The BP Gulf Disaster

Remove all ads!

So is that comment...

 

explain

 

Denial out of hand is one of the oldest excuses, "Yes, everyone is lying, case closed."

 

I didnt deny anything;

"I couldnt say anything because I'd be sacked" is the oldest excuse in the book.

In the case I mentioned above with drivers hours, it is the driver who will be held responsible if caught. not the company... regardless if they are being "forced" to violate drivers hours or not.

lots of people like that simple excuse to... look the other way... "its not my problem" until it becoms their problem

 

Yes, it cost 11 of them their lives....

Comparing a "speeding ticket" to this tragedy is quite stunning. Why don't you try addressing the issue rather than making false analogies?

 

Chandos... drivers hours has got nothing to do with speeding, the department of transport takes this very seriourly because the death toll on Britains roads is very high, and a large chunk of these deaths are caused because of HGV collisions - the drivers excuse is always the same, "I didnt have a choice" after they have just killed a family by colliding with a car.... 50 tonnes vs a 1.5tonne car often results in death.

here's a nice example for you, the driver is oblivious to the fact that he has collided with the car:



my comparison is very clear... it is something which is easy to find excuses for. but it is something which should be takev very seriously because the risk of death.

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 43 seconds later... ----------

for some reason the video wont work, heres a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lze88sU9IGg&NR=1&feature=fvwp

[You must only put the video ID between the tags, not the whole url. -Tal]

 

Oh dear... time to drop it Chandos, seriously bro, not doing yourself any favours.

 

It's not. It doesn't really make sense, at least not to me. I would rather stick with the topic, rather than discuss the driving habits of the UK, which has nothing to do with the topic.

So, getting back to the topic, I take it that you believe the workers on the rig were lying? That saftey concerns were not raised by the workers on the platform?

Explain....

BP was leasing the rig, and it was their call. I like the way that you keep ignoring the links and information in them, that explains how BP "overruled" transocean people who were actually on the rig.

 

Ignoring a perfectly valid 'accidental' comparison and excuse.. the fact that you're quite confrontational about it clearly shows you see the point but are trying to save face... seriously man, we've all been there, but this time; time to drop the ball and let it lie... leave you to it though .

 

Confrontational? Dude, I'm not being confrontational. I just don't get where he is going with the "workers" lie all the time statement...at least I don't feel like I'm being confrontational by disagreeing....

 

I havent said that workers lie, Ive said that workers rely on the excuse when what they are guilty of is inaction.

Im trying to make you understand my point, this is a worker habit, violatiing the law inorder to increase productivity - at risk, these drivers are tired and prone to error by driving over their legally required drivers hours - they tamper with their system which monitors their hours, some firms tell them to do this with the threat of sack if they dont comply.
It is basic safety, the excuse is always "I couldnt do anything because they'll sack me" it is genuine, but as the law states 'Ignorance is not an excuse'

No, I stated earlier that complaints must be made to the correct source, it is pointless making a complaint to your boss who is making you violate rules.... its like complaining to a police officer that he is being heavy handed... not going to do much... you have to complain to the IPCC.

If this is the position in the US, then this careless rule is the reason for the problem.. it is always the owner of the property who takes responsibility for the upkeep and safety of the structure.
Im a landlord, I own 2 houses which I lease out - but I am still responsible for the property, if anything happens because of an indirect appliction (direct being the tennant commits arson) I am responsible for any damage or injury or death caused on my property... I have liability insurance which is required by law because of this, covering me for a liability of up to £60million, and that insurance isnt cheap.

 

I really disagree with that, but again, you either believe that the guys on the rig complained, or they didn't -- that is the point. If workers raise concerns, it becomes management's responsbility to address those concerns. If you have ever worked for any kind of large corporation or company, then this is quite clear that the liability is passed on to management when workers rasie concerns over safety issues.

 

I have no problem believing that a company would sack a whistle blower. For some of us, we can't afford to lose our jobs. Such people can be coerced into keeping quiet. Only strict supervision, and penalties that actually hurt, can stop a company from such flagrant abuses of their employees.

Now, Shoshino does have a point -- some workers are lying, incompetant bastards. I guess you have to look at other evidence to see if you are dealing with a lying worker or a coercive company.

 

Well, LKD, I'm not sure what that has to do with the point regarding BP and the oil spill. Are you saying that the wokers who work for BP are lying? I'm not trying to sound "confrontational," but trying to figure out where this is going regarding BP.

This is the point: IF BP workers feared for their jobs, why would they complain to the IPCC, whatever that is? I guess a US safety group?

 

Chandos, my point is that there are lazy, useless workers in every field and every job -- I don't believe that BP has any more or any fewer of such employees than any other institution.

If there were some things undone that were reported as done, then I see two likely possibilities.

