Oil Spill

[lets-retire]

Relying on the media to actually report factual information accurately is like expecting California to never have an earthquake. Everyone of them to the last is spinning and reporting to best fit their agenda. I've spoke to several people from all along the coast we seem generally to have the same conclusion. The national media is not reporting what the local rags are reporting and the national media is not reporting what we are seeing on the ground. The local media is reporting most closely to what is being seen.

[frayne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework Industry standards are irrelevant. BP submitted a specific plan that involved specific contingencies. It was also subject to (lax) MMS standards for operations. There are many industry standards in many different industries that are unsafe or illegal! That's why we have regulations that protect the workers and the environment. But let's assume they did follow industry standard. That's a good reason to STOP the entire industry immediately until they can develop safe procedures that don't kill people and pollute the oceans!

Industry standards are not irrelevant and if they are unsafe/illegal they aren't industry standards. In the petro-chemical field some industry standards are more stringent and go far beyond what is required by government regulation. Operating in an unsafe and illegal way is not good for business. I think we will find out when all is said and done, some people made some poor decisions, which may have violated best practices, due to time and budget constraints.

[Rustic23]

DoingHomework, Emeritus
You have made your point. Due process be dammed, hang BP. Now can we move on.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frayne Industry standards are not irrelevant and if they are unsafe/illegal they aren't industry standards. In the petro-chemical field some industry standards are more stringent and go far beyond what is required by government regulation. Operating in an unsafe and illegal way is not good for business. I think we will find out when all is said and done, some people made some poor decisions, which may have violated best practices, due to time and budget constraints.

We routinely find unsafe industry standards. There is often a wide gulf between industry standards and state of the art.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework Ok, I'll grant you that if I sign up to work for an oil company working on rigs I agree to a risk. But that risk is constrained by laws regulating worker safety and . We don't know if BP violated those laws in this incident but we do know they have a miserable safety record. There are resouce companies with good records that work hard to ensure workplace safety. And BP did NOT have the right to take risks that endangered the environment. They had a right to drill...following a plan they submitted in advance...with specific backup resources in place to contain a spill if it happened. They apparently disregarded the plan and did not have the agreed resources in place. Quite simply, they did not have the authority to deviate from the plan. No person at BP had the authority to take the risks they did or to make some of the decisions made. When those individuals, whether drilling foremen on the deck, the COO waiving part of the plan to speed things up, or even teh chairman, made certain decisions they set in motion a sequence of events that led to multiple deaths, billions in economic damage, and mass environmental catastrophe. If we cannot find a crime to lock them up for 20+ years for there is something wrong. Note: I do not want to lock up the innocent. But as teh facts come out it is quite clear to me that a crime was committed. The only question is which individuals committed them.

Really... a crime was committed? There is death and destruction... sure.. and I guess that there might be some wrongful death crime there someplace... but if there were no spill, and were no deaths... and they did everything the same... is there still a crime? One with 20 year sentence?

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 DoingHomework, Emeritus You have made your point. Due process be dammed, hang BP. Now can we move on.

Nothing I have written undercuts due process. All accused wrongdoers deserve due process. in the courts. But there is no constitutional provision saying they are immune from criticism until found guilty.

The court construes in accordance with the law, the world construes in accordance with its wits.

[calmloki]

Just on the off chance anyone is filled with the desire to Make Big Profits!! in the exciting field of ocean stuff. Wot the hell - the name alone has to be worth some bucks down on the coast ...
http://hosted.vresp.com/212805/77cb3...37/c3938f708c/

[Texas Proud]

I am a bit curious... does anybody else have a problem with the President doing a shakedown of BP

I mean.. telling them to fork over funds and let US decide who gets them... I would kindly tell the President to F**K Off...

If you take a look at what was said at the time... and the final results of the lawsuits with Exxon... there was a big difference between the number at the beginnign and the final payout...

I think that the overreaching of saying that BP had to pay every offshore worker for 6 months or more kind of set the tone... we will see what he has to say tonight... and what BP will have to say tomorrow...

