Oil Spill

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework 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?

Well, first I'd let due process work. Then, if the court determine someone is guilty, I'd punish the idiot in accordance with Shannon's Law, which was enacted to deter exactly the situation you describe.

Your reaction to this BP spill seems to indicate that you want to shoot into the air and hope you only hit BP... charge them with any multitude of crimes (including breech of morality) before an investigation is even launched, ...Seize their assets. Try them in the court of public opinion. Find 'em guilty, guilty, guilty. Throw 'em all (whoever they are) in jail. Distribute their assets to anyone and everyone who expresses an interest, without any documentation to back their claims. Take away their birthdays and make them eat dirt...

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies Well, first I'd let due process work. Then, if the court determine someone is guilty, I'd punish the idiot in accordance with Shannon's Law, which was enacted to deter exactly the situation you describe. Your reaction to this BP spill seems to indicate that you want to shoot into the air and hope you only hit BP... charge them with any multitude of crimes (including breech of morality) before an investigation is even launched, ...Seize their assets. Try them in the court of public opinion. Find 'em guilty, guilty, guilty. Throw 'em all (whoever they are) in jail. Distribute their assets to anyone and everyone who expresses an interest, without any documentation to back their claims. Take away their birthdays and make them eat dirt...

I want to freeze their assets so that there is something left to seize when and if they are found "guilty." At this point there is no question they are responsible for billions in cleanup costs. Given that they only have around $7B of cash and are plotting to voluntarily transfer it to shareholders without recourse, I think it is prudent to secure our claim (the US courts on behalf of eventual claimants). This is done all the time.

I do want to allow the courts to work and I am leery of using public opinion to "convict" them. But the situation stands for itself. BP created a situation they were unprepared for that resulted is gross and widespread death and destruction. In my opinion they crossed the line to criminal behavior. But it the courts decide no crime was committed I can live with that. But the civil damages alone are likely to cripple the company.

Have you read some of the emails now being published in Congressional testimony? IMO they demonstrate a reckless disregard for consequences. Executives say "f*ck" safety recommendations from the engineers, cut corners and get the well done. "Who cares" what happens later. I do not believe they even contemplated such a terrible disaster. But I think they were reckless and reckless behavior that leads to death is a crime.

I would agree with you that we do need to let the justice system work...and I am using strong words...but I think things like the actions coming to light in the testimony speak for themselves. Short of some slimy lawyering and manipulation of the court system, I cannot fathom anything but a "guilty" verdict.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework 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?

That is my point... it IS a crime to shoot your gun in the air... at least it is here... so if a police officer sees someone shooting a gun, he can arrest them (or maybe just give a ticket... I don't know what happens)... it is not the result that we are looking at, it is the action of the person..

You seem to be looking at the result and saying there is a crime... I look at the result and see a lot of damage and loss of life... and think that it is very tragic... but I do not know if a crime was committed... I will have to wait and hear from the experts... and then wait for the trial to see if there is a conviction...

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework I want to freeze their assets

No, actually you said you wanted to seize their assets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework I cannot fathom anything but a "guilty" verdict.

Case closed.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus 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

I am not a lawyer... but reading what is posted.. all it looks like they have to do is post a bond... just in case they lose in court... that is not what I see the Prez doing... he wants money NOW to pay claims NOW that is decided by someone that we do not know.. and could be giving money without any good claim...

The devil is in the details...

I only think that they can run BP America... I wonder how many assets are there.... I would like to see them try and take over all of BP... that would be funny...

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud that is not what I see the Prez doing... he wants money NOW to pay claims NOW that is decided by someone that we do not know.. and could be giving money without any good claim...

Let's get ACORN to process these claims.

[Rustic23]

No lawyer filing a lawsuit is going to get the gulf cleaned up any faster!

In fact if you seize BP's assets now, I would venture that you would slow the process considerably. If I were BP's CEO, and you froze my assets, I would call in the lawyers and let the d*m thing leak until someone came up with the funds to pay to clean it up.

With assets frozen how do you propose they pay anyone? I think there are 90,000 BP US workers. Freeze their assets and what happens to them? What happens to the other people that depend on the money that BP employees spend? What happens to all the support people that BP contracts with?

