Punishing BP for the Oil Spill

[L.C.]

^ Very interesting! +1

[Simulacrum]

Just popping in to thank your for that insight and to confirm that I see what you mean by distinguishing between punishment and incentives.

[Dr Brain]

The oil rig was owned and operated by Transocean Ltd, not BP.

[Aileron]

I didn't know that, but it kinda adds to my point. I merely took the effects and worked backwards. You cited a potential cause. My assessment was that there wasn't a single point of control for the rig and that business types stuck their nose in operations too much. Having two companies involved in the rig adds to the potential for hiccups.

 

Well, since I haven't tracked this part of the story, let me guess...BP payed Transocean to operate the rig. Transocean operated it the Transocean way and everything was fine. Then some BP representatives show up one day and notice the rig isn't being operated the BP way. They directly order half the people on the rig to do things the BP way while the other half of the rig is still operating the Transocean way. The system splits itself in half and then fails. Hence why the rig needs a captain.

 

Now, I don't know what happened because I haven't been tracking the news, so someone please tell me if this description is accurate of if I'm going off on a tangent.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Aileron

[»Lynx]

Well, being that presumptuous has never really got anybody far. BP has a lot of companies under it's umbrella, and unless somebody has some facts (which I doubt anybody has on the above matter, as even if they did have the facts they'd probably be private anyway) - it's not something worth conversing.

[Aileron]

Its not presumptuous. A quick Google search will confirm that Transocean operated the rig under contract from BP (though oddly enough the Deepwater Horizon rig comes up about the 10th hit). Now, as I said, I make a living in engineering management, so I know the basics of what works and what doesn't. Add to that the fact that I am working from hindsight and being sufficiently vague to cover all reasonable causes, and that was an easy guess to make.

 

 

As for why we care, well, the reason I care is because of what the government is doing about it. The moratorium, the RICO charges, the regulations that are sure to come out, target the mythical 'Old Men in the Smoke-Filled Room'. This concerns me because these witch hunts have defined most of my life. The hunters have targeted my faith, my family, my friends, my job, and promise to target me the moment I become successful.

 

Anyway, the actions by this administrations speaks that it is presuming that a large portion of company leadership secretly endorsed reckless behavior in order to get higher profits. That is far more presumptuous than I am being.

 

 

-PS: for those of you unfamiliar with the 'Old Men in the Smoke-Filled Room' trope, imagine if you will a board room with a table in it. Around this table are sitting a bunch of middle aged white men wearing expensive suits and smoking cuban cigars. The windows in this room are covered. The door locked. This is because the meeting is secret, and that these men are gathered to do unspeakable evil in pursuit of collective money and power.

[SeVeR]

Anyway, the actions by this administrations speaks that it is presuming that a large portion of company leadership secretly endorsed reckless behavior in order to get higher profits. That is far more presumptuous than I am being.

Every big company has a board-room with company directors. It seems like you are assuming Obama see's this board of directors in your definition of how a liberal see's them: "as evil men smoking cubans in a shielded room". That is the only assumption here.

 

And how can these regulations not be targetted at the company directors? The regulations are needed so that companies can be properly held accountable for mistakes like this. So you think the little guy on the rig should be held accountable? How will that ever change anything? The company directors will still endorse the same working conditions, whether mistaken or not, because they won't be blamed for anything. With the regulations being targetted at the directors they will do everything to ensure it doesn't happen again... and they're the people who can ensure that the best. They hire and fire, they can bring in new safety measures to their operation.

 

Also, you really need to get out of your head this idea of a corporation as some mythical ethereal entity. BP has a headquarters, they have a board-room (smoke filled or not) and they have a board of directors who meet in it and dictate the future actions of the company.

Edited August 5, 2010 by SeVeR

[LiDDiS]

Punishing BP for the oil spill.... I nominate death by firing squad.

[Aileron]

Every big company has a board-room with company directors. It seems like you are assuming Obama see's this board of directors in your definition of how a liberal see's them: "as evil men smoking cubans in a shielded room". That is the only assumption here.

 

I assumed nothing. The justice department under the guidance of Mr. Obama is bringing forward RICO charges. That means they believe a criminal conspiracy is involved. Granted I added the part about them smoking cubans, but...