[ronocnikral]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework Industry standards are irrelevant. BP submitted a specific plan that involved specific contingencies. It was also subject to (lax) MMS standards for operations. There are many industry standards in many different industries that are unsafe or illegal! That's why we have regulations that protect the workers and the environment. But let's assume they did follow industry standard. That's a good reason to STOP the entire industry immediately until they can develop safe procedures that don't kill people and pollute the oceans!

of course, the dept of the interior looks to the API for a lot regs. in this case, API recommended practices are relevent. your logic is flawed in overly generalizing.

your last statement makes it seem like this is an everyday occurance. What is the spill rate in the GOM? Fatality rate? and how does that compare to something like...construction? why don't we stop everything that can pollute or kill someone until we can figure out how to not kill or pollute?

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I am a bit curious... does anybody else have a problem with the President doing a shakedown of BP I mean.. telling them to fork over funds and let US decide who gets them... I would kindly tell the President to F**K Off... If you take a look at what was said at the time... and the final results of the lawsuits with Exxon... there was a big difference between the number at the beginnign and the final payout... I think that the overreaching of saying that BP had to pay every offshore worker for 6 months or more kind of set the tone... we will see what he has to say tonight... and what BP will have to say tomorrow...

The President is trying to do CYA since all he has done is saber-rattling for almost 2 months........

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I am a bit curious... does anybody else have a problem with the President doing a shakedown of BP

Yes.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I am a bit curious... does anybody else have a problem with the President doing a shakedown of BP I mean.. telling them to fork over funds and let US decide who gets them... I would kindly tell the President to F**K Off... If you take a look at what was said at the time... and the final results of the lawsuits with Exxon... there was a big difference between the number at the beginnign and the final payout... I think that the overreaching of saying that BP had to pay every offshore worker for 6 months or more kind of set the tone... we will see what he has to say tonight... and what BP will have to say tomorrow...

The President is the chief law enforcement officer in the USA. The law was changed after the Exxon Valdez spill. the president has several specific responsiblities under the statute E.g.

(e)  1 Methods of financial responsibility Financial responsibility under this section may be established by any one, or by any combination, of the following methods which the Secretary (in the case of a vessel) or the President (in the case of a facility) determines to be acceptable: evidence of insurance, surety bond, guarantee, letter of credit, qualification as a self-insurer, or other evidence of financial responsibility. Any bond filed shall be issued by a bonding company authorized to do business in the United States. In promulgating requirements under this section, the Secretary or the President, as appropriate, may specify policy or other contractual terms, conditions, or defenses which are necessary, or which are unacceptable, in establishing evidence of financial responsibility to effectuate the purposes of this Act.

So the president sets what is acceptable

(b) Judicial In addition to, or in lieu of, assessing a penalty under subsection (a) of this section, the President may request the Attorney General to secure such relief as necessary to compel compliance with this [1] section 2716 of this title, including a judicial order terminating operations. The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to grant any relief as the public interest and the equities of the case may require.

I agree that BP can say F*uck off to everyone enforcing the law. It will probably not take long to appoint receivers to run the company .

I agree that BP can challenge any specific claim, but they have nor right to transsfer assets that might be sued to pay such claims.

Court have already rejected Transocean's attempt to limit liability

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronocnikral of course, the dept of the interior looks to the API for a lot regs. in this case, API recommended practices are relevent. your logic is flawed in overly generalizing. your last statement makes it seem like this is an everyday occurance. What is the spill rate in the GOM? Fatality rate? and how does that compare to something like...construction? why don't we stop everything that can pollute or kill someone until we can figure out how to not kill or pollute?

Actually I think industry groups are the best source for developing industry standards. But once they are established and codified in regulations, they are not subject to interpretation by any individual in the industry. If the regulation and BP's permit said they could only drill 2 hours a day and had to have 47 backup rigs in place to clean up just in case then that might have been ridiculous and that regulation should be changed...but until it is, BP, Exxon, and everyone else complies or stops drilling.

