ace:

there's alot of information in the thread already and if it keeps going there'll be alot more to come. it'd be good to make an concerted attempt to keep things on topic.
obscuring things with some grand declaration of Agenda followed by vague ibd editorial infotainment that tries to blame "environmentalists" for the deepwater and exxon valdez is not a good example of such an attempt.


but please, by all means, feel free to start other threads about broader questions if you think them important.


and don't you worry your pointy little head about anything you say challenging my viewpoint.

I am assuming your concern is related to my posts #294 and 296.

Here is the OP:

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...#ixzz0pj2BNJHp

My two posts are directly related to the issue presented in the OP.

Sincerely,

Ace, from my "pointy little head"

I've been wondering about the Atlantis, since this Horizon incident.
I posted this first link a few pages back:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...4QtbQD9FNEG4G0

And now this:
Whistleblower Sues to Stop Another BP Rig From Operating - ProPublica

interesting...i'm running late this morning but saw this in the guardian:

Gulf oil spill: BP lacked the right tools to deal with crisis, chief executive admits | Business | guardian.co.uk

that bp lacked the technologies necessary to deal with this seems one of the more obvious statements in the history of statements, but still it's i suppose heartening to see such transparency from a corporation which has been transparency challenged these past weeks.

oil drum post about what's happening at the bottom of the ocean:

The Oil Drum | BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - The New Plan: Shears, Working on the Riser, and Wed. Open Thread 3

---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------

so two weeks later in the washington post the same information as was contained in the mother jones story about bp controlling media access to the coast of louisiana. because "it's bp's oil"

washingtonpost.com

It is unlikely Tony Hayward will get through this and keep his job, he will address a group of shareholders and analysts on the 4th. BP's debt rating has been lowered by one rating agency. BP has to face the possibility of selling assets to cover costs of clean up, damages and stopping the leak. He has failed. Others have failed also, some within government - who should be held accountable? where does the buck stop? Who is in charge?

BP?s Hayward Faces Downgrades, Investors as Spill May Cost Job - Bloomberg.com

the captains of industry and finance are perhaps considering and not considering bp:

FT.com / Companies / Oil & Gas - Talk of takeover swirls around BP

i would expect that if bp is taken over or threatened with it, or if it tries to split itself, that the federal government would have little choice but to nationalize its us operations.

but they're having some pr trouble:
FT.com / Companies / Oil & Gas - BP faces public relations disaster

as is the louisiana fishing industry:
Oil Spill Idles Many Louisiana Fishermen - NYTimes.com


a story from a few days ago about the marshes:

Oil Cleanup Poses Risks In Louisiana's Fragile Marshes : NPR



and another element about bp's information management:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/6bwnjH...ummer-2010/r:f

Deepwater Horizon oil spill - Encyclopedia of Earth

this is a quite good, comprehensive resource that outlines the situations that the thread has been tracking and puts things in context...it's particularly useful for understanding the oil leakage, the environmental concerns, who/which agencies are doing what with how many people and for how long they've been doing it, antecedent spills and so forth.

one reason this disengenuous "who's in charge" stuff can keep surfacing from the drill baby drill set is the lack of information co-ordination. it's the kind of thing that happens inside a short attention span media environment when it processes a long and complicated disaster. a made-for-tv disaster is much faster than this and has fewer moving parts.

i put a couple central points from this 12 may abc article in bold. they show what's been clear through the thread.

(1) the most fully elaborated response to the disaster at the deepwater horizon is information control.
(2) the least elaborated response to the disaster at the deepwater horizon is the technologies required to address both the oil that continues to spill into the gulf and the clean-up operations.

BP Oil Spill: After Oil Rig Blast, BP Refused to Share Underwater Spill Footage - ABC News

meanwhile, the drama surrounding bp's newest attempt to divert the flows from around the riser are best tracked here:

The Oil Drum | BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - Capping the Riser - Part 1 (Cap on, but leaks) - and Open Thread

there's a serious disconnect between what's being issued publicly and what's happening underwater.
so what you look at depends on what you want to know, i suppose.


and while that's going on, balls of tar are washing up on florida panhandle beaches

Waves of oil tar mount on Fla. Panhandle beaches | NOLA.com

and elsewhere:

Recent oil sightings, and bird rescues, in four coastal Louisiana parishes | NOLA.com

Here's another way to show the scale of the disaster.

Find out how much of your neighbourhood would be affected by a spill of that size: IfItWasMyHome.com - Visualizing the BP Oil Disaster

here's a new-ish page with streams for 12 rov things that are operating around the deepwater riser.

Live feeds from remotely operated vehicles | Response in video | BP

it's kinda hard to imagine the basis for saying things are going well given what i'm seeing.
have a look:

Live feeds from Skandi ROV1

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 PM ----------

===========================================

a little later:


http://mxl.fi/bpfeeds/

9 simultaneous feeds.

pretty surreal.

good old b fucking p:

BP hives off 'toxic' Gulf spill operation to dilute anti-British feeling in US | Environment | The Guardian

so the splitting of operations is already being floated, a containment move which i would be surprised is being done not to deal with some imaginary anti-british sentiment but as a way of separating off the main operations from an entity that the us government can seize---and in the process enable bp to shed responsibility. maybe.

financial times seems to have a bit of an infotainment lag, but posted this:
BP’s investor call: what are the prospects for the dividend? | FT Energy Source | FT.com

Ain't that pretty? The b's run away when you p your pants. As's been stated, we'll pay.
It's happened before. Not to be political, as money is: I shy away from acknowledging my many failures, so how much more so should "one" with the means to? Allowing bp the freedom to operate in the gulf seems to me an acceptance of the burden of their failure.

more information about the cavalier approach to basic safety and environmental considerations embodied by bp enabled by the nature of petroleum industry regulation.

BP's Spill Plan: What they knew and when they knew it


here's a kind of mea culpa piece from an oil industry person. it's interesting stuff

http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/06/my...of-itself.html


last night i was in a publick house with a comrade having a conversation about petro-capitalism, which doesn't seem an extraordinary thing to call it once you start looking around your living space or spaces that you move through and inventory even if quickly the commodites that contain petroleum or petroleum by-products. like everything thats plastic. paint. lubricants that allow clocks to turn. insulation on cables. or widen it out and link each commodity back to the production processes. leaving aside the obvious areas of transportation.
it's kind of amazing how pervasive oil is. it's e.v.e.r.y.w.h.e.r.e. in this model of capitalism, everywhere in the mode of production (the forms of social being that correspond to the narrower modes of social being that cluster around economic activity.

think about it, though.

and your car is just the tip of it, the obvious commodity. and it needs fuel, so you're locked into continuous consumption of more.
ride a bike you need tires. and a bike is a mass produced object. just saying.

