BP Horizon Deepwater Oil Disaster : Open Thread

[garygid]

Is that just like GM management "protected" the GM stockholders? (did not!)

The stockholders are only important to an on-going company. One being "looted" prior to going "bankrupt" is not likely to care about the "little" shareholders, I suspect.

 

[evnow]

See here's the deal. Big companies don't pay for anything. In spite of the rhetoric that BP will pay for all this, the reality is that money will be extracted from all our pockets and paid to fisherman to compensate them for the fish they purportedly would have caught, or otherwise given to other small people.

I was listening to NPR coverage of Obama's address. After that they interviewed some parish president or such. I & the NPR journo was totally flabbergasted by what she said - from the very second she started a broad attack on Obama and the morotorium on drilling. She didn't even say a word about Obama's plans or how to cleanup etc. It was as if she was the paid PR person for big oil.

With such politicians (and people who vote for such politicians) - I felt they shouldn't be given a single penny. If after all this they still want to keep drilling in risky places - they deserve to get hit once in a while. Looks like they want all the money from drilling activity - but none of the risks.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=127887765&m=127887748

 

[mitch672]

See here's the deal. Big companies don't pay for anything. In spite of the rhetoric that BP will pay for all this, the reality is that money will be extracted from all our pockets and paid to fisherman to compensate them for the fish they purportedly would have caught, or otherwise given to other small people.

I was listening to NPR coverage of Obama's address. After that they interviewed some parish president or such. I & the NPR journo was totally flabbergasted by what she said - from the very second she started a broad attack on Obama and the morotorium on drilling. She didn't even say a word about Obama's plans or how to cleanup etc. It was as if she was the paid PR person for big oil.

With such politicians (and people who vote for such politicians) - I felt they shouldn't be given a single penny. If after all this they still want to keep drilling in risky places - they deserve to get hit once in a while. Looks like they want all the money from drilling activity - but none of the risks.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=127887765&m=127887748

The reality of the situation is this:

The GOM only had 2 major industries, fishing and oil exploration.
Oil has now killed fishing esentially forever.

the only thing they have left is oil exploration, thats why they want the ban lifted. How much more damage can the gulf get for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th additional accident? not much, it's pretty much toast for the next 30-40 years anyway, it will never fully recover in our lifetimes.

 

[evnow]

the only thing they have left is oil exploration, thats why they want the ban lifted. How much more damage can the gulf get for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th additional accident? not much, it's pretty much toast for the next 30-40 years anyway, it will never fully recover in our lifetimes.

Not true. They will probably be fishing as usual in 5 years - if not a couple of years. Not all species will survive - but they don't care about that.

In any case, if they don't care about the spill - and want drilling - then they should shutup and not keep demanding that federal govt help them. They can only demand one of the two - not both.

 

[AndyH]

I was listening to NPR coverage of Obama's address. After that they interviewed some parish president or such. I & the NPR journo was totally flabbergasted by what she said - from the very second she started a broad attack on Obama and the morotorium on drilling. She didn't even say a word about Obama's plans or how to cleanup etc. It was as if she was the paid PR person for big oil.

I listened to that NPR interview as well. There is so much wrong with government officials being this closely linked to any industry. I understand that the oil money is directly and indirectly a significant portion of the state's income, but when the government doesn't stand together for a common cause, they have no reason to expect the people to work together.

As for companies protecting stock holders - that's not the way it works. Folks that buy stock have to understand that their purchase can go to zero at any time. They 'pays their money and takes their chances' just like Vegas. Bond holders have a better chance to be at least partially reimbursed when a company goes bankrupt as a bond is company debt.

Any company had better be doing a lot to protect themselves and limit their liability - that's how they can stay in business, hire employees, create products and wealth, and feed the economy. We'd be in a real mess without capitalists. How many of you are/were employees?

That being said, there's room for a lot more responsibility and oversight...

The really sad part of this bloody awful mess is the message from the folks suggesting that any amount of money can make the Gulf or her people 'whole again'. I guess we can contract with the Dutch to help us make gates to close off the GOM from the Atlantic, then pump it out, clean it up, and start rebuilding the ecosystem from the bottom up. Maybe the mouthy parish presidents want to take that project on? Good luck with that...

Andy

 

[Rik]

The real problem is in terms of managarial renumeration. Managers should be rewarded for safety records - not just on time, on/under budget project management..

In the oil business managers are rewarded (or punished) based for their unit's safety records. But the safety stats that they get measured against are dominated by fairly mundane injuries, like employees tripping and falling, straining a back, injuring a finger... that sort of thing. Major process safety incidents are so infrequent that they rarely have an impact on a manager's job performance. Also, the work processes required to prevent major process safety incidents are quite different than those that are employed to prevent the more common injuries.

 

[Rik]

All true - but this could have happenned to anyone. It was just BP's "bad luck".

As someone who has been involved in a number of root cause analysis investigations in the oil business, I can tell you that "bad luck" has nothing to do with process safety incidents. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-20100614-LetterToHayward.pdf

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Is that just like GM management "protected" the GM stockholders? (did not!)

The stockholders are only important to an on-going company. One being "looted" prior to going "bankrupt" is not likely to care about the "little" shareholders, I suspect.

A multinational can shuffle a lot of things around. BP has profitable assets, that's different from GM which was (and may well still be) a failing business.

Before we all go cheering them on to failure let's remember who the shareholders and customers are. We are like all shareholders, and maybe bondholders if they have any debt whether we know it or not. Thanks to fungibility we are all their customers. For ever dollar made in LA from fishing 20 are made from oil and gas. Not to mention if they do go bankrupt all those "small people" will just be so many unsecured creditors waiting years to see pennies while the lawyers feed on whatever is left.

