PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Has BP done anything wrong?



KiloNewton
05-25-2010, 08:00 PM
With regard to the gulf oil spill do you think BP has done the "wrong thing"?

tk217
05-25-2010, 08:30 PM
With regard to the gulf oil spill do you think BP has done the "wrong thing"?

In what regards has BP done the right thing with this catastrophe?

KiloNewton
05-25-2010, 09:32 PM
In what regards has BP done the right thing with this catastrophe?
I am asking your opinion. Clearly you think they are in the wrong, feel free to explain why.

Hagakure24
05-25-2010, 09:38 PM
intriguing question. srs. will post later on.

tk217
05-25-2010, 09:39 PM
I am asking your opinion. Clearly you think they are in the wrong, feel free to explain why.

I am asking you bud.

KiloNewton
05-25-2010, 09:45 PM
Ok, they have taken full financial responsibility for the event and have taken responsibility for engineering a solution. They are facing a problem so deep under the ocean than men cannot go there and are dealing with unfathomable pressures- the problem they face is tantamount to attempting to put the first man on the moon. In spite of the difficulties they have already made multiple attempts to fix the leak and are operating on multiple contingencies simultaneously. What more are they expected to hve done?

kappakai
05-25-2010, 09:48 PM
Ok, they have taken full financial responsibility for the event and have taken responsibility for engineering a solution. They are facing a problem so deep under the ocean than men cannot go there and are dealing with unfathomable pressures- the problem they face is tantamount to attempting to put the first man on the moon. In spite of the difficulties they have already made multiple attempts to fix the leak and are operating on multiple contingencies simultaneously. What more are they expected to hve done?

Ummm... install the fail safe mechanisms?

tk217
05-25-2010, 09:52 PM
Ok, they have taken full financial responsibility for the event and have taken responsibility for engineering a solution. They are facing a problem so deep under the ocean than men cannot go there and are dealing with unfathomable pressures- the problem they face is tantamount to attempting to put the first man on the moon. In spite of the difficulties they have already made multiple attempts to fix the leak and are operating on multiple contingencies simultaneously. What more are they expected to hve done?

Rebuttle:

The took on a task as deep oil diggers -- yet they apparently and obviously had no method of treating a problem that could possible (and did) occur in a timely manner. 6 months being the estimated time for them to shut off the oil or attempt to stop it. They knew the possible situation as a "worst case" scenario which has caused billions upon billions of dollars in damage and now are attempting to hide behind an old maritime law (not taking finacial responsibility for punitive damages) that is long sense outdated and then "playing the blame game" by stating that their insurance agency told them to do it -- like their wrists are being held.

They've constantly had safety problems and rather than fixing them or taking a cultural method of business to make safety a top priority where these sorts of things rarely occur rather than normally occur - have cost several people their lives. These men did not want to die by any means - BP with faulty equipment, shotty review, and poor internal controls have caused these deaths. Even with known warning signs not to proceed coming evident under the sea of lawsuits arising it is apparent BP has shown a consitent failure to be a top notch safety company.

Attempts are unique concept. I can attempt to pay my bills - but my power will get shut off. I can also attempt to feed my kids - but they will starve. When I attempt to do something and fail that is one thing - but when I attempt to do something and cost people their lives, their jobs, their lively hoods, and harm others -- I usually go to jail. The entire board of BP should be going to jail as a clear example of what taking responsibility for your actions means.

Until they actually succeed and truely take it upon themselves to pay those extra damages as well as fix what they did and then of course take on a culture of safety versus a culture of profits and greed - they're doing something wrong all the time.

KiloNewton
05-25-2010, 11:59 PM
Rebuttle:

The took on a task as deep oil diggers -- yet they apparently and obviously had no method of treating a problem that could possible (and did) occur in a timely manner. 6 months being the estimated time for them to shut off the oil or attempt to stop it. They knew the possible situation as a "worst case" scenario which has caused billions upon billions of dollars in damage and now are attempting to hide behind an old maritime law (not taking finacial responsibility for punitive damages) that is long sense outdated and then "playing the blame game" by stating that their insurance agency told them to do it -- like their wrists are being held.
Do you expect car companies to design cars that are impervious to all crash damage or do you expect them to design cars that are as safe as is technologically and economically viable? Driving is statistically one of the most dangerous activities an individual can partake in, but we don't expect cars to be crash-proof. Likewise we do not expect oil companies to be prepared for any problem, only those problems that are reasonably likely. This is an extreame case and I doubt it is even possible to adequately prepare for something like this.