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h...y/plastics.jpg

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you -just one word.
Ben: Yes sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Ben: Yes I am.
Mr. McGuire: 'Plastics.'
Ben: Exactly how do you mean?
Mr. McGuire: There's a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?
Ben: Yes I will.
Mr. McGuire: Shh! Enough said. That's a deal.



Thanks for all the good info, roach.

Oh, and I am all for the immediate seizure of BP's assets.

I can't watch or read any more about this... too damn depressing.

i hear that tully. i really do.

for example---when bp cut the riser off the wrecked drilling rig, they increased the oil flow by about a quarter. so capture of 20% of the oil leaking out of the pipe with the new cap thing means that the amount going into the ocean is more or less the same as before except now there's a cap in place. and less than 25% capture represents an increase in the amount of oil heading into the water.

The Oil Drum: Europe | Deepwater Oil Spill - Pressure Tutorial - and Open Thread

but it does let bp and the coast guard say something upbeat-seeming during this news cycle:

BP capturing '10,000 barrels of oil' a day from Gulf of Mexico | Business | guardian.co.uk

this we know. i sometimes wonder if the onion is joking or not, though.

Massive Flow Of Bullshit Continues To Gush From BP Headquarters | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

How do you explain Tony Hayward's (CEO of BP) swagger?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/171400/thu...WARD-large.jpg

Not only is he not thinking about being fired or resigning, he is positioning himself to be the greatest corporate leader of all time. Is he clueless? Simply arrogant? What is the deal? Questions I have been thinking about.

First, BP has as of 12/31/09 balance sheet - $8.3 billion in cash. $30 billion in receivables. $22 billion in inventory. and about $7 billion in other current assets. These numbers are just their current assets not total some of which would be illiquid. Total shareholder equity is at $102 billion.

In 2009 their net income was $21 billion. The market cap of the company (shares outstanding x share price) is $117 billion even after the dramatic drop in the share price.

Let's assume about $20 billion to clean up the Gulf, that is about a one time hit to one year's profits. But, they are recovering 6,000 barrels of oil per day even with an ineffective "cap". Oil trades at about $70 per barrel. Even today they are getting $420,000 per day or $153,300,000 per year before costs.

The well has not been shut down, the government has not taken any steps to remove BP from the "project"...

...know this is the kicker...

BP Spill Shows a Profit Buying 2018 Oil, Selling Spot (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

...the long-term value of all of their oil producing assets went up. Do you think the future value will be grater than the cost of "clean-up"? I am betting it will be.

Not only will BP not get "fired", they are not going to have assets seized, they are going to get through this, run ads for positive PR, pay dividend when things settle down, and thanks to Obama make... mo' money, mo' money, mo' money...you got to love it when government takes care of big business while pretending to be really, really mad...so mad that Obama even clinched his jaw in a meeting once - according to his press secretary.

Oh, and how many times do you we get to say BP lied to us before it simply sounds silly? And who do we want creating a new regulatory system, is it the folks getting lied to???

This is all why the CEO of BP walks and talks with a swagger.

wow ace. what a display of conservative submissiveness. ceo worship. i'm not surprised. and i don't see a whole lot of substance to your post, really. it's obvious that bp's interests are only 40% invested in the gulf. it's obvious that they can pay a quite considerable sum for the clean-up and survive.

it's also obvious that they've been entirely irresponsible in developing safety and/or environmental procedures to accompany deep-water drilling. it's also obvious that they knew there were potential problems in these areas for quite some time before the deepwater horizon. it's obvious that they had a business model that was predicated on avoiding making the requisite investments in the plans and technologies that would have been good to have in place before the deepwater horizon disaster.

it's also obvious that neo-liberal style regulation played a very significant role in enabling that business model...it was structured around the regulatory system, in a symbiotic relation with it, presupposed it.

it's also obvious that bp was far more prepared to deal with spills of information than spills of oil and it is obvious that haywood has been a central mouthpiece for the corporate damage control apparatus just as it's obvious that you like the damage control because it speaks to some bizarre-o attachment to manly man corporate types who appear to be Doing Things.

but in reality, ace, bp's ability to continue doing business in the gulf is under review by the epa and much hinges on a story that's not finished unfolding yet and despite your fact and analysis free assurance that nothing will happen, it is not at all given that nothing will happen. nor is bp buying futures a real indication of a reality beyond the internal perceptions of bp as to the future.

that said, even as there's reason to think that the cap had reduced the actual flow of oil by about 25% given the increase in flow into the gulf caused by cutting the riser, i still hope they figure out a way to do better in containing the oil. unlike you, who seems to rely on pollyanna stories from bloomberg, folk with more approximate information about reality aren't terribly optimistic. but you don't particularly seem to care about the leak or the damage or what is or is not being done to clean the oil---you're interested in whether bp can make money off the spill. which is perverse. but whatever floats your boat. it's surely easier that looking at the ugly realities in the gulf. but ecological concerns are for sissies, and your on your knees in front of an image of tony haywood, the greatest ceo of all times.

this speaks for itself:

BP buys Google, Yahoo search words to keep people away from real news on Gulf oil spill disaster

here are some counter-images, altered bp logos submitted to greenpeace uk:

Behind the Logo - a set on Flickr

i think this an interesting space of what amounts to information war.


meanwhile, back under the water:
Rate of Oil Leak, Still Not Clear, Puts Doubt on BP - NYTimes.com

so yeah bp. a great bunch. and tony haywood, the greatest ceo of all times.

one thing is clear at least: any illusion that privatization increased freedom at the level of information anyway should be entirely out the window thanks to the brand triage antics of this corporate person....

The top link and buying search terms bit is somewhat misleading. It's the most prominent link outside the list of hits, in an advertising bubble, just below the search box. The bubble actually says sponsored link on it. It doesn't affect the actual hits returned by the search. It's not any different than say Ford paying to have and advert displayed whenever someone searches for the words 'pickup truck'. BPs website isn't returned in the first three pages of search hits for 'oil spill'. Not that they aren't trying to control access to information, I just don't think this is a particularly good example, as they aren't actually limiting any access to information by doing this.

thanks...i got that part, hektore.
and you're right that it's not a particularly strong example.

i'm not sure i'd have posted it except for the ton of other information in the thread about bp's efforts to control information, how it's organized, that it was rehearsed more than were any scenarios involving oil leaks, etc.. as well as about specific attempts to limit or control information/access to information in more direct and obvious ways.

so in that context i think it speaks for itself, but you're right about it at the same time.

