Oil Spill

[Emeritus]

Uh, no. Your original post to which I replied stated that they were guilty of perjury. Here it is:
Hang'em now, we'll get to the trial later.

I was very clearly speaking generally about investigations.

 

[lets-retire]

I was very clearly speaking generally about investigations.

That is just one area you have wrong when it comes to investigations. You can not treat violations the same you you do inefficiencies in a boardroom. You can not go after the biggest wastes first and not enforce the rest while attempting to get the biggest problems up to speed. If the agency is under manned hire more inspectors. If the inspectors aren't doing their jobs fire them and hire someone who will. It really is that simple. Restaurant inspectors have the right idea. Inspect the place, find the problems, then go back out after a period of time and reinspect. If the problems are not fixed shut the site down. With oil it would be just as simple. Inspect. If any problems are found, give the company a reasonable amount of time to fix the problem and levy a civil fine then do a no notice re-inspection. If the problem isn't fixed shut the rig down and it, gets placed on the back burner for re-inspection. While the well is being drilled there will be several inspections done, similar to a house, to ensure the company is complying with their submitted drilling plan.

 

[Emeritus]

That is just one area you have wrong when it comes to investigations. You can not treat violations the same you you do inefficiencies in a boardroom. You can not go after the biggest wastes first and not enforce the rest while attempting to get the biggest problems up to speed. If the agency is under manned hire more inspectors. If the inspectors aren't doing their jobs fire them and hire someone who will. It really is that simple. Restaurant inspectors have the right idea. Inspect the place, find the problems, then go back out after a period of time and reinspect. If the problems are not fixed shut the site down. With oil it would be just as simple. Inspect. If any problems are found, give the company a reasonable amount of time to fix the problem and levy a civil fine then do a no notice re-inspection. If the problem isn't fixed shut the rig down and it, gets placed on the back burner for re-inspection. While the well is being drilled there will be several inspections done, similar to a house, to ensure the company is complying with their submitted drilling plan.

No This is how you raise children. Companies are required to comply with the law ON THEIR OWN not merely after an inspection. They are expected to have their own internal inspectors. Public Inspectors are not their consultants to advise them., They are policemen. I used to do mock FDA inspections for firms. If the FDA had found what I found the shop is shut. no warnings no delay.

Why coddle people who know what the law is and simply don't want to comply?

 

[ERD50]

No This is how you raise children. Companies are required to comply with the law ON THEIR OWN not merely after an inspection. They are expected to have their own internal inspectors.

This sounds like some sort of alternate universe to me?

By this thought process, we don't need building inspectors or restaurant inspectors, because these 'Companies are required to comply with the law ON THEIR OWN not merely after an inspection.'?

That is the whole reason for inspectors - in some cases companies can 'get away with' short cuts that their customers may not notice. We don't have govt regulators regulating how good the food tastes, or what they charge for a steak dinner - customers can make that determination on their own. But customers are less likely to be able to determine if the food is stored at the correct temperatures, if the dishwasher sanitizes properly, or if a well is being drilled with accepted safeguards.

Your comment seems far off the mark to me.

-ERD50

 

[Emeritus]

This sounds like some sort of alternate universe to me?

By this thought process, we don't need building inspectors or restaurant inspectors, because these 'Companies are required to comply with the law ON THEIR OWN not merely after an inspection.'?

That is the whole reason for inspectors - in some cases companies can 'get away with' short cuts that their customers may not notice. We don't have govt regulators regulating how good the food tastes, or what they charge for a steak dinner - customers can make that determination on their own. But customers are less likely to be able to determine if the food is stored at the correct temperatures, if the dishwasher sanitizes properly, or if a well is being drilled with accepted safeguards.

Your comment seems far off the mark to me.

-ERD50

Its the law. A driver has to be in compliance with the speed limit whether there is a cop there or not. We use inspectors to spot check compliance and hammer companies when their internal compliance system does not work.

Sprinkler systems have to work ALL THE TIME unless they have permission to shut them down.. they are inspected by the government as rarely as every 5 years. but we require firms to have private inspectors on a monthly basis, and to be in compliance ALL THE TIME.

 

[ERD50]

Its the law. A driver has to be in compliance with the speed limit whether there is a cop there or not.