 

[EVDRIVER]

See here's the deal. Big companies don't pay for anything. In spite of the rhetoric that BP will pay for all this, the reality is that money will be extracted from all our pockets and paid to fisherman to compensate them for the fish they purportedly would have caught, or otherwise given to other small people.

I was listening to NPR coverage of Obama's address. After that they interviewed some parish president or such. I & the NPR journo was totally flabbergasted by what she said - from the very second she started a broad attack on Obama and the morotorium on drilling. She didn't even say a word about Obama's plans or how to cleanup etc. It was as if she was the paid PR person for big oil.

With such politicians (and people who vote for such politicians) - I felt they shouldn't be given a single penny. If after all this they still want to keep drilling in risky places - they deserve to get hit once in a while. Looks like they want all the money from drilling activity - but none of the risks.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=127887765&m=127887748

The reality of the situation is this:

The GOM only had 2 major industries, fishing and oil exploration.
Oil has now killed fishing esentially forever.

the only thing they have left is oil exploration, thats why they want the ban lifted. How much more damage can the gulf get for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th additional accident? not much, it's pretty much toast for the next 30-40 years anyway, it will never fully recover in our lifetimes.

Even if fishing were dead the oil destroys the marsh land which provides tidal surge from storms.

 

[AndyH]

The reality of the situation is this:

The GOM only had 2 major industries, fishing and oil exploration.
Oil has now killed fishing esentially forever.

the only thing they have left is oil exploration, thats why they want the ban lifted. How much more damage can the gulf get for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th additional accident? not much, it's pretty much toast for the next 30-40 years anyway, it will never fully recover in our lifetimes.

Yet there's so much spin in the outcry from some Gulf officials and certain Republican politicians about the ban. Producing wells weren't shut down by the President's deep water drilling ban, neither were/are shallow wells. The nearly 3800 wells that were operating before the ban are still operating - so the vast majority of the infrastructure support is still needed and all those jobs are unaffected.

Does anyone have a good source of info on exactly how many deep water wells are being drilled and/or are actually affected by the temporary drilling ban?

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs...s-economic-impact-of-deep-water-drilling-ban/

I found this site that suggests NPR is overestimating the negative effect of the ban.

"The piece does later give an estimate from the state's development department that the bad on drilling could lead to a loss of 20,000 jobs (this presumably includes indirect effects). By comparison, Louisiana has approximately 120,000 construction jobs. If we assume that each construction job indirectly generates 0.5 jobs elsewhere then the ban on drilling would have roughly the same impact as a ten percent decline in construction employment."

The politicians doth protest to much, methinks...

 

[AndyH]

duplicate post

 

[evnow]

The fact that BP set aside $100M for people who have lost jobs due to moratorium - shows the extent of loss.

That is comparable to how much will be spent cleaning the beaches.

 

[mitch672]

The fact that BP set aside $100M for people who have lost jobs due to moratorium - shows the extent of loss.

That is comparable to how much will be spent cleaning the beaches.

If they can really clean them. If you dig down less than 18" in Prudo Bay, there is still a layer of oil from 20 years ago, from the Exxon Valdeez spill.

 

[AndyH]

The fact that BP set aside $100M for people who have lost jobs due to moratorium - shows the extent of loss.

That is peanuts compared to how much will be spent cleaning the beaches.

The overall economic impact to the Gulf states is/will be huge - no doubt!

Here's a piece from the CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers on 9 June. This is likely to be a view of the problem from a strongly pro-business perspective, yes?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/drilling-moratorium-is-a-jobs-moratorium/

"The moratorium immediately shut down 33 deepwater rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, including 22 near Louisiana. According to the Louisiana Department of Economic Development, this action could cost 3,000 to 6,000 Louisiana jobs in the next two to three weeks and potentially 20,000 by the end of next year. For every one employee on an oil rig, there are nine employees onshore supporting that one employee. These are good paying jobs that contribute to the Gulf region's economy.

Further, estimates show lost wages per month from direct and indirect jobs are $165 million to $330 million, and the idle offshore service vessels used by the 33 platforms represent $1 million in lost revenue per day. Expensive to run, these exploration and production operations, once stopped, could take years for the industry to get back up and running as the exploration and production process for oil and natural gas is slow."

When the Challenger destroyed itself and its crew, we shut the program down until they found and fixed the problem. During my 21 year USAF career, we routinely had safety and training stand-downs when necessary. It's clear that BP made multiple poor decisions, and that MMS was part of the problem. One can find the gory details here if they wish: http://energycommerce.house.gov/ind...ittee-on-energy-and-the-environment&Itemid=71

Comparing the relatively small costs of the stand-down to the costs of a single disaster - the stand-down is a much, much better investment.

 

[evnow]

Saw this on TOD.

Jon Stewart "An Energy-Independent Future" (The last eight presidents have gone on television and promised to move America towards an energy-independent future):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

 

[AndyH]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jPjJPVdR4g[/youtube]
Link

 

[Jimmydreams]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jPjJPVdR4g[/youtube]
Link

What juxtaposition....something so beautiful with something so ugly.

If this event doesn't move us toward a meaningful change in energy policy, I'm afraid nothing will.
:|

 

[evnow]

If this event doesn't move us toward a meaningful change in energy policy, I'm afraid nothing will.
:|

Remember the financial collapse of 2008 ? And all the changes that happenned so that something like that will never happen again ?

No ? neither do I.

When all parties drink from the same trough I don't expect big changes.

 

[AndyH]

I guess when this guy swore allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the people of Texas he forgot about the parts that aren't in the oil business?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cp_D0oC4ac[/youtube]

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Source: http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/memberfaq.html

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

What juxtaposition....something so beautiful with something so ugly.

I didn't think the duet was that bad.