Here is what you missed, capsulized in this statement from Obama:

Obama: I would've fired BP chief by now - Disaster in the Gulf- msnbc.com

I will try to connect the dots, since it may not be as obvious as I think it is.

BP obtained a license to drill for oil from the government.
BP "works" for the government based on the terms and conditions of the license.
Obama is "the government".
BP caused the disaster.
"The government" can "fire" BP based on the terms and conditions of the license.

So rather than "the government" acting like they are in charge, they defer to BP and let the CEO of BP act as if he is in charge. The CEO of BP is more interested in his company than anything else. The CEO of BP is going to act in a manner to preserve his company above all else. BP will survive this. BP will spend money on PR, pay dividends, regain market cap value...and...make more money and profits than they would have if the disaster had not happened. This is going to be in thanks to Obama's leadership.

Hence, the CEO of BP is on track to be the greatest CEO in history given what his company has done. In 3 to 5 years, if there were a Hall of Fame for CEO's he would qualify.

That is why he walks and talks with a swagger. Contrary to CEO worship, the above is more a commentary on what happens when "academics" are put in charge of operational issues.

Ace, stating that BP works for the government is fantastical. They did no such thing since they weren't acting as a contractor. If that's the case, then anyone who applies for any sort of federal license is then working for the government. It's an assinine assumption - unless you're going to start calling ranchers, prospectors, truckers, etc. government contractors - an idea that would probably deeply offend every one of those folks.

So your concept is inherently flawed and completely unworkable in reality.

I can not believe, for a second time, I have to explain the short-hand use of the term "fired" in this context. I did not the first time because I did not know what to say, other than to express disbelief that there is a need to elaborate on it.

To be clear BP entered into a contract with the federal government that gave BP the ability to drill the well in question. Typically drilling rights is done through a lease (perhaps someone can find the actual agreement between BP and the government regarding this well, I could not find it). BP and the government negotiated the terms of the contract giving BP a license to drill, for this privilege they pay a fee and in some cases royalties.

In every contract there are terms and conditions. Given the spill and reported safety and environmental violations by BP - this contract between BP and the government can be terminated. When you say BP is not a "contractor" - by definition they are since they have an obligation to perform with in a contract. They have an obligation. An obligation. Given, complaint after complaint about BP, about 50 Congressional hearings held or scheduled since the leak, and Obama trying to determine who's "ass" to kick - perhaps someone can simply pull the contract look at it and pull the plug on BP.

Do you still hold the position that what I have been posting in this regard "asinine"?

And, I don't understand what position you are taking, are you supportive of BP continuing or do you want them removed and for the "lies" to stop? Or, like Obama do you simply need someone to pass the buck to, and BP fits the bill?

My view on these matters is simple, accidents happen, but if I don't trust you or your competence - the relationship is ended.

{added}

Here are a few links for more info on these leases, if interested:

http://www.mms.gov/ooc/newweb/freque...dquestions.htm
http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/part2.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_and..._United_States

http://www.mms.gov/ld/PDFs/GreenBook...ngDocument.pdf

you might look at this booklet about leasing oil drilling rights under the ocean from mms before you go too much further into this flight of fancy about what leasing means and confuse it even more with an entirely other type of contractual relation.

just saying.

Here is a link to MMS with a Power Point presentation giving an overview of the leasing process. I am not clear on your point, but there is no doubt that on federally controlled land/territory oil and gas exploration is established through a contractual arrangement that establishes obligations to perform/pay fees and royalties and can be terminated.

OEMM: Lease Information ~ Virginia Lease Sale 220

What is your point? How is this my fantasy or stuff I just make up?

Also, on their site is a link to BP's spill response plan:

Offshore Energy and Minerals Management (OEMM) Program Home Page

do you work for your landlord?

In my lease I have certain obligations to perform. Meeting those obligations requires "work". If I fail to meet those obligations my landlord has recourse including the right to terminate the lease. My landlord does not pay me for my services, in that context I do not work for him, however I do pay him for his "services" as outlined in the lease or our contract. We have a bilateral contract. He "works" for me and I "work" for him.

In the context of an employer/employee relationship we do not "work" for each other. Employee/employer is only one type of business arrangement that can be terminated.

{added}

Perhaps, I owe some an apology. I have been responding as if it was common knowledge that the contract between BP and the government could be terminated based on BP's reported failures in this matter. Was this a bad assumption? Do you think Obama knows he has the power to order the termination of the contract? Why hasn't he?

because under the existing regulatory regime, there were no failures. there was simply entirely inadequate regulation and a cheap-ass corporation piloted by the greatest ceo of all times.

remember that the outcome in the gulf was deemed "unlikely"

Ace, you're far afield from where you intend to be. In my job I deal with contracts constantly. They are insurance contracts, but contracts nonetheless. Given that your sole basis for using the term "work" seems to be the fact that there's a contract in place (there's not, by the way, since a license is, by definition, different than a contract), please tell me who works for whom in an insurance contract because I'm now very confused.

While you're at it, who "works" for who with DMR? That's a license too. And my driver's license. Am I working for the state when I drive to work?


Face it, Ace, calling it "work" is a facallacy.

There were failures by BP. Just the simple matter of the oil spilling causing environmental damage can be the basis to end the contract. You have not seen the lease agreement between BP and the government, I have not seen it, the media has not reported on it, after 50 Congressional hearing there has been no calls to terminate the agreement. And on top of it all, BP will one, sell the oil they collect, and two, complete the development of the well and make billions from it in the years after this is no longer a front page news item. The regulatory regime has recourse, they have made a choice to do nothing.

In addition (my frustration is at a peak based on Obama's words), Obama doesn't want BP "nickel-and-diming" the folks in the Gulf region - again deferring control to BP.

Here is what he should do:

Get on the phone and tell the BP CEO that: " I am going to have the Federal government set up a panel(s) to review all individual claims for damages and give them the authority to make a determination for payment and BP will have 48 hours to make the payment to each individual or business. I am going to have my folks draft an agreement for you to sign agreeing and obligating your company to make the payments - in exchange we will allow 10% representation by BP on the panel(s) - do you have any issues or concerns with that? What? You don't think it is going to be fair? Trust me, this will be the best way for this matter to be handled. Agreed, good. Next issue...

