Does It Make A Difference If BP "Cut Corners" to "Save Costs"?

[sandorski]

I think a better question would be: "How would self regulation be different?"

These people should never have been allowed to even file a new permit anywhere in American jurisdiction with a record like that. Instead they receive permits for the asking and even safety awards. Evidently BP has the bestus hookers and blow, all I can figure.

You are correct. They indeed had the opportunity, or obligation, to Self-Regulate in this situation(above the minimal Government Regulations), but failed.

 

[bfdd]

I think a better question would be: "How would self regulation be different?"

These people should never have been allowed to even file a new permit anywhere in American jurisdiction with a record like that. Instead they receive permits for the asking and even safety awards. Evidently BP has the bestus hookers and blow, all I can figure.

That's because like pretty much everyone else on these forums who have been talking about this subject you know absolutely nothing you're talking about. What does this spill have to do with the millions and millions of safe man hours BP employees have put forth? What does this spill have to do with BP having some of the cleanest and safest refineries I've ever worked in? Nothing. BP does a pretty good job in that respect, this is a big fuck up but it doesn't mean EVERYTHING they do is fucked up.

 

[bfdd]

You are correct. They indeed had the opportunity, or obligation, to Self-Regulate in this situation(above the minimal Government Regulations), but failed.

BP has no obligation to do anything more than what is required out of it and that includes meeting MINIMUM governmental regulation. If you have a problem with that take it up with your government to stiff up regulations.

 

[sandorski]

You're an idiot. A company is not obligated to ANYONE to do more than it has to ever. Our government decided to regulate a minimum amount of safety and requirements for this kind of venture. If the minimum is met then it's good to go, if the company or peoples decide to go up and beyond that it has nothing to do with the government. If the government wants more people to go up and beyond their current regulations then they should make their regulations stiffer, not bs about it not being good enough.

Uhh, no.

 

[sandorski]

BP has no obligation to do anything more than what is required out of it and that includes meeting MINIMUM governmental regulation. If you have a problem with that take it up with your government to stiff up regulations.

Fail. You would Support Regulations so strict? I suspect not.

 

[zinfamous]

Well if what they did was within regulations it is the responsibility of business to maximize profit.

Not a stupid question.

well, the responsibility that they neglected is to not turn the surrounding environment into a superfund site.

In many ways, I see such actions as relating to their ability to maximize profits, ....so it seems they failed across the board?

 

[werepossum]

That's because like pretty much everyone else on these forums who have been talking about this subject you know absolutely nothing you're talking about. What does this spill have to do with the millions and millions of safe man hours BP employees have put forth? What does this spill have to do with BP having some of the cleanest and safest refineries I've ever worked in? Nothing. BP does a pretty good job in that respect, this is a big fuck up but it doesn't mean EVERYTHING they do is fucked up.

When one company owns practically ALL of its industry's willful safety violations, that company has no business being in that business. If BP runs clean, safe refineries, fine, let BP run refineries. If BP runs willfully unsafe oil rigs, it should not be allowed to run oil rigs. That ought to be abundantly clear to anyone. But if BP intentionally violates safety regulations that other companies obey - even if no one has yet been injured and no oil has yet been spilled - then BP is a menace and should be shut down or forced to reform to industry standards. Either enforce the laws, or abolish the laws.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. I seriously doubt that BP was doing things much differently than the rest of the offshore drilling community, if at all. There's always a budget hero running things at some level, bet on that. And oilmen aren't traditionally risk-averse, at all.

Think of it as a race to see who trips over their dick first, with BP as the winner...

All things considered, particularly the "Drill, baby, Drill!" mentality, something like this was inevitable...

I don't pretend to have the answers, but I think it's pretty naive to think that we don't need a policy review...

 

[StageLeft]

Maybe. Funny how the gov is attacking BP so that they can pretend their regulatory rules were either ignored or bullsh*t. In any case, they sucked sh*t at regulating, didn't they?

 

[Throckmorton]

Maybe. Funny how the gov is attacking BP so that they can pretend their regulatory rules were either ignored or bullsh*t. In any case, they sucked sh*t at regulating, didn't they?