This oil spill may be a mess, but it is nothing like the unintended consequences that will happen if some of the hair brained, hip shooting, 'solutions' are taken.

I live in a Gulf Coast State. I know that the economy of this state depends on the oil industry. I also know that tar balls have been washing up on Gulf beaches for as long as there have been beaches. Five years from now this will be the subject of research papers, twenty five years from now a footnote, one hundred years from now you may not even be able to find a reference to it. Yet, people are acting like this is going to end life as we know it. It is not, and countless oil spills in the past have proven that.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I am not a lawyer... but reading what is posted.. all it looks like they have to do is post a bond... just in case they lose in court... that is not what I see the Prez doing... he wants money NOW to pay claims NOW that is decided by someone that we do not know.. and could be giving money without any good claim...

Perhaps they only need to post a bond. But no one will bond them for $20B given the strength of the "case" and the fact they are now rated as "junk". I've been accused, perhaps accurately, of reaching a conclusion before a trial. But I think any bonding company will reach the same conclusion and would put even more onerous constraints on the bond than I'm calling for. They'd be suspending dividends for years and pledging their worldwide assets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I only think that they can run BP America... I wonder how many assets are there.... I would like to see them try and take over all of BP... that would be funny...

Likely true. But BP American accounts for about 1/3 of the company. And transferring assets out would be fraud...which is a crime. Though I agree it would be difficult to grab foreign assets BP would be bankrupt without their US operations so we do have leverage.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 No lawyer filing a lawsuit is going to get the gulf cleaned up any faster! In fact if you seize BP's assets now, I would venture that you would slow the process considerably. If I were BP's CEO, and you froze my assets, I would call in the lawyers and let the d*m thing leak until someone came up with the funds to pay to clean it up. With assets frozen how do you propose they pay anyone? I think there are 90,000 BP US workers. Freeze their assets and what happens to them? What happens to the other people that depend on the money that BP employees spend? What happens to all the support people that BP contracts with? This oil spill may be a mess, but it is nothing like the unintended consequences that will happen if some of the hair brained, hip shooting, 'solutions' are taken. I live in a Gulf Coast State. I know that the economy of this state depends on the oil industry. I also know that tar balls have been washing up on Gulf beaches for as long as there have been beaches. Five years from now this will be the subject of research papers, twenty five years from now a footnote, one hundred years from now you may not even be able to find a reference to it. Yet, people are acting like this is going to end life as we know it. It is not, and countless oil spills in the past have proven that.

BP is not the only company with the expertise to try to plug the leak. Freeze their assets then hire Chevron or Shell to do the work as a CPFF government contract. Bill BP for the CPFF. Require the contractor employ the BP workers as part of the deal.

I agree 100% with your assessment of what will happen over the next 100 years. I don't think it is the end of the world. It is simply a situation that could have been prevented and now must be cleaned up. And I want the perpetrators to clean it up even if it bankrupts them.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework BP is not the only company with the expertise to try to plug the leak. Freeze their assets then hire Chevron or Shell to do the work as a CPFF government contract. Bill BP for the CPFF. Require the contractor employ the BP workers as part of the deal.

You've got it all figured out, don't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework And I want the perpetrators to clean it up even if it bankrupts them.

You have made that abundantly clear; to the point that you would suspend due process, arbitrarily assign punitive penalties, re-distribute their assets to anyone and everyone, enrich their competitors, destroy their shareholders and employees, and make buying decisions for their customers. Anything I forgot to mention?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework And I want the perpetrators to clean it up even if it bankrupts them.

What if a court decides that a lack of federal oversight and/or poor governmental response to the spill is XX% responsible for the final damages? Ready to start writing checks for your share?

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude Really? United States Attorney General - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article II Section 3 Us Constitution
Section 3.
he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,


The AG works for the president.

[scrinch]

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.

Unfortunately (or more likely fortunately) the MMS does not drill wells in deep water...or anywhere else for that matter. How are they as an organization going to know what technologies and procedures are appropriate in any drilling environment unless they pay attention to the people who DO drill the wells? And how can standards change to adapt to new technical challenges without somebody trying something new? I'm not trying to justify BP's actions, I'm just saying that it's not a black and white, right and wrong world when it comes to decision-making on a drilling rig. They're dealing with new and slightly (or very) different situations on every well. The MMS doesn't have all the answers a priori. No one does.