Aghhhhh, where is the leadership?!?

---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------

I think you are just being difficult, but I will play along.

You know that an insurance contract is a unilateral contract. Only the insurer makes a legal obligation to perform. We can play word games if you want, but "performance" requires "work" - under the terms of this type of contract the insurer is obligated to "work" for the insured assuming the premiums have been paid.

The granting the license to drive is based on the person receiving the license having fulfilled certain obligations under the agreement to receive the license. The license can be taken away (or terminated) at any time the license-holder fails to fulfill their obligations under the licensing agreement. Fulfilling this obligation by the license-holder involves work or effort, otherwise the license will be terminated. You have to act proactively or "work" to get a license and keep it. In the context of employee/employer you do not work for the DMV but you do have to "work" to get and keep a driver's license.

According to the lawyer sitting in the office across from me, a "contract" and a "license" are mutually exclusive. A license binds the licensee to a set of behaviors. A contract guildes a working agreement.

The lawyer says, reading over my shoulder, "you're not being difficult. He doesn't know what he's talking about. If I made that argument to a judge, he'd throw me out of court and send me back to redo my first year of law school."

So I'm going to trust the guy with the JD over you, Ace, in the merits of our arguments. No offense. You either don't understand the law or you're trying to twist terms to your own meaning.

Well ask your friend if a license requires an agreement? How is that agreement enforced? How are the terms of the agreement established? Is there consideration exchanged in the agreement? What elements are missing from a licensing agreement that would be present in a contract?

I am not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one, and you posts suggest you have totally missed my point, which is BP can be (in my shrt-hand) fired.

ace---you're making the same argument you made a couple times before. it's like your premises get taken apart and you think ok, so i'll wait a week and say the same thing again.

i posted the mms booklet on leasing oil drilling plots off the us to show what the general rules of the game were. in post 182, i linked to this document, which has the agreement that was in place that shaped the initial exploratory activities of the deepwater horizon:

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf

on page 12, for example, you can see the environmental exemptions that mms granted bp. look at point 2.7 in particular. bp was not required to generate a scenario that would be the basis for planning and so forth for a blowout or fire or anything else on the deepwater horizon that was not also in place for shallow-water drilling.

secondly, that bp is still bound by the agreement with mms is not surprising: on what basis would they be held to continual liability for the leak if there was no ongoing agreement?

what you'd do once you picked up the phone is let bp off the hook and call that leadership. which is consistent with your on-your-knees-before-the-manly-capitalist approach to such things. but it's hardly "leadership" in any sane sense.

and the epa is actively reviewing bp's overall authorization to operate in or around the united states at all. obviously no-one knows what the outcome of that yet. but it is under review. i would hope that its fate hinges on bp's performance in addressing the actual oil problems (you know, the leak and the very large amounts of oil) materially (like stopping the flows for real rather than playing stupid games with numbers to make amounts rendered meaningless by the context that's excluded seem like a step forward with the capping and actually cleaning up the oil) rather than focusing mostly on brand triage (preventing journalists from photographing wildlife that's impacted when possible, etc.)...

You tend to get focused or lost on the same points. Prior to this line of posts I presented my thoughts of a series of questions on the basis of why does the BP CEO seem to have a swagger? I did not understand his confidence given what happened and the constant complaints against him and his company. I gave it some thought and presented my view point. You said it added no value, and I defended my postilion based on your response.

I am not clear on your point of view regarding what you think could be done and what you would do with BP. Further questions I assume would be pointless.

My focus is on getting results not lodging complaints.

Again, your comment illustrates my point. BP can not prevent journalists from photographing wildlife! You and Obama give BP far too much credit for what they control.

{added}

Jazz,

Just for kicks I did a few Google searchs on driver's licenses and contracts and came across this titled:

Your Drivers License is a Contract.

Depending on the legal issue in question arguments can be made that a license is a contract.

ace you obviously don't know what you're talking about nor have you read the materials posted in this thread about bp's information control teams, their work with local law enforcement and the coast guard to manage the leak of important information, which they've been working with greater success than they've managed with the oil that this leaking information is about. from there i think it's safe to conclude that you don't have the first idea of what you're talking about.

the results you focus on above would make it impossible for anyone to do anything about this oil. but to understand that you'd have to understand something of the regulatory set up and what we now know about bp's history with that regulatory set-up. again there's quite alot of information accumulated in this thread which you've obviously had no contact with. so again, i think it's safe to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.

the business on the exploration agreement and booklet about what a leasing arrangement is build on jazz's point concerning the basic agreement that we are talking about here. based on this whole exchange, i think it's safe to conclude that on this register you're more or less in the same position as on the other two.

the question of "swagger" seems to me so locked into some fog that it's hard to know where to start with it. but it's even harder to know where the interest of that fog or the b-school banalities that apparently lay hidden within it.

A license is an agreement. So is a contract. The difference is that a license grants rights and a contract requires performance. A license holds the licensee to a set of behaviors established by the licensor. It requires nothing of the licensor. It is a one-sided agreement and there is no negotiation. It is essentially a grant to do something.

To be a contract, you have to have all of these:

• Offer
  
• Acceptance of the offer
  
• Promise to perform
  
• Valuable consideration
  
• Terms and conditions for performance
  
• Performance

There is no such requirement with a license.

So, again, Ace, the law isn't on your side here. Perhaps if you go back and use different terms to make your argument, it will hold water. But because you're using some very specific terms with very specific definitions, you've got an empty bucket.

I deal in Licence Agreements... everyday. It's what I do. I have been on both sides of a Licence Agreement (a licencee and a licensor).

I can tell you, very clearly, that I cannot fire or be fired under the terms of these agreements. There are, typically, clauses that allow for the termination of the agreement under certain circumstances. There are also clauses where each party Warrants certain things (such as having the right to enter into the agreement, that they are solvent, etc).

While Termination of the agreement is possible, it can only occur under certain circumstances. Without having that agreement in front of me, I cannot say if this particular agreement can be Terminated based on this particular event.

More to the point, there is probably a clause in the Agreement that stipulates the Licensee's (that would be BP in this case) responsibility to clean up any mess it makes in course of business.

Again, without the Agreement in front of me, this is all speculation at best.

even as there appears to be some progress in redirecting some of the oil that's leaking into the gulf by way of the cap, which is good, information continues to surface about bp's systematic disregard for environmental and safety considerations.

this is long but interesting i think.
if you go to the article itself, some of the source material is hotlinked for your verfication/leisure reading pleasure.