Try passing laws to toughen up regulation and see what happens. You're suddenly a socialist, a communist, a fascist, and a nazi "taking over" the industry.

 

[Patranus]

Try passing laws to toughen up regulation and see what happens. You're suddenly a socialist, a communist, a fascist, and a nazi "taking over" the industry.

Well you could start by ensuring that current regulations are enforced instead of giving BP a pass 5 days before the leak started.

 

[bfdd]

Fail. You would Support Regulations so strict? I suspect not.

I think the current regulations if enforced are good enough, but if the rest of you think they aren't and BP should of done more you need to take that up with your local and national governments because they set the bar.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think the current regulations if enforced are good enough, but if the rest of you think they aren't and BP should of done more you need to take that up with your local and national governments because they set the bar.

I doubt that entirely. BP may have been entirely within the requirements for all we can tell at this point, requirements set by regulators who've been captured by the industry for decades, supported by a public enamored with the sloganeering of "Drill, Baby, Drill!"

Our own thirst for cheap gas, greed, stupidity and unwillingness to look past the end of our noses led us to this disaster. If we actually have the sense it takes to pour piss out of a boot, we'll adopt a regulatory regimen a lot like those of our first world cousins.

 

[CanOWorms]

I think the current regulations if enforced are good enough, but if the rest of you think they aren't and BP should of done more you need to take that up with your local and national governments because they set the bar.

Government regulations, licenses, requirements, etc. don't absolve liability. Governments don't need to do anything as it's already a settled concept.

 

[Zorba]

Well if what they did was within regulations it is the responsibility of business to maximize profit.

Not a stupid question.

Lets look at this for a Part 121 airline. Under the CFR, Part 121 operators can design and manufacture their own parts without any type of certification (where as any part made by another company must be certified for not just Aviation use, but for use on that specific aircraft type and application). So this airline can go and design any part that it thinks will work, and be fully within the law. Now lets say that part fails and causes an accident and kills a plane full of people because the design of the part was bad and was intended only to save costs. By your thinking the airline was within the law when it designed the part, therefore it shouldn't have liability.

The thing about all federal regulation I have ever read, is that it is always up to operator to ensure a safe product.

I think the current regulations if enforced are good enough, but if the rest of you think they aren't and BP should of done more you need to take that up with your local and national governments because they set the bar.

Almost no federal laws are enforced during the act, they are always enforced after something happens, or they find it though an audit or whistle-blower. But I guess all of you small government people who want the current laws to be "enforced" think that we should hire a government inspector to oversee every federal regulated operation during the act of that operation.

BTW: Considering there are federal laws about which airplane lavatory you can shit in, you'll have to have a TSA member watch you every time you use the lav, just gotta make sure that the current regulations are "enforced."

 

[senseamp]

Republican idea of free markets: you get to keep all the profits, but get others to pay to clean up the mess left behind.

 

[JTsyo]

Maybe. Funny how the gov is attacking BP so that they can pretend their regulatory rules were either ignored or bullsh*t. In any case, they sucked sh*t at regulating, didn't they?

From the Daily Show I got that the MMM regulators would let the oil execs fill out their own inspection reports and then they would just fill it in pen. It seems the US needs to audit all its regulating agencies. After each disaster we find that they haven't been doing their job.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Does it make a difference if BP "cut corners" to "save cost" if they were still within the regulations outlined by the federal government/mms?

Clearly they didn't cut corners AND stay safe, perhaps your most inane question to date

 

[Toastedlightly]

Has the investigation into the cause of the disaster shed any light on what happened? I know people say cutting corners and the like, but what actually happened? I say this because there is a criminal investigation going on (why criminal?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Alpha

Piper Alpha is the most recent major oil rig disaster (in terms of lives, not environmental impact). This is purported to have been caused by a simple failure of a worker to turn in the proper doucmentation.

So, while we all say how neglegent BP was, how evil they still are, can we at least keep all considerations (especially the one of human error) in mind?

 

[heyheybooboo]

I love the mentality of some of these posts (and what it reveals about the individual poster).