1: The workers who blew it were not competent. They lied. The responsibility lies with them for being lazy twerps.

or

2: The company as a whole had a policy of cutting corners, and any workers who tried to speak up and ensure safety and environmental policies were intimidated into silence. These people need to work or end up on welfare or some such, so they toed the company line. In that case, it is the bean counters who bear the responsibility for the disaster and those "fat cats" need to be hung out to dry.

I tend to go with #2. But I concede the possibility that #1 may have happened. More data needed.

 

However, Harrell now denies he had any conflict with BP over the rig. So who is lying and why (hint, hint, CYA). Do only rank-and-file employees lie or do coporate managers? Take your choice.

Despite the "He said," arguing going on, there is this:

And BP was clearly in charge of the operation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575266560930780190.html

 

It's pretty simple. Basically, disolved methane gas, or an abundance of methane bubbles, lowers the average density of the water. Buoyancy is derived from comparative density. Less dense objects float on top of more dense objects. If the bottom object suddenly looses a lot of density, it may 'rise to the surface' while the floating object, with unchanged density, sinks.

They don't. Deep diving, by highly trained professionals, only goes down about 300 ft or so. Robots go down one mile. And maybe nuclear subs.

His point, which you blatantly missed several times now, is that the people threated with job loss could report the problems anonymously and not loose their jobs. Or, in this field, they could report it openly and sue BP when they're fired. Saying they don't share in the blame if they knew there were problems is just wrong.

As I've heard it, Transocean only owned the floating platform. The drill and well were BP's, and that's where the problems occurred.

 

My hunch is that BP lawyers made Harrell sign a confidentiality agreement, probably 'at gunpoint', and then, to ameliorate that, offered him a pay rise and a promotion for having to toe the company line.

I have a hunch that, if BP staff will be held accountable, it'll be middle management - ironically people like Harrell.

Generally I think it was and still is extremely foolish to allow BP to run the cleanup (but that's America for you - the haven for private enterprise), because they have goals conflicting so obviously with the interest of the golf coast at large: (i) retain ownership the spilled oil, (ii) retain ownership of the well, (iii) limit legal liability. They don't care about anything else at this point. The people calling the shots on this are lawyers and accountants.

(i) In a sense, an oil spill is just another way to extract the oil, only that the oil is to be retrieved by other means than usual. Some of BPs efforts appear to be an effort to maintain a claim of ownership on the spilled crude. After all, there's billions of dollars of it floating around, ripe for the taking by people with cleanup equipment.

(ii) I also feel that the undersea efforts have been directed at proving that BP is not abandoning the well (with an eye towards property rights, shareholders and the stock market - i.e. they are aimed at showing that BP is not abandoning their investment), and not at capping the well. I presume that BP won't stop the flow of oil from the well until it has a relief well up and running. I also doubt that BO will step up cleanup (the rig is already broken; why spend more money on it?).

(iii) Eventually they will use litigation to avoid liability. They will go into bankruptcy if they must. In a decade or two BP will then eventually pay the locals who are still alive a symbolic payment, which will not begin to address their loss.

 

Generally, I would agree with you. This definitely does appear to be the proverbial "fox guarding the hen house" type of solution. However, I am inclined to believe what a lot fo the so-called "experts" have been saying for weeks: Neither the government nor other industry have the technical know-how, equipment, or experience to clean up the spill, and certainly don't have any means at all to cap the well. Since we've never seen a spill of this magnitude, it's pretty safe to say that no one does.

However, the only industry out there that has any experience at all in dealing with oil spills is oil companies. While I don't like it, I have to concede that BP (or some other oil company) are most likely to be successful in capping the well, and then cleaning up the spill.

In fact, I think there are two points to consider here. It seems like while we can certainly begin the cleanup now, that the cleanup cannot be completed until after the well is sealed. BP certainly has an interest in capping the well. While they have devised a means of sucking up some of the crude oil, most of it is still going out into the ocean. Every barrel of oil that spills into the Gulf is money they are losing. So they have a financial incentive to stop the source.

As for cleanup, we don't even know the scope of it yet. It's possible that we get oil washing up on shore across the entire gulf region. If THAT happens, BP simply lacks the manpower to clean up all the beaches. They are going to have to get help. But as I said before, what group of people are familiar with cleaning up oil spills?

 

There are precedents, the resulting experiences and best practices developed from that. America did have precedents, most notably the Exxon Valdez oil spill. They didn't learn anything from that? What about FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the States? They all did nothing? Learned nothing? In two decades? I find that hard to believe.

As an illustration: After some oil spills in the North Sea and the Baltic, Germany has, with Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands (i.e. neighbouring countries) developed joint emergency oil response plans, with allocated resources, states of readiness, and regular exercises. We even have specialised oil spill responders in fire departments on a regional basis. Our coast guard and Navy have multi-role vessels with oil-recovery capabilities. The same probably goes for our neighbouring countries. Our Navy has specialised and dedicated oil spill detection aircraft.

If something comparable doesn't exist in the US the United States have sure fallen behind.