They've constantly had safety problems and rather than fixing them or taking a cultural method of business to make safety a top priority where these sorts of things rarely occur rather than normally occur - have cost several people their lives. These men did not want to die by any means - BP with faulty equipment, shotty review, and poor internal controls have caused these deaths. Even with known warning signs not to proceed coming evident under the sea of lawsuits arising it is apparent BP has shown a consitent failure to be a top notch safety company.
I am raising an eyebrow skeptically, you should provide more information to support this argument.


Attempts are unique concept. I can attempt to pay my bills - but my power will get shut off. I can also attempt to feed my kids - but they will starve.
Perhaps it is just my background as an engineer speaking but do you even have the education, let alone the ability to attempt to solve a high pressure oil leak under a mile of water? I doubt it, and based on your response I doubt you realise just how difficult it is. The fact that in only weeks they have been able to devise and execute multiple attempts is impressive, it says that they have engineers working day and night trying to do something the likes of which has never before been achieved, while the average man sits on his hands watching the ocean go black criticising BP for only attempting.


When I attempt to do something and fail that is one thing - but when I attempt to do something and cost people their lives, their jobs, their lively hoods, and harm others -- I usually go to jail. The entire board of BP should be going to jail as a clear example of what taking responsibility for your actions means.
Extreame.


Until they actually succeed and truely take it upon themselves to pay those extra damages as well as fix what they did and then of course take on a culture of safety versus a culture of profits and greed - they're doing something wrong all the time.

Blindead
05-26-2010, 12:00 AM
Son...I am proud.

tk217
05-28-2010, 01:21 AM
Do you expect car companies to design cars that are impervious to all crash damage or do you expect them to design cars that are as safe as is technologically and economically viable? Driving is statistically one of the most dangerous activities an individual can partake in, but we don't expect cars to be crash-proof. Likewise we do not expect oil companies to be prepared for any problem, only those problems that are reasonably likely. This is an extreame case and I doubt it is even possible to adequately prepare for something like this.

I would suggest you educate yourself on this book "Unsafe at any speed." We have already had cases where car manufcaturers produce cars that are literal death traps. There is a reason we demand a lot of our manufcaturers when it comes to safety. Cutting corners and turning off key parts of the vehicle -- like in this case of the safety valves -- it would be the brakes is really not acceptable.


Perhaps it is just my background as an engineer speaking but do you even have the education, let alone the ability to attempt to solve a high pressure oil leak under a mile of water? I doubt it, and based on your response I doubt you realise just how difficult it is. The fact that in only weeks they have been able to devise and execute multiple attempts is impressive, it says that they have engineers working day and night trying to do something the likes of which has never before been achieved, while the average man sits on his hands watching the ocean go black criticising BP for only attempting.

Straw man. This is not about me it is about BP's cultural enviroment and buisness decisions and what those choices ended up causing.

AKR
05-28-2010, 01:31 AM
Ok, they have taken full financial responsibility for the event and have taken responsibility for engineering a solution.


lol, have they? They've capped liability payments at $5k. Five f*cking thousand dollars. That's NOTHING. They simply don't have the funds to actually pay for everything they've f*cked up and they'll try to get away with paying as little as possible.

KiloNewton
05-28-2010, 02:46 AM
I would suggest you educate yourself on this book "Unsafe at any speed." We have already had cases where car manufcaturers produce cars that are literal death traps. There is a reason we demand a lot of our manufcaturers when it comes to safety. Cutting corners and turning off key parts of the vehicle -- like in this case of the safety valves -- it would be the brakes is really not acceptable.[quote]
While it may be interesting this isn't relevant. My point was that you cannot expect anything engineered- be it cars, oil rigs or whatever - to be able to withstand anything.

[quote]Straw man. This is not about me it is about BP's cultural enviroment and buisness decisions and what those choices ended up causing.
This is not a straw man, I was responding to a point that you made.

tk217
05-28-2010, 02:48 AM
While it may be interesting this isn't relevant. My point was that you cannot expect anything engineered- be it cars, oil rigs or whatever - to be able to withstand anything.

This is not a straw man, I was responding to a point that you made.

I never said it was suppose to withstand everything or anything. I believe a safety valve is basic much like brakes on a car.

Do you know what a straw man is?

Streetbull
05-28-2010, 02:59 AM
With regard to the gulf oil spill do you think BP has done the "wrong thing"?

I vote a qualified 'No'. They didn't understand the horrific possibilities that deep water drilling entails and were too slack in their precautions. But I don't think they intentionally caused a disaster -- this is an error of ommission, not commission.

That being said, they would not have drilled in deep water if it wasn't nearly impossible to drill on land or on the Continental Shelf, both of which are relatively MUCH easier and infinitely safer. The governments involved get a WHOLE LOT of blame for restricting/banning drilling where it is much much safer.

