil, the Shah agreed to replacing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company with a consortium—British Petroleum [40% owner] and eight European and American oil companies.
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: (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
BP Doesn't care. No really (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6ZN6r5-1QE
So (Score:5, Interesting)
Sick of Pocket Know-it-alls (Score:5, Informative)
Wow... Just wow... (Score:2)
The pressure in a properly drilled and cased oil well is supposed to be static. You're supposed to have to pump the oil out. If the drill pipe accidentally breaks off, you're not supposed to have oil spewing out.
I take it you're *NOT* a engineer or drilling expert?
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies if this is old news, but didn't Halliburton actually do the work on the pipe that broke?
And your point is?
Of course a number of contractors where used in this project, including Halliburton, who as we all know is involved in oil exploration.
Are you suggesting some mysterious involvement of the ex-Vice Prez? The CIA? Black helicopters? OLIVER NORTH???
Honestly, I'm trying to understand your point.
Re: (Score:2)
He's probably pointing out that they continue to be massive fuckups. Whether killing soldiers with faulty wiring, or overcharging the government and ripping off the taxpayer, Halliburton proves itself to be a solid American corporation!
Choose Halliburton!
(Or Cheney will shoot you in the face.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From the WSJ's article [cjr.org] on the Deepwater Horizon.
BP also skipped a quality test of the cement around the pipe—another buffer against gas—despite what BP now says were signs of problems with the cement job and despite a warning from cement contractor Halliburton Co. ....
Halliburton, the cementing contractor, advised BP to install numerous devices to make sure the pipe was centered in the well before pumping cement, according to Halliburton documents, provided to congressional investigators and seen by the Journal. Otherwise, the cement might develop small channels that gas could squeeze through.
In an April 18 report to BP, Halliburton warned that if BP didn't use more centering devices, the well would likely have "a SEVERE gas flow problem." Still, BP decided to install fewer of the devices than Halliburton recommended—six instead of 21.
BP said it's still investigating how cementing was done. Halliburton said that it followed BP's instructions, and that while some "were not consistent with industry best practices," they were "within acceptable industry standards."
The cement job was especially important on this well because of a BP design choice that some petroleum engineers call unusual. BP ran a single long pipe, made up of sections screwed together, all the way from the sea floor to the oil reservoir.
Companies often use two pipes, one inside another, sealed together, with the smaller one sticking into the oil reservoir. With this system, if gas tries to get up the outside of the pipe, it has to break through not just cement but also the seal connecting the pipes. So the more typical design provides an extra level of protection, but also requires another long, expensive piece of pipe.
"I couldn't understand why they would run a long string," meaning a single pipe, said David Pursell, a petroleum engineer and managing director of Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., an energy-focused investment bank. Oil major Royal Dutch Shell PLC, in a letter to the MMS, said it "generally does not" use a single pipe.
BP's Mr. Gowers said the well design wasn't unusual. BP engineers "evaluate various factors" to determine what design to use for each well, he said.
Despite the well design and the importance of the cement, daily drilling reports show that BP didn't run a critical, but time-consuming, procedure that might have allowed the company to detect and remove gas building up in the well.
It's possible that they are simply covering their ass, but it's also possible that Halliburton learned from the Montara accident and was arguing for extra safety measures
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. There were also documents that said that in spite of being well aware that it was no time to skimp on safety (being that it was already a difficult and risky operation), they did exactly that at every opportunity right until it blew up (literally).
Re: (Score:2)
News for Nerds, [and] Stuff That Matters.
This matters, in the broad sense.
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.