Of course they are 'supposed to', cop present or not. But they don't 'have to', and they don't. So we need cops and a system that catches offenders and penalizes them enough to deter them from being repeat offenders. At some point, they lose driving privileges.

We use inspectors to spot check compliance and hammer companies when their internal compliance system does not work.

And I keep saying, this appears (I am not going to be judge/jury) to have failed. I keep hearing BP is a bad guy when it comes to how they run their drilling operations, yet, the were not 'hammered' and were not shut down.

BP failed AND the regulation system failed.

I won't 'blame' the cop for someone speeding, but if someone speeds at the same spot everyday, and people report it, and law enforcement take no action, or the judicial system lets the guy off time and time again, then yes, the judicial system shares in some of the 'blame' if that guy gets in an accident.

A better analogy is lets-retire's food inspectors. If those inspectors keep finding violations, and don't shut down the place, the regulators share the blame if someone gets sick there. We shouldn't just shrug and say 'we have laws, the restaurant should have followed them'. We have inspectors paid to do a job, too.


-ERD50

 

[Westernskies]

Your comment seems far off the mark to me.-ERD50

Obtuse, circuitous non-answers, pedantic recitation of governmental pablum, wholesale damnation of industry, and condescending, self-serving legalese...

Sounds spot-on to me... our next Czar!

 

[Texas Proud]

This is an investigation. It always takes place before a trial. Any witness can say "I refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate me" No problem. That's due process. Otherwise you answer the questions. Under oath and witht eh penalties for perjury. That is what "subpoena" means

As an attorney... you should know that as long as you do not lie under oath you are not commiting perjury... so you answer in such a way that is not an answer, but also is not a lie...

 

[Texas Proud]

I'm curious. Do you think there is some defense for dumping millions of gallons of oil in the ocean? It's one thing to argue for due process, which I actually agree is important. But, in my opinion, any practice, legal or not, that results in such horrendous consequences, is wrong.

If this is just one of those things that happens when drilling for oil, then we need to stop drilling.

If this is something that BP did then we need to stop BP and anyone who participated.

So yes, due process is important. We need to decide which of the two choices above applies.

Personally I think we can safely drill for oil and this results from actions taken by BP. But I don't see how finding the other possibility applies helps anyone concerned.

Is there some possibility I have missed? Is there some way for this to have happened and it not be either a systematic risk or resulting from a specific risk or cause?

There are two things that are being discussed in this thread... who is responsible and is it criminal...

Nobody that I have read have said BP is not liable... the question is was their gross negligence... or was there criminal intent (or whatever you need to show to have a crime)...

Now, it seems there are some crimes that 'prove' themselves... if there is a crime for polluting, well, it looks like there is pollution... but now... who was 'responsible' for that crime... BP is saying 'we will pay'... but I don't see them saying 'we are responsible for a crime'...

Most people are saying... we need due process... we need a trial... we need to at least have a conviction before we bring out the noose and hang them...

 

[Texas Proud]

No This is how you raise children. Companies are required to comply with the law ON THEIR OWN not merely after an inspection. They are expected to have their own internal inspectors. Public Inspectors are not their consultants to advise them., They are policemen. I used to do mock FDA inspections for firms. If the FDA had found what I found the shop is shut. no warnings no delay.

Why coddle people who know what the law is and simply don't want to comply?

Agree with this one...

 

[Emeritus]

Of course they are 'supposed to', cop present or not. But they don't 'have to', and they don't. So we need cops and a system that catches offenders and penalizes them enough to deter them from being repeat offenders. At some point, they lose driving privileges.

And I keep saying, this appears (I am not going to be judge/jury) to have failed. I keep hearing BP is a bad guy when it comes to how they run their drilling operations, yet, the were not 'hammered' and were not shut down.

BP failed AND the regulation system failed.

I won't 'blame' the cop for someone speeding, but if someone speeds at the same spot everyday, and people report it, and law enforcement take no action, or the judicial system lets the guy off time and time again, then yes, the judicial system shares in some of the 'blame' if that guy gets in an accident.

