C2, quarter of a century ago, that was my argument to them: <All will suffer thanks to the criminal negligence of your former employer. Something drastic needs to be done to it, pour encourager les autres >
At that time I had a narrow brief [unless they tossed me something interesting which they did from time to time because they needed technical/marketing comment on something such as photovoltaics, or ethanol, or all sorts]. In NZ, being little, I covered everything from bitumen, power station fuel, in lubricants through to LPG and CNG, alterhnative fuels project, taxation, and chemicals. In London, I was just on gasoline and alternative fuels for spark ignition engines [Mike Whitworth handled diesel until I took that over in 1987].
Environmental issues were a big deal in fuels because they are burned and pollute the air we breathe and lead polluted everything, causing umpty $billion in damage to our brains - vastly more than the trivial harm from the current spill. It was the biggest environmental catastrophe ever but it was a sneaky painless invisible incremental harm. Take away 4% of a person and they can't really notice it - especially when they don't have anything to compare it with.
My argument to BP was that with the acquisition of Sohio, and operating in the USA, they had become a USA oil company and had to conduct themselves accordingly. Meaning they should expect to be sued for everything they have if they got things wrong. The USA is highly punitive and given to enormous damages claims in class action, other litigiousness, and political attack.
My argument was that BP should not only not resist environmental, safety and other controls which would require capital investment, but should investigate, recommend and seek environmental controls and product improvements such as getting lead out of petrol [aka gasoline].
My argument was that BP could far better afford the necessary capital investment than could most competitors and the business of BP was investment in whatever governments and the public wanted to buy. If they wanted clean air, sell them clean air, If they don't want death by immolation due to high vapour pressure causing fires in crashes or due to leaks, give them that. That was a hobby horse of mine for which I got little traction - can't do everything at once and my main aim was ditching the Eurograde 95 which was planned to take over from leaded fuel.
My argument was that BP should sell two grades, not one at 95 octane. 98 RON for high end vehicles because such motorists will pay a premium to get bang for buck in their high performance cars. 91 RON for we garden variety supermarket motorized trolley drivers. That would mean more capital investment in more tanks and refining and delivery duplication and inventory and whatnot. But BP is doing well from "Ultimate". People are willing to pay.
While I wasn't involved in the refining or exploration and production business, the same argument applies. BP can afford the capital investment. If the public wants oil from the deep, figure out how to do it safely and cleanly because they don't want it at the cost of ruined harbours and dead people then sell it to them.
Instead of thinking of BP as the good guys, "Hooray for BP", I suspect that you might not be the only one thinking they deserve a good encourager les autres.
More government is not the answer. Governments will do it even worse. What BP needs to do is use the government to make life difficult for competitors who can't afford the investments and the management complexity and technical expertise to do things right. Government gave us two dead space shuttle crews because of dopey o ring management and stupid plastic breaking a heat stopping tile. Government gives catastrophe on a grand scale. You want calamitous catastrophe, you need to get governments to take over.
See how safety conscious they were on the drilling platform? They were celebrating years of safe operation with some presentation or other, even as the gas was rising. They were busy posing and preening over rules and committees and whatnot, but the real safety requirements were mismanaged - watch the well pressures, make sure the blow out preventer was in good condition, notice the pieces of rubber coming out, send mayday calls promptly, abandon ship in smaller groups so that boats don't depart before they are filled and so that the probability survival of those ready to leave goes up and so that when they muck it up, they don't drop a large boat load to their deaths or leave them stranded in flames.
They will have been ticking boxes flat out and wearing high visibility jackets and safety hats, and being bureaucratically correct, but not getting the crucial things right. Even in the crisis, process and pecking order were more important than getting things right - when it's time to shut the well, shut it and if management isn't right there, instantly, then they are awol and to be ignored. If they are busy pooping or in the shower, they are awol and irrelevant. Bossy people love process. Government loves process more than anything.
With Obama running the show, you can be sure disaster and opportunity cost will be enormous. Already, they'll be establishing committees and process galore to study the situation. Wholesale suffocatocracy, regulatory muck and process will appear out of thin air.
BP should run school and other educational tourism to offshore and other wells. That will encourage people to take up oil exploration and help with safety. Being on show makes people better and do things better. Roger Federer plays really well with millions watching. Tiger Woods could too until he came up against the challenge his father sagely said would be his real challenge - "honey do this, honey do that..." and he failed that challenge.
BP might or might not be significantly culpable in this instance - it's not clear to me that they are liable though they are the operator and obviously think they should be leading the solutions. Under libel law, I would certainly not use the expression you did "criminal negligence". I can't say that BP was criminally negligent.
For all I know BP is no more liable than somebody who hires a taxi to take them to the airport and the driver crashes the car into 11 children crossing the road, killing them all, because Halliburton didn't check the brakes the way they were supposed to do and the driver had had a few drinks before driving too fast in wet conditions on a dark night. Hiring Americans to drill oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico is perhaps too hazardous. First they wreck things then they blame the person who hired the taxi.
Mqurice |