Ever heard of a massive spill like this from a land-based op?

The environmentalists share any blame here.

VAPlowhorse
05-28-2010, 03:24 AM
Too open ended of a question OP.

I voted yes, because ultimately they decided to sink a deeper than average well using average technology in possibly one of the worst areas to drill to begin with. It was a risk that put much much more than BP's bottom line at stake. All it took was for something to go wrong and everybody loses, which is what happened. The risk also seems foolish, as they were drilling for crude oil. It is not like they were tapping the fountain of youth. There is plenty of difficult to obtain oil under the Grand Banks, they can play there if it is that important.

Their response is about as much as anyone could do. Unless Obama has some military deep water technology hidden up his ass, the government could not do anything better about the situation.

KiloNewton
05-28-2010, 03:52 AM
I never said it was suppose to withstand everything or anything. I believe a safety valve is basic much like brakes on a car.
The point I made was quite clear. I used the analogy of a car to illustrate that while we expect a car to be fitted with a reasonable ammount of safety technology we do not expect a car to withstand a high speed collision unscathed. In this metaphor a massive pressure spike such as the one that has caused the current situation is a high speed collision; you can accuse and blame BP all you want for not having technology in place capable of withstanding the pressure- have you stopped to wonder if the technology exists to make rigs capable of withstanding an explsion like this? You are moaning about how they could have installed a safety valve- There was a blowout preventer on the pipeline (as per the relevant regulations) which would have sealed the pipe...


Do you know what a straw man is?
Yes, I do.

Streetbull
05-28-2010, 04:16 AM
Too open ended of a question OP.

I voted yes, because ultimately they decided to sink a deeper than average well using average technology in possibly one of the worst areas to drill to begin with. It was a risk that put much much more than BP's bottom line at stake. All it took was for something to go wrong and everybody loses, which is what happened. The risk also seems foolish, as they were drilling for crude oil. It is not like they were tapping the fountain of youth. There is plenty of difficult to obtain oil under the Grand Banks, they can play there if it is that important.

Their response is about as much as anyone could do. Unless Obama has some military deep water technology hidden up his ass, the government could not do anything better about the situation.

Good post. I think this disaster illustrates how foolish it is to deep-water drill. Our tech is just not up to the mark. The solution is to drill where a disaster can actually be fixed -- on land or in shallow(er) water.

jf1
05-28-2010, 04:39 AM
I vote a qualified 'No'. They didn't understand the horrific possibilities that deep water drilling entails and were too slack in their precautions.

not understanding the consequences and being slack in their precautions isnt wrong?
:confused:

divmotru
05-28-2010, 04:45 AM
I vote a qualified 'No'. They didn't understand the horrific possibilities that deep water drilling entails and were too slack in their precautions. But I don't think they intentionally caused a disaster -- this is an error of ommission, not commission.

That being said, they would not have drilled in deep water if it wasn't nearly impossible to drill on land or on the Continental Shelf, both of which are relatively MUCH easier and infinitely safer. The governments involved get a WHOLE LOT of blame for restricting/banning drilling where it is much much safer.

Ever heard of a massive spill like this from a land-based op?

The environmentalists share any blame here.
Yes in ecuador it is one of the worst in history

r0gue6
05-28-2010, 05:40 AM
They should have top killed it asap.

And now that probably won't even work, they ****ed the whole Gulf to ****.

daverick89
05-28-2010, 05:46 AM
The point I made was quite clear. I used the analogy of a car to illustrate that while we expect a car to be fitted with a reasonable ammount of safety technology we do not expect a car to withstand a high speed collision unscathed. In this metaphor a massive pressure spike such as the one that has caused the current situation is a high speed collision; you can accuse and blame BP all you want for not having technology in place capable of withstanding the pressure- have you stopped to wonder if the technology exists to make rigs capable of withstanding an explsion like this? You are moaning about how they could have installed a safety valve- There was a blowout preventer on the pipeline (as per the relevant regulations) which would have sealed the pipe...


Yes, I do.

This. My thermodynamics teacher took a shot at this and was telling us how the pressure spike they experienced in the pipe line is unlike anything that BP could have prepared for and suggesting that the missing valve could have stopped this accident is like suggesting that a safety belt would have saved someone going 200mph into a tree.

Of course, the media would rather not focus on that.

Streetbull
05-28-2010, 06:22 AM
not understanding the consequences and being slack in their precautions isnt wrong?
:confused:

I think that all BP wants to do is make money. They are wrong or at fault only insofar as they cut corners. That's the trouble with government regs in this area anyway -- how do they know what's an adequate level of safety and what's not? If BP followed all the government regs and the disaster still happened, who is at fault?

