B.P. = Bit of Perspective?

[finnbow]

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

Beyond Petroleum, indeed.

[Combwork]

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.

[merrylander]

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

[d-ray657]

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

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

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Combwork

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

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

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by d-ray657;311[LIST=1

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

According to this article, the disagreement was between BP and Transocean.

John

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by Boreas

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

John

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

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

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

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Combwork

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

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

John