Years of Internal BP Probes Warned That Neglect Could Lead to Accidents - ProPublica

David Cameron to discuss BP crisis with Barack Obama as shares plunge | Business | guardian.co.uk

there's alot to be amazed at about this.
first off i am quite sure that the same folk who were going after obama for "lack of leadership" are now saying that he's exercizing perhaps too much leadership or maybe that he's now picking on poor bp...
regardless what i think is happening is that investors are finally starting to panic. because they aren't rational beings, really. and markets aren't rational places. you wouldn't think it necessary to say things like this, but sadly...

its a massive political problem, one that's a mile deep and has had plumes reported many miles away and so it kinda follows that bp's share prices have gotten covered in oil and are now choking on the beaches of the london bourse. and we're rounding the corner into another bizarre-o aspect of petro-capitalism:

so a massive oil corporation, one of the largest corporations in britian and one of the main players in the oil industry, through whatever combination of factors finds itself responsible for a disaster of unprecedented proportions and under pressure to address the problems this disaster has caused is causing will continue to cause for a range of stakeholders in the region affected. this disaster has become so big, gone on so long in significant measure because of corporate irresponsibility---but a type of irresponsibility that was symmetrical with the exigencies placed on petro-capitalist actors by the petro-capitalist state---so pretty lax in some ways as it turned out---but all the same the oil corporation benefitted the shareholders benefitted on and on.

the problem now is that with the shares taking a real pounding and actual danger emerging for the larger corporate person (or more exactly the agglomeration of corporate persons)....we are starting to see a version of the "too big to fail" canard. the quote from lord tebbit at the end of the article, which i put in bold because it's just too funny, is a salvo in this direction. but more directy and obviously, the uk government is starting to flip its shit because bp has created for itself a disaster so big that there is a real possibility of the whole of it getting sucked down the drain.

welcome to the reality of captialism, the one behind the endless blah blah blah of the american single party state with two right wings squabbling over tactics. the dominant political order and the dominant economic order are the same. divisions between political viewpoints are divisions over tactics. you see this reality only rarely because it's built into infrastructure and other flows.

but watch as this dimension of the catastrophe in the gulf unfolds.
make some popcorn.
this could get interesting.

I believe you. While I think Obama is doing what he can about this (what he is allowed to do about this) - and I can't think of what more he could be doing short of kicking BP out of the country wholesale which of course still won't stop that oil from flowing - one has to acknowledge the gaping void between campaign rhetoric and everyday political reality in 2010 America. When the rubber meets the road, when a demagogue is forced by the office to act and speak moderately, he becomes that from which he sprung.

obama was a moderate from jump street. i don't know what you're talking about.

We know he is now but I don't think he was being sold as such during his campaign for the presidency is what I meant.

This is not a thread on contract law, and I am not sure how we got onto this tangent. But, I will say that in order to enter into a license agreement, all the things you list are required. I am not aware of any license agreement that does not include what you listed, again I am not a lawyer nor an expert in contract law or in the area of licensing law. My point is the government can "fire" BP if the want.

---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------

Certainly, if I was reading views from someone who I honestly thought had no idea of what they were talking about I would stop. Perhaps that is why I did not get any further in your post than the above or why I may have missed some other stuff you have written.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 PM ----------

When I used the term "fired" it was short-hand for the government exercising their rights within the contract/agreement/license (or whatever they call it) to end it. Based on the links provided regarding oil and gas drilling, it is clear the government can step in a remove BP, if they can not perhaps Congress should be investigating that "bone-head" move.

And my point is that the government can't for the reason I listed above. There is no contract in place that allows BP to be fired. All they can do is revoke the license. And that isn't as simple as "one step."

ace: the epa is reviewing the underlying agreement(s) that allow bp to do business in/off the united states at all. this has been happening for a couple weeks. i have no idea where things stand (i doubt anyone does, including people at epa) but the process is underway.

is that what you're talking about?
or is this really just about trying to make some spitball that'll stick to an imaginary obama based on the phrase he used a couple days ago?

if it's the first, why go about it the way you have?
if it's the second, what's the point?

A common theme that is getting repeated. What alternative system does a better job? How? What has the track record been? Why hasn't that system taken dominance over capitalism? Etc. Etc. Etc. Accidents and bad things happen, regardless of the "system".

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------


Simplicity is not the issue. I thought "it" (I call it "fire" them) should have been done over a month ago. We can not, day after day, complain about BP's incompetence, greed and deceit, and continue the relationship. We know BP's interests are not in line with the public interest, why let this continue???? It is crazy. And to imply the government can not do this based on complexity or whatever reason is a cop-out.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

For a person who does not know what I am talking about, I suggest that this should have been under evaluation the day of the explosion, that the issues in question should have been known and understood before the event, and that a final recommendation on the question should have been on the President's desk within the first week. I would suggest that there be a standard process of review like this for every major "event" of this nature. And, if it were me - I would have "fired" BP by now. I would have even done it without perfect legal authority - I would let the lawyers sort it out after the fact. Every day of delay, is having a major environmental impact - we have to act in a manner consistent with doing what is in the best interest of the nation regarding this disaster. And, yes, I would risk my job to do what I think is right.

Read my posts on this and look at the dates, and match them to Obama's words and actions. I have been clear and consistent.

i made another thread about the reality of capitalism that is revealed through this ace.
the point is not a simple-minded one. your response to it shows that almost any statement can be met with a simple-minded response though.

this is not about accidents. it's about the intertwining of political and corporate power. over the past few days what's been happening with bp, particularly over the past few days as its shares tanked and its commercial paper acquired a junk bond status (for example) is starting to acquire the outline of a political fight that will initially pit the uk against the us in part because bp's brand triage unit has managed to spin bp's situation in the states as a function of either anti-uk sentiment or electorcal politics in the us (take your pick)....so bp is a victim now.

boo hoo.

but the questions start to get complicated from this point. it's all in the other thread.


===

ace, i really couldn't care less whether you pretend to be president and make up stuff you'd do or not. nor do i care about the bug under your bonnet about the obama administration.
it'd be nice if sometime you could come up with something substantial.
so far, you have mostly smoke.

"bp is a victim now",???? Get real.

The government has to accept BP as a partner or an adversary. Trying to have it both ways causes confusion and shows a lack of leadership. Forcing BP into bankruptcy is not a brilliant plan if you want them to pay for everything.

My posts are not about you.