We both know that government is by nature inefficient. Were the regulations adequate to protect the environment? How would any bureaucrat know that? Blaming BP is 'jumping the gun'. We don't even know if the regs were sufficient or if BP broke those regs. There are simply too many variables to decide culpability. Demonizing oil companies is unwarrented.

For about $3, you get to travel 25 or so miles (1 gallon gets you that far). This is a tremendous gift from the oil companies as walking that far is not fun.

jf1
05-28-2010, 06:27 AM
They should have top killed it asap.

And now that probably won't even work, they ****ed the whole Gulf to ****.
this x10000000000!
when it blew, it should have been plugged.
immediately.


For about $3, you get to travel 25 or so miles (1 gallon gets you that far). This is a tremendous gift from the oil companies as walking that far is not fun.

no.
25miles is a farce.
100mpg might be considered a decent gift... 'tremendous'?
no.

The Kurgan
05-29-2010, 12:40 AM
I would suggest you educate yourself on this book "Unsafe at any speed." We have already had cases where car manufcaturers produce cars that are literal death traps. There is a reason we demand a lot of our manufcaturers when it comes to safety. Cutting corners and turning off key parts of the vehicle -- like in this case of the safety valves -- it would be the brakes is really not acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_At_Any_Speed#Other_criticism

This lecture by Friedman is still relevant today-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_gU50mfehI

There are corners that we all choose to cut. The question is what is the balance between safety and saving costs and how is that balance achieved.

What I would like to know is who or where were the figures speaking out about safety problems BEFORE the accident. If they had shown BP sufficient evidence that there was a considerable possibility of danger, then we can start talking about culpability.

leafs43
05-29-2010, 12:46 AM
Extending them the whole, "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is unpopular, but that is the way it works.

So until then no one can really answer the question.

nutsy54
05-29-2010, 01:02 AM
Impossible to know, until an investigation actually determines the cause, the events, and all other factors involved.

VTheKing
05-29-2010, 01:08 AM
This. My thermodynamics teacher took a shot at this and was telling us how the pressure spike they experienced in the pipe line is unlike anything that BP could have prepared for and suggesting that the missing valve could have stopped this accident is like suggesting that a safety belt would have saved someone going 200mph into a tree.

Of course, the media would rather not focus on that.

Then the question becomes: should the car have been going at 200 mph - that's it, should oil companies be drilling so deep since in the event of an accident, there is a chance an environmental calamity will occur? I'm not sure how much of the oil production comes from deep offshore drilling, though - or whether if people would think the risk of a spill outweighs the profits stemming from a field.

nutsy54
05-29-2010, 01:09 AM
They should have top killed it asap.What engineering background do you have, to know that it wasn't done "asap"? Do you think procedures that have never been done before, using equipment that wasn't on site, operating one mile below the surface, is something that can just be thrown together on a moment's notice? Is there a reason you opposed the other options they tried first - which were far less risky, and seemed reasonably capable of solving the problem? (20/20 hindsight notwithstanding)


this x10000000000!
when it blew, it should have been plugged.
immediately.Gee, why didn't anyone think of that? :rolleyes:

You guys act like "plugging a hole" - 5,000 feet underwater, where just the ambient pressure is nearly 2,500 psi - is a simple matter.

tk217
05-29-2010, 08:04 PM
The point I made was quite clear. I used the analogy of a car to illustrate that while we expect a car to be fitted with a reasonable ammount of safety technology we do not expect a car to withstand a high speed collision unscathed. In this metaphor a massive pressure spike such as the one that has caused the current situation is a high speed collision; you can accuse and blame BP all you want for not having technology in place capable of withstanding the pressure- have you stopped to wonder if the technology exists to make rigs capable of withstanding an explsion like this? You are moaning about how they could have installed a safety valve- There was a blowout preventer on the pipeline (as per the relevant regulations) which would have sealed the pipe...


Yes, I do.

The problem on this kilo - is that BP had noticed the awkward pressure tests and knew that it was unstable. Yet the continued anyway.

enkaroxch
05-29-2010, 08:15 PM
The only way we'd ever know is if Congress investigated this incident with the same level of vigor it investigates steroid use in the MLB.

Prn
05-29-2010, 08:33 PM
no, accidents happen

GrokTheCube
05-29-2010, 08:40 PM
lol, have they? They've capped liability payments at $5k. Five f*cking thousand dollars. That's NOTHING. They simply don't have the funds to actually pay for everything they've f*cked up and they'll try to get away with paying as little as possible.

It's f*cked up beyond belief

I hope the government steps up to the plate on this one and reams them.