One good thing that will come from the BP spill is that every other company that operates offshore will see the magnitude of the risk that a major spill in the gulf represents, and efforts will be redoubled to avoid one. I worked for a moderate sized oil company during the Exxon Valdez spill, and our management came to the realization then that a spill of that magnitude would put us out of business. Everyone from the top of the company to the bottom worked very hard to prevent that happening.

[ronocnikral]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework BP is not the only company with the expertise to try to plug the leak. Freeze their assets then hire Chevron or Shell to do the work as a CPFF government contract. Bill BP for the CPFF. Require the contractor employ the BP workers as part of the deal.

this is naive at best. first off. why would another company want to put their name on someone else's mess? second, to think that shell, mobil and chevron are not helping in anyway is silly as well. as i work for a megacorp's drilling and completions dept, i personally know that these large companies are providing expertise. third, how long does a gov't contract take?

while some have a hard on for bp, gov't action at this point doesn't really solve the main matter at hand, the spill. well, besides the hard on problem.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrinch Unfortunately (or more likely fortunately) the MMS does not drill wells in deep water...or anywhere else for that matter. How are they as an organization going to know what technologies and procedures are appropriate in any drilling environment unless they pay attention to the people who DO drill the wells? And how can standards change to adapt to new technical challenges without somebody trying something new? I'm not trying to justify BP's actions, I'm just saying that it's not a black and white, right and wrong world when it comes to decision-making on a drilling rig. They're dealing with new and slightly (or very) different situations on every well. The MMS doesn't have all the answers a priori. No one does.

I'm an engineer and have worked in new technology fields all my life, including area where the consequences were significant in terms of life, equipment, and politics...think military space here.

The way it works is, if you want to use an unproven, potentially risky technology, you study the heck out of it, "prove" that it works in theory, and then carefully prove it works in practice under controlled-risk situations. You don't just develop it and try it.

I've worked on programs with formal military urgency requirements where people were dying every day that the technology was delayed. You still test it thoroughly and understand the risks. I have no doubt the oil industry does this as well, just apparently not well enough.

I've said before, I am not opposed to drilling, and I do suspect that one implication of this will be a much more conservative approach in the industry. But the only way you will have that is if you make the business consequences as severe as the human, ecological, and economic. The worst that can happen to BP is that they go under. Individual workers in future situations need to know that they have personal accountability if this is going to actually lead to change.

I've worked in a situation where I was an employee of a company but I was also accountable to the government for certain types of things that could happen. My boss only had a vague idea what I was working on. This is not unusual in the defense sector. It means you do your job regardless of what you are told. You follow the rules even when directed not to. The guy who directed you to take a short cut gets fired after a few attempts to do that to people. And eventually you end up with people who work for the common good rather than for the company's profits alone. They don't take shortcuts because there is nothing to gain and a great deal to lose.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework Perhaps they only need to post a bond. But no one will bond them for $20B given the strength of the "case" and the fact they are now rated as "junk". I've been accused, perhaps accurately, of reaching a conclusion before a trial. But I think any bonding company will reach the same conclusion and would put even more onerous constraints on the bond than I'm calling for. They'd be suspending dividends for years and pledging their worldwide assets. Likely true. But BP American accounts for about 1/3 of the company. And transferring assets out would be fraud...which is a crime. Though I agree it would be difficult to grab foreign assets BP would be bankrupt without their US operations so we do have leverage.

Actually, they can put the $20B in an account that is a bond... but is not payable NOW... it would only be there if they lost the case... I am sure any bank would love to take on the $20B in cash and put up the bond... it is not that difficult... and the results are not what you want...

As mentioned by someone else... you push to hard and BP says screw it, we will take our chances in court where the emotion is not as raw... and most judges actually read and follow the laws which might not be what we think....

I am sure BP would still be around if they lost their US operations... not as big, not as strong, but still working in a lot of other locations... and of course... they would sue to get all of their assets back and who knows if they would win... or lose...