In response to Obama saying that "we" (meaning his administration) is doing everything that can be done and critics complain but don't offer alternative ideas is b.s. I have been offer alternative ideas, I outline what I would do. When I present, what I would do, it is in direct response to that comment made by Obama

ace...what the fuck are you talking about? you didn't read the article, did you?
the bp is a victim stuff is coming largely from the uk from conservative local level politicos mostly (with some mps getting into the fray) and is inspired to a very significant extent by the threat that's working its way **through congress** to pursue an injunction that would prevent bp from paying dividends this quarter because, well, it looks really bad to be paying out like that while your firm has caused a profound environmental disaster don't you think?

the arguments for "victimization" depart from there and split into (a) bp is being persecuted because of some anti-uk sentiment or (b) as a function of us electioneering.

the uk prime minister a couple hours ago endorsed obama's approach.

so i really don't see what you're talking about.
"lack of leadership"
find another cliche.

Fix it: Bill Nye on oil disaster suggestions – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

The video interview from the link above provides a sobering assessment of the actual scale and scope of the spill situation. It's not a dramatization, just a rational person talking rationally about a real ecological catastrophic calamity...

I find that sometimes it's important to take a step back, inhale a deep breath, and consider what's real and most obviously in front of us...as opposed to being continually involved with all of the abstractions, concepts, and rationalizations that fill our day to day trance-lives.

Great, valuable, significant thread...carry on.

a few maybe disconnected elements assembled while working...


http://mxl.fi/bpfeeds2/

this link takes you to a platform which enables you to watch the 12 bp rov feeds at once.
it's surreal.

this washington post piece outlines the consequences of monetarist/neoliberal "thinking" about regulation as they pertain to oil drilling---a very considerable expansion in activity offshore (drill baby drill) that was in no way at all matched by minerals management. the circle: if for ideological reasons you think regulation useless and for campaign contribution reasons (say) have an interest in helping oil companies maximize their dough (there are other possible combinations---make up your own---it's easy and fun) you'll be inclined to make regulatory institutions useless by treating staffing (for example) as though it is useless. q.e.d.

but read on:

washingtonpost.com

that was breezy fun wasn't it?

more about bp's information control efforts:

BP and Officials Block Some Coverage of Gulf Oil Spill - NYTimes.com

this is worth going to for the links on the left i think.


and lest we get too distracted by all this talk about money and the fact that bp is slowing by an amount the significance of which is not obvious because they won't release information about flow rates or allow independent monitoring etc etc etc....

an infographic about what oil does to a salt marsh:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052203964.html

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:19 PM ----------

BP oil leak aftermath: Slow-motion tragedy unfolds for marine life | Environment | The Guardian

from the above linked piece:

and now this, which is not surprising

BP oil spill estimates double | Environment | guardian.co.uk

keep in mind that these are still estimates. trying to make such estimates is a kind of reccurent grim parlor game at the oil drum.

still the best resource for information about the scenario at the leak site.
a little more curious when conversation turns to the slick(s) and meanings

The Oil Drum | Deepwater Oil Spill - the Hurricane Season - and Open Thread 2

I do believe that this is what one would call an unmitigated disaster.

Well, there's SOME mitigation. They've cleaned some of it up, after all. But that's such a small percentage as to almost be unnoticeable.

So I have been debating with a colleague the importance of "how much" oil is being spilled. For some reason, he believes this is important. For example, the fact that we "thought" it was 200K and now it's more like 400K is somehow important. I have been arguing the point that it is irrelevant. If it's leaking, we can't stop it, we can't contain it, we simply wait for it to get to a place where we can clean it and then we do - what possible difference does it make whether the volume is known or measurable? It's like being on a plane and it has a malfunction and is about to crash: whether you know that the reason it is crashing is because a bolt holding the 3rd engine sheered off and caused a cut in the fuel supply line causing a fire somehow makes the fact that you are about to die somehow tolerable - because, hey, at least you know what caused it. The information is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The one exception to that being a proper assessment of some sort of fine. But, the fucking fish don't care how much, the birds don't care, the beach doesn't care.

Does anyone else see what I'm getting at here? It looks good as a ticker on CNN, but it's good for little else. :(

Cimarron, I, for one, don't get your argument. Your analogy of a plane crash doesn't really work. In that, once the plane is crashed, it's crashed and the damage is finalized and quantifiable.

Here, we don't know the amount of oil or what it will do. Sure, the "plane" is eventually going to crash, but we don't know if it's going to hit a house, a school, a mall, a packed stadium, the Twin Towers, or send wreckage from Texas to South Carolina the long way.

If this is a 5,000 barrel/day spill, then the damage will affect a smaller area. If it's 10,000, the area will necessarily be larger.

I guess what I mean is that the fact that the volume is so huge, what difference does it make when we can't do a thing about it. If it was the difference between 10 gallons and a million gallons, then I would agree. But we are dealing with 1.5 million or 2 million. Since we can't do a GD thing about it at this point, why are we all so focused on knowing EXACTLY how much? The oil is going to go where it wants to go and do what it wants to do. Again, I was just addressing the fixation on figuring out the value. Personally, it doesn't matter to me if the 20 mile plume contains 5 mil or 7 mil gallons. It is what it is, and we're fucked either way.

it's an interesting question, isn't it? i'll use numbers to keep things separate. plus i like numbering things. anyway

1. there's the question of bp's information control strategies. that they are not forthcoming about the rates of oil has the effect of corroding their credibility. this in turn has the effect of making their media control operations more evident to the extent that their refusal to provide this information is a running demonstration of their lack of transparency.

2. there's a more abstract matter that's linked to the matter of fines. bp is to pay something on the order of 3500/barrel leaked in fines alone. so they have every interest in lowballing. the problem is that because of the regulatory set-up (thanks dick cheney)---again---the system is geared around corporate self-reporting. so there's no independent verification of the amounts that are leaking.

3. it would be of considerable utility in terms of forecasting rates and implications of the oil as it moves around the gulf killing shit were any of us in the position of making such forecasts.

4. but really i think the rate is part of a kind of cognitive matter for alot of folk, myself included. look at the feeds. i keep finding myself saying that i can watch without seeing them. i take in the visual data but i don't have frames to put it into often. i see what look like considerable clouds of oil continually spilling into the water that looks like an abstract blue-ish curtain. i see it from a strange angle, at a distance i am not sure of, and sometimes there's a mechanical arm in front of me.

i think in that context, which is maybe the one we share (maybe because i have a perverse affection for the platform that lets me see all the rov feeds at once and you may not share that) having a number or sense of the flow into the water is mostly a device that allows you to put what you are watching somewhere, into some kind of scale. not that it makes things easier to see (as opposed to watch). but that's a reason i think folk want to know.