A better analogy is lets-retire's food inspectors. If those inspectors keep finding violations, and don't shut down the place, the regulators share the blame if someone gets sick there. We shouldn't just shrug and say 'we have laws, the restaurant should have followed them'. We have inspectors paid to do a job, too.
-ERD50

Law breakers are lawbreakers.
I don't coddle criminals and I don't blame the cops for the robbers

 

[Emeritus]

As an attorney... you should know that as long as you do not lie under oath you are not commiting perjury... so you answer in such a way that is not an answer, but also is not a lie...

I said with the penalties for perjury. The penalties for evasion and refusing to answer are public scorn and iniquity, which have nothing to do with the criminal system.

 

[ERD50]

Law breakers are lawbreakers.
I don't coddle criminals and I don't blame the cops for the robbers

And what is your term for the Health Department inspector that does not shut down a restaurant despite repeated violations?

-ERD50

 

[lets-retire]

Why coddle people who know what the law is and simply don't want to comply?

There is no coddling in what I described. I didn't post specific time lines because people on this site have problems with attacking examples rather than ideas. I will admit I do not know all of the ins and outs of the oil business, so look at the idea not necessarily the example. I don't know the time lines but just pulling them out of thin air here is what I'm talking about. The inspector goes out find the blowout preventer is the wrong size for the job it is supposed to do. It takes two weeks to replace the preventer. The inspector gives the company two weeks to get the job done and levys a $5000, $10000, $20000, whatever fine for deviating from the approved plans. The error could simply be an oversight, or it could be intentional. It's called giving people the benefit of the doubt. The site can still be worked, but since the company is busy installing the correct equipment and they know the inspector will be out after two weeks they need to get it done. Yes they could wait and continue working the rig until four days out and try to replace the preventer and hope everything goes well. If the inspector returns in two weeks and one day they could be screwed, or they could be in business again. If the error was not fixed then the rig is completely shut down until the company can properly install the correct equipment and the inspector can get back out and inspect. It might not be for two weeks, a month, or six months before the inspector gets out there. They get out there when they get out there. Do you really think a company will risk having their rig shut down for an extended period of time and lose a large sum of money, because they wanted to push the limits?

 

[Brat]

.... Do you really think a company will risk having their rig shut down for an extended period of time and lose a large sum of money, because they wanted to push the limits?

They will if they think they won't get caught or believe they can induce the enforcer to look the other way.

 

[lets-retire]

They will if they think they won't get caught or believe they can induce the enforcer to look the other way.

That is why 100% inspection is required. Inspectors who are on the take can be discovered rather easily and put in jail. Many health departments actually have procedures in place to prevent their inspectors being paid off.

 

[Texas Proud]

And what is your term for the Health Department inspector that does not shut down a restaurant despite repeated violations?

-ERD50

Around here... following the law... they can cite them for a 'violation', but once fixed they are allowed to open again... usually the fix is 'throw that thing out' or 'clean up the slime'.... but the next day they can have the same violation... with the same result.. I do not think they can permanently close someone down... (at least here)... repeat violations or not...

 

[Emeritus]

And what is your term for the Health Department inspector that does not shut down a restaurant despite repeated violations?

-ERD50

That he or she is not one of my students

 

[Emeritus]

Around here... following the law... they can cite them for a 'violation', but once fixed they are allowed to open again... usually the fix is 'throw that thing out' or 'clean up the slime'.... but the next day they can have the same violation... with the same result.. I do not think they can permanently close someone down... (at least here)... repeat violations or not...

Humor mode on
right, and I carry my own food to Texas
(my brother in law was a judge down there) lots of jokes
back to work
It depends on the nature of the violation.
We can require restaurants to pay for private inspectors on a daily basis as a condition of operating.

 

[Emeritus]

There is no coddling in what I described. I didn't post specific time lines because people on this site have problems with attacking examples rather than ideas. I will admit I do not know all of the ins and outs of the oil business, so look at the idea not necessarily the example. I don't know the time lines but just pulling them out of thin air here is what I'm talking about. The inspector goes out find the blowout preventer is the wrong size for the job it is supposed to do. It takes two weeks to replace the preventer. The inspector gives the company two weeks to get the job done and levys a $5000, $10000, $20000, whatever fine for deviating from the approved plans. The error could simply be an oversight, or it could be intentional. It's called giving people the benefit of the doubt. The site can still be worked, but since the company is busy installing the correct equipment and they know the inspector will be out after two weeks they need to get it done. Yes they could wait and continue working the rig until four days out and try to replace the preventer and hope everything goes well. If the inspector returns in two weeks and one day they could be screwed, or they could be in business again. If the error was not fixed then the rig is completely shut down until the company can properly install the correct equipment and the inspector can get back out and inspect. It might not be for two weeks, a month, or six months before the inspector gets out there. They get out there when they get out there. Do you really think a company will risk having their rig shut down for an extended period of time and lose a large sum of money, because they wanted to push the limits?