 

 

The Board of Directors doesn't have the power to 'hire and fire' the guys on the rig. They have the power to allocate the budget for the man who runs the department of the man who hires the man who hires the man who hires the man who hires the man who hires the man who works the contract with the other company who hires the man who hires the man who runs the rig. (sorry for the sexism)

 

After two or three steps down, the board of directors really don't have any positive control. They can write policy, but they can't enforce it, and they can only supervise so many supervisors before running into micromanagement issues. After three or four levels above the screwup, there is no justice in it any more.

[SeVeR]

Well there are plenty of grounds for RICO charges, such as:

 

1. The 1999 illegal disposal of toxic waste in Alaska which BP pleaded guilty to.

2. The 2005 Texas City Refinery explosion where 15 people died. BP pleaded guilty to breaking the Clean Air Act.

3. The 2006 oil leak in Alaska.

4. The 2007 manipulation of propane prices which led to a fine of 303 million dollars.

 

The fine grew in each case, but it seems BP hasn't improved it's methods at all. When a company consistently fails to respond to a less serious form of punishment, a greater threat is perhaps needed.

 

Also:

 

1. BP did lie to the government in their MMS report by saying they could deal with an accident such as this.

2. There are allegations that BP neglected safety by sending its "cement bond log" crew home early. This saved money and just happened to be on the day of the explosion.

 

Finally, with the level of proof needed to support RICO charges, the prosecutors must have something substantial.

 

The Board of Directors doesn't have the power to 'hire and fire' the guys on the rig. They have the power to allocate the budget for the man who runs the department of the man who hires the man who hires the man who hires the man who hires the man who hires the man who works the contract with the other company who hires the man who hires the man who runs the rig. (sorry for the sexism

Oh, they have the power. If they asked the BP worker who hires and fires the guys on the rig, that guy would do as he is told. What's more, they have the power to say what safety measures are used, and whether to cut costs by not using the safety measures.

[Aileron]

And hence why I said those punitive fines were analogous to 'hitting a river with a stick after a flood'. Here it happened 5 times over. The fines were not insufficient as you claim, they were ineffective. Getting a bigger stick will not solve the problem.

 

Look, when a guy from the board of directors steps on to a rig, the workers do know who has the power to fire him, and that man is the captain of the rig, not the suit from the company. All that happens is that the rig performs a dog and pony show for a day until the suit leaves, and the suit pretends he doesn't know they just performed a dog and pony show but goes on with it anyway because as a finance guy he can't tell a properly running rig from a hole in the water. Result: everyone got a day older and nothing got done.

 

They have the power to ensure that the company puts safety measures in its doctrine. They do *not* have the power to ensure that doctrine is followed on the ground level. They certainly have a policy to comply with all applicable laws and systems in doctrine to ensure that the laws are followed. Their subordinates simply did not comply with company policy, and upper management can only react with a firing. They can't prevent with inspection because the company is too big for a handful of people to inspect everything.

 

Punitive fines, when applied about 4 levels above the problem, work. If this were a case of fraud or embezzlement they would be appropriate. However, when you apply them 20 levels above the problem, they don't properly transmit down the layers of management the way you want them to.

 

 

In this case, what you need to do is to require high professional standards for a person to have positive control of the rigs on the ground level.

[»D1st0rt]

additional regulations will be enforced just as well as the existing regulations were

 

not a whole lot of point to them other than political grandstanding

[SeVeR]

Punitive fines, when applied about 4 levels above the problem, work. If this were a case of fraud or embezzlement they would be appropriate. However, when you apply them 20 levels above the problem, they don't properly transmit down the layers of management the way you want them to.

 

 

In this case, what you need to do is to require high professional standards for a person to have positive control of the rigs on the ground level.

Well then, I guess this is the crux of the matter. If you can tell me what the 20 levels of management are, then I'll believe this isn't another of your whimsical crusades in support of a right-wing cause. This is because I kind of agree that applying the fines 4 levels above the problem might work better, I just don't believe there are 20 levels until you reach the boardroom, so it would be nice if you could name them.

 

And hence why I said those punitive fines were analogous to 'hitting a river with a stick after a flood'. Here it happened 5 times over. The fines were not insufficient as you claim, they were ineffective. Getting a bigger stick will not solve the problem.