If I have a gallon of water and I put a cup of salt into it I can make salt water..... If I put 20 cups of salt into into that same gallon, I can make a dead sea. I hope they find a way to stop this oil geyser or the oil to water ratio may become a dangerous issue for all sea life within the Gulf of Mexicos' ecosystem and further as it catches the currents and travels into the Atlantic. I feel sick again, this thread is like poison to me (No implication of content, merely situational), I really hate what has happened and am overwhelmed with the reality of it. :sad:

I am able to put what I read in its proper context. BP is not a victim nor is anyone making that claim. BP is a successful company with the financial strength to survive this disaster and pay what they owe - what BP can not do is win a fight against the US Federal government. BP has the funds to pay the dividend and to pay for the damages caused by the spill.

Some people depend on the BP dividend. Obama's rhetoric on this issue is hurting those people. Obama reacted without thinking the issue through as is his pattern. Similar to the damage he has done to the people working in the oil exploration industry in the Gulf.

Also, some of the people being "nickel-and dime'd" are people who have difficulty showing their real income, some with lots of cash payments rather than payments with a paper trail that typically gets taxed. Again, Obama speaking before getting all the facts.

apparently, ace, you can't. just read the article but pay attention to who is saying what.

here, let me help you:
David Cameron admits sympathy with Obama before discussing BP crisis | Business | guardian.co.uk

the basis for this was a whinging day amongst uk conservatives yesterday during which some were loudly bewailing the fact that poor picked-upon corporate person bp was being blamed for all this stuff when halliburton and transocean were also involved. why, they wailed, why pick on poor corporate person bp?

now at this point, ace, what has been said and how its played out since is a matter of simple record.

putting things in context typically includes reading them accurately and retaining the sense of what you read. just saying.

The stranglehold BP has on the media is staggering.

Reporters were told by the fish & game service that they could film
the oiled wildlife in a rescue center & then were turned away by a man in military garb.

The EPA has been after BP to stop using Corexit 9500A & Corexit 9527A,
& use something less toxic.

No word
no word
no word

---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------

Why does BP refuse to stop using the chemical dispersants the EPA ordered BP to stop using?



According to scientists studying the massive underwater oil plumes, the dispersants keep the oil underwater, away from the naked eye and satellite view. Some of the oil plumes are over 30 foot deep and 26 miles long.

this is long and i haven't had a chance to look at it, but here's the report on the usage of dispersants that came out yesterday:

http://www.crrc.unh.edu./dwg/dwh_dis...ing_report.pdf

a summary with discussion at the oil drum:
The Oil Drum | The BP Deepwater Oil Spill - the Dispersant Meeting Report - and Open Thread

He is not saying BP is a victim. Everyone agrees BP is responsible for the oil spill, clean-up and damages. BP is going to pay what they legitimately owe. However, attempts to make BP responsible for those things for which they are not responsible will be met with resistance, backed by the British government.

Perhaps, we don't agree on the term "victim".

There is a broader danger in Obama and his administrations rhetoric. All business will be watching what happens here in the context of an accident involving a corporate failure as well as regulatory failures. If a company plays by the rules are they going to pay for faulty rules after the fact. This can totally disrupt "order" in markets and is a major risk Obama may not even know he is playing with.

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

Your statement suggests that BP, not Obama is in control. Is that what you think?

yeah, ace...you'd best write Obama a letter.
I'm sure he will be forever in your debt for the 'heads up.'

buh bye.

Did I offend you?

Why not answer the question? I am very interested in how people seem to take both sides of the issue - Obama is competent, handling this matter and holding BP accountable - and - .BP is not competent, mis-handling the matter and is not being held accountable?

I think BP is doing what they think is in their best interest and that Obama has failed in providing leadership and looking out for our best interests.

Broadly I think liberals think they can embarrass a corporation into doing what they think is right - that is almost laughable - so I assume it is wrong, and I ask for clarification.

ace, you've been saying the same thing over and over. and the trick is that i'd almost agree with you if i thought you were making a coherent case. but you're not.

one last time. the fundamental structuring problem here is the regulatory set-up. that set-up was revamped in 2001 by cheney's energy commission. that's where the self-reporting business becomes such a central part of the way off-shore oil drilling is overseen. that regulatory scheme makes it **impossible** for your pipe-dream of some LEADERSHIP from a manly man to happen because it puts almost everything in the control of the corporations---the anticipation of disaster, the generation of scenarios, the development of procedures, the building of technologies--all that is based on corporate self-reporting. the government was reduced to signing off on the reports, when they were required, and signing off that the things recommended in those reports were in fact done.

none of that process was required for the deepwater horizon and that's why there is no way for the federal government to take anything over.

it's your way of thinking that set this disaster up, ace darling.
that's one of many reasons why it's irritating to hear you go all blah blah blah leadership blah blah blah while you ignore page upon page of actual data about the situation preferring instead to go again blah blah blah obama sucks bp is awesome blah blah blah.


conservatives in the cheney mode imagined the federal government incompetent to regulate cheney's buddies at halliburton and the petro-capitalism for which he, and it, stands so they created a version of the federal government that IS incompetent and can't help but be incompetent. and now you complain?

give it a rest.

this is exactly what everyone was hoping to see, yes?


this is something that folk have been talking about all along, the tempering of the idea that relief wells are necessarily the magic bullet. they could be. but they also might not be. it's important to remember through the fog of disinformation.

meanwhile, the oil drum continues to address the bp disaster in an interesting, multi-perspectival manner. it includes a sample of conservative types who speak about obama in the same disengenuous way that we see here.

there is no real plan to deal with the leak.
there is no real plan to deal with the clean-up.
there are no easy answers, as you'll see again here.
there's no need to impute any bad faith to anyone...including bp upper management.
it is as it has been: a clusterfuck enabled by the structure of petro-capitalism itself.

The Oil Drum | BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - the Problem of Cleaning Up Marshes - and Open Thread

But, you know, the oil has to run out sometime....

The sources I have checked, concur:

It will take 7 years for the oil deposit below the Deepwater Horizon well to empty if left alone.

See? I told you.

this was a consequence of the revisions in estimates of amounts leaking into the gulf:

FT.com / US / Politics & Foreign policy - BP presents new oil capture plan


here's a new interactive map that gives a good idea of where the oil currently is:

ERMA


and this a rather dis-spiriting glimpse of what cleaning up on the coastline means in june:
Under a Withering Sun, Spill Cleanup Workers Must Break Frequently - NYTimes.com

It's incredible to me that this is still going on. This is an incredible disaster.