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework I'm an engineer and have worked in new technology fields all my life, including area where the consequences were significant in terms of life, equipment, and politics...think military space here. The way it works is, if you want to use an unproven, potentially risky technology, you study the heck out of it, "prove" that it works in theory, and then carefully prove it works in practice under controlled-risk situations. You don't just develop it and try it. I've worked on programs with formal military urgency requirements where people were dying every day that the technology was delayed. You still test it thoroughly and understand the risks. I have no doubt the oil industry does this as well, just apparently not well enough. I've said before, I am not opposed to drilling, and I do suspect that one implication of this will be a much more conservative approach in the industry. But the only way you will have that is if you make the business consequences as severe as the human, ecological, and economic. The worst that can happen to BP is that they go under. Individual workers in future situations need to know that they have personal accountability if this is going to actually lead to change. I've worked in a situation where I was an employee of a company but I was also accountable to the government for certain types of things that could happen. My boss only had a vague idea what I was working on. This is not unusual in the defense sector. It means you do your job regardless of what you are told. You follow the rules even when directed not to. The guy who directed you to take a short cut gets fired after a few attempts to do that to people. And eventually you end up with people who work for the common good rather than for the company's profits alone. They don't take shortcuts because there is nothing to gain and a great deal to lose.

Interesting you should mention space.... because the two space shuttles that blew up seems to me that the government (at least gvmt run) is not any better than others...

And as a percent... that was 2 out of 134 (when the last flights are flown)... not a good percent IMO...

remember... the second one was after a 'through review' so it wouldn't happen again... and there could have been a third with the foam coming off as it did...



Edit to add.... did anybody get charged with a crime in either of these disasters Just asking....

Did the gvmt pay all the wages for everybody who was laid off during that through review Just asking...

[Milton]

Dunno if this article has already been linked, and my apologies if it was: BP should hit back at U.S.. It certainly provides a fresh perspective.

Quote:

There are no words BP can use to apologize sufficiently for the damage the leak has caused. Whatever it says, it's still going to be the most reviled company in America. Instead, BP should try a different tack. It should tell the U.S., and everybody in it, to go take a hike. In reality, the U.S. is guilty of the most appalling hypocrisy. It's too late to rescue BP's reputation now; all it can realistically hope for is to salvage as much money for shareholders as possible.... BP's image in the U.S. matters only so long as it tries to do business there. If it cuts its losses and gets out now, it can carry on fine in Japan, France, Argentina and all the other countries where no one is really that bothered by what happened in the Gulf of Mexico.

There's some pragmatic advice to Mr. Hayward in the balance of the article: well worth reading.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milton Dunno if this article has already been linked, and my apologies if it was: BP should hit back at U.S.. It certainly provides a fresh perspective. There's some pragmatic advice to Mr. Hayward in the balance of the article: well worth reading.

Interesting article. Unfortunately, while I agree that few Europeans or Japanese care much about the Gulf of Mexico, they would care about BP abandoning its obligations here. Does the author actually think the Japanese or French would allow it to operate if they could not be assured it would clean up any mess it made? So that's the basic problem with the "take my marbles and go play elsewhere" argument.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Actually, they can put the $20B in an account that is a bond... but is not payable NOW... it would only be there if they lost the case... I am sure any bank would love to take on the $20B in cash and put up the bond... it is not that difficult... and the results are not what you want...

It would have to be an escrow account...but again, they do not have the $20B to deposit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud As mentioned by someone else... you push to hard and BP says screw it, we will take our chances in court where the emotion is not as raw... and most judges actually read and follow the laws which might not be what we think....

They could do that. It seemed to work for Exxon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I am sure BP would still be around if they lost their US operations... not as big, not as strong, but still working in a lot of other locations... and of course... they would sue to get all of their assets back and who knows if they would win... or lose...

I said a few days ago, I do not think BP is headed for bankruptcy. But the ratings agencies suggest it might. BK might also be a way to save face by escaping some of the cleanup obligations to save the company while not actually walking away. The shareholders would be wiped out. Given that the share price is down 50% since the accident I'd say the markets are pricing in a 50% probability of bankruptcy or its equivalent (the company having $0 value).

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud did anybody get charged with a crime in either of these disasters Just asking....

No, but then nobody pushed to go ahead with the mission just to make a profit even though there was clearly something wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Did the gvmt pay all the wages for everybody who was laid off during that through review Just asking...

Were there layoffs? Most of those involved were NASA employees or contractors on cost-plus contracts. So, in a way, the gvmt did pay the idled employees.