"" We 'Cut Corners' to 'Save Costs' (and pump up our bottom line by charging the maximum the market will pay)... ""

"" Here at XYZ Corp, we do the minimum! ""

"" We're Number One (in civil fines for the worst safety record in the industry!) ""

"" (It's not our fault) Our employees are incompetent BOOBS ! ""





--

 

[Darwin333]

Early reports are that ignoring the damage done to a rubber stopper at one point, continuing to use it, may have been the central cause of the problem.

This is a choice made by a BP manager, overriding the expressed concerns, to avoid delay and reduce cost.

More government regulation could had rules not allowing that choice, could have had government inspectors on-site overseeing things, or other measures.

(I'm not advocating any particular thing, such as the impractical government inspector on site, I'm answering your question).

So in attacking the government to say we should have less, the argument used actually suggests the need for more - tiny government wouldn't have prevented this catastrophe.

What is so impractical about an inspector on-site? From the information we have so far, it sounds like the accident was caused almost entirely by decisions made by humans and not necessarily equipment failure. They didn't follow the regulations in place so what makes you think they would have followed even more if no one was looking?

There are only 33 deepwater rigs operating in the gulf which is actually approximately 1/4 of all deepwater rigs in the world. A plan called the "gang of 66" has already been proposed in lieu of the 6 month moratorium. It is by far the most effective way of preventing companies from cutting corners and putting time/money before safety so long as it is done correctly. Retired oilfield engineers with full authority to shut down drilling operations AND the power to issue very large fines. Someone commented that we should have 2 on the rig at all times so that decisions aren't made while they are sleeping, while I am personally not sure if thats necessary. If we don't hire a bureaucrat to do it and instead hire someone who has been there done that, they will know/find out that they went behind his back and a pissed off inspector who has the ability to make your life a living hell AND fine the shit out of you is a really really bad thing.

Matter of fact, I think that is the most practical and effective measure that can be put in place to increase drilling safety and to reduce the likelihood an accident like this ever happens again.

That makes way too much sense though. Instead the 6 month moratorium will continue for purely political reasons. There won't be many (if any) deepwater rigs left if the Gulf by then, easily 40,000 additional people will be out of work, hundreds if not thousands of businesses (from the very small 1-2 man operations to mid-size businesses), loss of billions in royalties, loss of tax revenue for state and Feds, and the loss of tax revenue combined with the added government cost of those people above being employed. He knows all of this by now and has been presented with an alternative that is a very good solution.

 

[MrEgo]

Does it make a difference if BP "cut corners" to "save cost" if they were still within the regulations outlined by the federal government/mms?

Well.. the Southeastern coast of the US is fucked, and BP is on the hook for a LOT of money. Uh, I don't know, you tell me?

The FDA doesn't ban the consumption of dog shit, but I don't need them to hold my hand and tell me it's not good for me.

What is your stance on the question that you pose?

 

[MrEgo]

So what's the story on the investigation? Equipment failure, human error, cutting costs, all of the above?

Even if the market was 100% free, this still would have been a horrible business decision by BP (or anyone else) not to have some sort of effective backup plan for the worst case scenario. Look what it is going to cost them now. You can't tell me that they would have saved anywhere remotely close to that amount if they did have a way to prevent this or at least contain it.

If this becomes a problem of poor inspections, then yes, you can place some blame on the government agency that oversees it, but BP has a moral obligation to the world that they are operating safe rigs and in the event that a catastrophe does happen (accidents always happen), they would have an efficient way of making things right.

One thing that annoys the hell out of me is all of the anti-regulation hacks out there that are placing all of the blame on the shoulders of the federal government.

 

[Darwin333]

From the Daily Show I got that the MMM regulators would let the oil execs fill out their own inspection reports and then they would just fill it in pen. It seems the US needs to audit all its regulating agencies. After each disaster we find that they haven't been doing their job.

We used to know WELL in advance when MMS was showing up for an inspection. I have never ever been on a rig that had a true "surprise" inspection so letting them fill out their own reports doesn't surprise me.

 

[senseamp]

Weak regulation does not absolve the company of any responsibility.
Just ask drug makers who sold FDA approved drugs like Phen-Fen.