Why not? It often does solve the problem.

 

Look, when a guy from the board of directors steps on to a rig, the workers do know who has the power to fire him, and that man is the captain of the rig, not the suit from the company. All that happens is that the rig performs a dog and pony show for a day until the suit leaves, and the suit pretends he doesn't know they just performed a dog and pony show but goes on with it anyway because as a finance guy he can't tell a properly running rig from a hole in the water. Result: everyone got a day older and nothing got done.

The suit can still ask the rig captain to fire an employee and it will get done.

 

They have the power to ensure that the company puts safety measures in its doctrine. They do *not* have the power to ensure that doctrine is followed on the ground level. They certainly have a policy to comply with all applicable laws and systems in doctrine to ensure that the laws are followed. Their subordinates simply did not comply with company policy, and upper management can only react with a firing. They can't prevent with inspection because the company is too big for a handful of people to inspect everything.

They can obviously do a lot more because other oil companies have far fewer problems than BP do. Perhaps there is an incentive that was put in place by management for rig workers to save money, and this causes them to cut corners.

[Aileron]

Look, I don't even know why I waste time arguing with you. You are clearly too stupid to understand the difference between BP's failure and Enron's failure. Usually I end up making myself look stupid arguing with you. So, you know what? I'll just leave you to your own devices.

 

Everyone else here can figure out that I wasn't making a left vs right point, I was making a 'smarten up, analyze the problem, and then take action' statement. But, you are too busy defending the anointed one to understand the distinction.

[SeVeR]

All I did in that last post is ask you to elaborate on your assumptions, to see if you have any evidence whatsoever for them. You just resorted to insults.

 

Ah, so myself and everyone else here didn't raise our eyebrows when seeing you come out in support of the boardroom for a major corporation? Yea, that isn't right wing of you at all. Yea, it's not in your character at all, not since you've made countless rants against your own "evil" entity (the liberals), many of who just happen to have a lot of hatred for the boardroom directors you just happen to be defending right now. Yea, that wasn't expected at all.

 

Nice to see you haven't changed.

 

-EDIT- and lol! "You are clearly too stupid to understand the difference between BP's failure and Enron's failure."

Edited August 7, 2010 by SeVeR

[Simulacrum]

Usually I end up making myself look stupid arguing with you.

Strange that you should see this as a credit to yourself.

[Aileron]

Yeah, that came out wrong. I'll admit I was drunk at the time of that particular post. I think you got the jist of it though. Something about p_____g contests and skunks.

 

 

 

 

Hmm...now I remember why. SeVeR, I worry for you.

 

Step back and look at yourself. You are advocating sending a group of accountants to jail because they are perceived as rich, powerful, and happen to work for an oil company which is involved in a spill. The Jews were perceived as being rich, powerful, and being involved in causing the Great Depression when Hitler had them imprisoned. How close are you to advocating imprisonment of political opponents because those in government feel like it?

 

I do not mean to imply that they are the same thing. There is a fine line dividing them, which I don't think you have crossed. You have not entirely abandoned the law. But, I am quite convinced that some of the left's leadership: congressmen, college professors, media leaders, have crossed that line.

 

Mr. Obama played golf four times over the course of the oil spill. Rightfully so. As a politician, the best thing he can do in a disaster like this is appoint an expert to handle it and stay 2000 miles away from it. As someone who doesn't know jack about drilling, his influence couldn't help things on the ground, and his presence would only get in everyone else's way. So, he of all people understands that his counterparts at the tippy-top of BP should have probably been teeing off with him, because they need to appoint an expert and stay 2000 miles away too.

 

Point being, I used to think the left's leadership made an honest mistake of demonizing groups like rich people, corporations, etc. I'm starting to realize that no, this is a deliberate act on their part. They have been around long enough to know that when an organization's membership numbers in the millions and it spans the globe, there is a 'telephone game' between the leadership and the guys on the ground and that can't be defeated entirely by policy letters.

 

Some of the advocates pushing this RICO case *know* the defendants are innocent and are pressing the charges *anyway*. I doubt the president falls into that category, but some of those who influence him do.

 

 

Please, be careful of who you listen to. Some of your 'heroes' can indeed be described in no other way but evil.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Aileron