Of course I don't think this is an everyday occurrence...and I've said before, I understand there are risks from drilling but we need to drill if we want our a/c, suvs, and power for our laptops. But the risk needs to be borne by those who stand to profit. In this case BP stood to profit so it has the risk. But there is a tremendous moral hazard here. If the costs could be 1trillion dollars, what do they care? The company fails if the costs are $100 billion. There is no incremental risk for them. It is the entire country that bears 90% of the risk. And since this industry already operate at the frontier of moral hazard it needs to be closely regulated to keep something like this from happening again.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework Actually I think industry groups are the best source for developing industry standards. But once they are established and codified in regulations, they are not subject to interpretation by any individual in the industry. If the regulation and BP's permit said they could only drill 2 hours a day and had to have 47 backup rigs in place to clean up just in case then that might have been ridiculous and that regulation should be changed...but until it is, BP, Exxon, and everyone else complies or stops drilling. Of course I don't think this is an everyday occurrence...and I've said before, I understand there are risks from drilling but we need to drill if we want our a/c, suvs, and power for our laptops. But the risk needs to be borne by those who stand to profit. In this case BP stood to profit so it has the risk. But there is a tremendous moral hazard here. If the costs could be 1trillion dollars, what do they care? The company fails if the costs are $100 billion. There is no incremental risk for them. It is the entire country that bears 90% of the risk. And since this industry already operate at the frontier of moral hazard it needs to be closely regulated to keep something like this from happening again.

Now you want to legislate morality?

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I am a bit curious... does anybody else have a problem with the President doing a shakedown of BP I mean.. telling them to fork over funds and let US decide who gets them... I would kindly tell the President to F**K Off... If you take a look at what was said at the time... and the final results of the lawsuits with Exxon... there was a big difference between the number at the beginnign and the final payout... I think that the overreaching of saying that BP had to pay every offshore worker for 6 months or more kind of set the tone... we will see what he has to say tonight... and what BP will have to say tomorrow...

I have no problem at all with what the gvmt/president is doing in this instance except I believe they are moving too slowly. After hearing whet the British PM said about this being a relatively minor event...I think we should send the tankers over to Brighton to unload on the beaches there and see how long before he changes his tune.

The Exxon situation was a travesty and is exactly why we need to act now to secure BP's assets and to prevent them from playing teh slimy game Exxon played.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies Now you want to legislate morality?

In case you haven't noticed, we already legislate morality. But I do not think we should.

I referred to "moral hazard" which is an economic concept that is already legislated. It has nothing to do with morality per se.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus The President is the chief law enforcement officer in the USA.

Really?

United States Attorney General - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus Many industries are appallingly negligent.

Well, of course they are... ambulance-chasing lawyers have to make a living, too.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Really... a crime was committed? There is death and destruction... sure.. and I guess that there might be some wrongful death crime there someplace... but if there were no spill, and were no deaths... and they did everything the same... is there still a crime? One with 20 year sentence?

I don't know if a crime was committed. But failing to comply with some environmental regulations is a crime. IF (note I said "if") BP is found to have taken a shortcut from their plan to get the hole back on schedule and if that was a crime...then we look to the consequences (or potential consequences) for the severity of the punishment. Clearly the consequence of somebody's actions were catastrophic. We just don't know if they were criminal yet.

I'll go back to my previous example...where I live people shoot guns in the air on New Year's Eve. Stupid, yes. But also common "industry" practice for this area. 99.999999% percent of the time nothing happens. Every now and then though somebody is killed or disabled for life from one of those bullets coming down randomly. Would you just say "oh well, shooting in the air is no big deal. Too bad for that poor sucker who is a vegetable but no body better infringe on my right to shoot in the air" Or would you severely punish the rare idiot that gets caught to deter the thousands of others who continue to do this standard practice knowing the odds of any consequences are miniscule?

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus Many industries are appallingly negligent. Industry standard is the cheapest crappiest garbage that they can get past an inspector who is not well educated, well paid or looking too closely Think of taxi drivers in New York and you understand "industry standard"

Speaking of NYC:

Crane Accident - East 51th Street (NYC) News - The New York Times