What doubt? penalties and other consequences have to be large enough to deter violations.

 

[kcowan]

I think you are arguing about what life should be like versus what life is really like.

Just because the government passes a new rule does not mean that everyone is (will be) compliant. Life is a lot more complex than that.

 

[ERD50]

Around here... following the law... they can cite them for a 'violation', but once fixed they are allowed to open again... I do not think they can permanently close someone down... (at least here)... repeat violations or not...

Maybe, but I'd bet a serious inspector would find that his schedule was suddenly very full, and he might not be able to get back to their place for an inspection for a few days, weeks...? A restaurant can't last long with their doors closed and a "Health Inspector" sign on the front door. They'll be out of business one way or the other.

RE: ERD50 comment - And what is your term for the Health Department inspector that does not shut down a restaurant despite repeated violations?

That he or she is not one of my students

How predictably evasive!

OK, assuming none of your students ever made it to work for MMS (I'm certain you track the career of each and every one)....

What action do you think should be taken towards regulation of off-shore drilling? I agree with you that we can only trust the businesses so far. I'll even go first, with the caveat that I am not a lawyer, so some of this may be restricted by Fed/State laws...

I'm guessing that these are far enough off-shore to be a federal jurisdiction, the states have no say (other than 'pretty please, Mr Fed')? Well, since the Gulf states take the brunt of the damage, if I were Gov or Atty General of a Gulf State, I'd want some say in the matter.

Maybe the Gulf States form a group to 'oversee the overseers'? One of the first things I'd do if I were part of that group is to set up requirements for a containment plan, so when all else fails, there are procedures and equipment to contain and clean up the damage within hours of it being detected.

edit/add - just out of curiosity, I went to the MMS website to learn more about them...

The New Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOE) Web Site is Under Construction

Shades of 1984 (taking the cynics view)?

-ERD50

 

[Emeritus]

Maybe, but I'd bet a serious inspector would find that his schedule was suddenly very full, and he might not be able to get back to their place for an inspection for a few days, weeks...? A restaurant can't last long with their doors closed and a "Health Inspector" sign on the front door. They'll be out of business one way or the other.



How predictably evasive!

OK, assuming none of your students ever made it to work for MMS (I'm certain you track the career of each and every one)....

What action do you think should be taken towards regulation of off-shore drilling? I agree with you that we can only trust the businesses so far. I'll even go first, with the caveat that I am not a lawyer, so some of this may be restricted by Fed/State laws...

I'm guessing that these are far enough off-shore to be a federal jurisdiction, the states have no say (other than 'pretty please, Mr Fed')? Well, since the Gulf states take the brunt of the damage, if I were Gov or Atty General of a Gulf State, I'd want some say in the matter.

Maybe the Gulf States form a group to 'oversee the overseers'? One of the first things I'd do if I were part of that group is to set up requirements for a containment plan, so when all else fails, there are procedures and equipment to contain and clean up the damage within hours of it being detected.

-ERD50

I have pioneered the analysis of internal regulators in companies who have access to all levels of the company and a direct legal obligation to report to appropriate public regulatory authorities. There are versions of this type of regulatory system in many different places. Dams and Elevators are among the most common. Another , although somewhat more difficult in some contexts, are private third party regulators who conduct regular inspections. the second group requires a lot of
"conflict of interest" prevention.

 

[Rustic23]

Just a comment. Reading several of Emeritus's post, and based on the number of times he has use 'I have .......' he is clearly the most experienced guy on the board, having done just about everything in question. Wow. I never knew.

 

[ERD50]

Just a comment. Reading several of Emeritus's post, and based on the number of times he has use 'I have .......' he is clearly the most experienced guy on the board, having done just about everything in question. Wow. I never knew.

Yet, he seems to have trouble actually answering the question? I guess that comes with experience.

-ERD50