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

[Patranus]

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?

 

[Atreus21]

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?

If they knew better, and did so simply to say in the event of disaster "hey, we were within regulations," yes. They were deliberately negligent.

They should care about being responsible first, and being within regulations second. The government is no expert on this stuff.

 

[woolfe9999]

Legally, complying with regulations generally does not absolve you from liability for negligence. There's also the notion that BP, who is making use of public waters for profit, has a moral obligation to not destroy the habitat and local economies, but then, BP is a corporation, so morality does not apply to them, right?

- wolf

 

[jackschmittusa]

One of the major points against them is that they violated the regs many times to save money.

Also there is always an element of risk that you assume by choosing the minimum for safety. Just as putting the absolute minimum size tires on your car is is perfectly legal, you sacrifice some level of braking, stability, traction, and control by doing so, and expose yourself to a greater probability of an accident for which you will be held liable. The savings on the tires will be incredibly small compared to any financial settlement resulting from an "at fault" accident. It all depends on how much risk you want to voluntarily assume.

 

[Craig234]

Government laws and regulations are degined to reduce SOME of the things people should not do, not all.

It's a little ironic how some 'tiny government ideologues' will attack government for not preventing any abuse - in effect arguing for less government by things that need more.

It's not that not breaking the regulations means BP did nothing wrong, it's more that if they DID break the regulations the case against them would be stronger.

 

[Lemon law]

For maybe a better forum answer, BP damn sure does wish they had paid more attention to safety in this case. For cost saving of maybe 50 million tops, they are now on the hook for damages of 20 billion probable minimum.

Nor is a slam dunk that BP complied with regulations gutted by GWB&co. There are investigations ongoing on both the civil law damages, and also an ongoing investigations of possible criminal law violations. And if BP gets nailed for criminal law violations, all kinds of punitive damages will also apply to BP that will cause its liabilities in this spill to greatly increase.

Sadly for BP, it has one of the worst long term safety records in the oil industry, and that can only results from stinking thinking embedded corporate culture. BP was an big accident waiting to happen and now time has run out and its happened.

One side of the story will be the damages and the clean up and the other side of the story will be the various Federal investigations we are not talking about yet.

 

[Atreus21]

Government laws and regulations are degined to reduce SOME of the things people should not do, not all.

It's a little ironic how some 'tiny government ideologues' will attack government for not preventing any abuse - in effect arguing for less government by things that need more.

What would more government regulation have solved here?

 

[ayabe]

They willfully ignored Halliburton in this case, yes, I'm actually defending them here.

There's an email trail a mile long on this that clearly leaves no doubt of criminal negligence.

Edit - An yes it matters little whether they were within whatever regulations were in place, considering THEY WROTE THE REGULATIONS.

 

[CLite]

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?

Patranus,

Most industry standards states "it is up to the discretion of the owner to ......". This kind of reasoning is used where closed form equations /etc. can't be generally applied to certain areas of design and/or operation.

If BP made design and/or operating decisions that were quite clearly in poor engineering judgement but "saved cost" then they would be legally liable.

 

[Craig234]

What would more government regulation have solved here?

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.

 

[BoomerD]

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?

Nah, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Thump553]

I question your assumption that BP's actions were completely within the regulations, but that remains to be proven in court.

And yes, it does matter a huge amount. If BP's cost-cutting amounted to recklessness, then they could be exposed to liability for punitive damages as well as compensatory ones. Although in this case the compensatory damages are going to be astronomically high anyway.

 

[theeedude]

Hell yeah it matters. Just because BP got regulators to give them more rope to hang themselves with, doesn't mean they shouldn't be strung up high.

 

[Lemon law]

Among other things, earlier regulations would have required BP to have equipment in place to stop the leak rather than wait weeks for it to be fabricated and transported to the scene. They would also have to have a contingency plan in place under earlier Clinton Adm regulations.

 

[Patranus]

I question your assumption that BP's actions were completely within the regulations, but that remains to be proven in court.

That wasn't the assumption.

The question was IF the actions of BP were within regulatory guidelines but they did "cut corners" to "save costs" is that the fault of BP or the regulators.

 

[zinfamous]

This is obviously not a stupid question, after the shit has hit the fan...

 

[Patranus]

This is obviously not a stupid question, after the shit has hit the fan...

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

Not a stupid question.

 

[maddogchen]

if you gave contractors $10,000 to build you a new roof and they decided to cut corners to make more money by only building it to minimum code and your roof fell on your head, does it make a difference to you?

 

[khon]

if they were still within the regulations outlined by the federal government/mms?

They weren't within the regulations ....

In the last five years, investigators found, BP has admitted to breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud. BP paid $373 million in fines to avoid prosecution.
(...)
OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042

 

[BoberFett]

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?

No, the only thing that matters is that they caused harm, and now they need to fix it.

 

[sandorski]

Apparently, Yes, it does matter. There are approx 60k reasons per day. How would Self Regulation be better?

 

[glenn1]

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?

That depends on whether the actions that were taken were really corners cut, or just declining to engage in ridiculous over-engineering. While having a belt and suspenders approach isn't a bad thing, it's not going to hold your pants up any better if you wear multiple sets of belts and suspenders.

 

[werepossum]

Apparently, Yes, it does matter. There are approx 60k reasons per day. How would Self Regulation be better?

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.

 

[bfdd]

If they knew better, and did so simply to say in the event of disaster "hey, we were within regulations," yes. They were deliberately negligent.

They should care about being responsible first, and being within regulations second. The government is no expert on this stuff.

If the government is no expert then it shouldn't regulate like it is. If BP meets government regulation good for them, if they exceed it good for us.

 

[bfdd]

Government laws and regulations are degined to reduce SOME of the things people should not do, not all.

It's a little ironic how some 'tiny government ideologues' will attack government for not preventing any abuse - in effect arguing for less government by things that need more.

It's not that not breaking the regulations means BP did nothing wrong, it's more that if they DID break the regulations the case against them would be stronger.

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.