And to think we're heading into hurricane season.

"The clean-up workers should be allowed to use respirators, but BP is not allowing them to use them.

Why?

According to Clint Guidry, president of the Louisiana Shrimp Association:

…..If you would do your research, the same situation occurred with Exxon Valdez over twenty years ago. It is a question of liability. The minute BP declares that there is a respiratory danger on the situation is the day that they let the door open for liability suits down the line. If they could have gotten away with covering this up, like they did in Alaska Valdez situation, like Exxon, they would not have to pay a penny for any kind of health-related claims….(source; democracy now)

The oil and chemicals are not only beginning to make the clean-up workers sick, but it will have long term health consequences for the people of the Gulf."

Wasn't this already discussed on page 1? Then page 3, then 5, probably 6..... we get it, to you it's all Obama, of course it's not BP's fault, they're just looking out for themselves,, they should have been 'fired', all avaliable assets should have been brought to the clean up, like they weren't already, of course the regulations have nothing to do with it..... blah, blah, blah.....

c'mon gg--the thread's not that bad.

the magnitude of this seems to be a variable, yes? as aspects clarify or grow so do the adjectives. it's not surprising that a uk paper would be a little bent about this....


Barack Obama compares oil spill to 9/11 | Environment | guardian.co.uk

and this is a link to the interview obama did with politico:
EXCLUSIVE: Obama talks oil spill, frustration and 2012 - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

I think the President's point is completely valid. Three-mile Island changed the way we looked at nuclear power. 9/11 changed the way we look at national security. Deep Horizon will change the way we look at oil.

Might I add, and this is only my opinion, we went in the wrong direction after three mile island which lead to the problems we now face with oil. We went in the wrong direction after 9/11 which lead to the problems we now face in the ME. Undoubtedly, we will go in the wrong direction because of this and will create even more trouble. What's the right direction? I haven't a clue. All I know is there's too much politics in this spill for them not to fuck this up.

Just nuke the friggin' hole. At this point the pollution is so bad the fish won't even notice, and unlike oil radioactive dust settles out of the water-column. At those depths, pressure would keep debris/fireball from ever reaching the surface, or anywhere close.

GAWD, I -never- thought I'd actually be advocating the use of a nuclear weapon. But it's seriously looking like a "glass parking-lot" over that hole may be the only way to stop this thing and keep it from getting any worse than it already has (which alone is terrifying.)

God help us all, and God save Cajunland. For those people, this is the end of the world.

Except there's no guarantee that a nuke would seal the hole. The only way to do that would be to lower it down the hole before setting it off, but there's a good chance that would fracture the bedrock to the point that would leak up through the edges and create a whole bunch of smaller but completely unknown and untracked leaks that would spit oil for decades.

As much as I wish there was a quick fix like this, there's not.

Russian experience seems to indicate that besides melting and then glassifying the seabed, such explosions will heap partially-glassified debris over the hypocenter of the explosion itself. However, those were shallow-water shots, so this is somewhat uncharted territory. I'm simply not sure that we haven't reached the point where waiting for Christmas (and -still- maybe not getting it plugged) isn't a worse outcome (or set of outcomes) than the possible consequences of using a very small nuclear explosion. IMO, we're reaching the point of where we can either watch the patient bleed out, or use gunpowder to cauterise the wound. The shock and pain might still kill the patient, but if it doesn't it'll probably stop the bleeding. Without cautary, OTOH, the patient -will- die. "Might live" versus "will die" has never been a difficult choice for me.

However, the sheer tomfoolery of having to potentially rely on a nuclear weapon to plug a leak that should never have been permitted to occur in the first place just plain makes my head hurt.

Edited to add: I'm not implying that nuking this thing is an "easy answer." It's not. There's nothing "easy" about a nuke, however it's used. I simply worry that the potential damage from a nuke may be far exceeded by the damage from 6+mo of mostly unimpeded oil flow into the Gulf of Mexico.

Yeah, if you could see the below structures of how the oil lies between stratified layers,
in some areas of this field, it makes no sense to nuke this large of a deposit,
that has been only somewhat explored.
It's not just how far down the actual well-head is, they have been drilling to
depths of 30,000 plus feet.

Drilling this deep is a whole 'nother animal.

things are moving at speed away from the "shit happens" approach that the defenders of the regulation-that-isn't-really-regulation system took early on in this disaster.

washingtonpost.com

which is a nice story but apparently things are unlikely to be so simple as a function of the extensive mode of subcontractor usage that bp preferred to use.
and there is an interesting question about insurance and who is going to end up paying and for what that follows from the manoevering around narrative (a process in which this letter is but one salvo).

you'd think that the folk who see petro-capitalism as a necessary good (and i am personally really ambivalent about it, even as i write on a laptop that is built from all kinds of petroleum derivatives and so forth) would be pleased to see the emergence of specificity around the accident. for these folk, however, the problem is that this specificity is likely to further erode the neo-liberal assumptions that underpinned the old regulatory regime.

Regardless of what the loss actually is, there isn't enough insurance in the marketplace to cover it, especially when we're discussing essentially 4 or 5 insurance buyers - BP, Transocean, Halliburton, whoever made the blowout preventer and (possibly) whoever made the part that they end up blaming (ranked from largest purchased limits to lowest on my guesses). From what I've seen in the trade journals, there's about $1B in limits available (give or take a few million) at this point. Since we're already over that according to BP, it seems like a moot point to me.

that's interesting, jazz.
so "the market" functions to limit the liability of insurance companies which collect substantial fees to underwrite the risks untaken by halliburton, bp, transocean et al.?
as in "oops, this is too big for us. can't pay. sorry"?
do i understand that correctly?
seems a pure privatization of gain socialization of loss scenario to me. i'm surprised that's legal.

well, my inner marxist is not surprised it's legal

here's a link to the oil drum thread about the waxman letter:
The Oil Drum | BP Deepwater Oil Spill - Energy and Commerce Committee's Letter Outlining Risky Practices in Anticipation of Heyward's Thursday Testimony

which includes a copy of the whole thing and a link to a pdf of the original.

and if you're feeling inclined to do some reading:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/inde...ries&Itemid=55

the oil drum folk seem to think that there's a smoking gun in these documents. i haven't time to play along at the moment, but maybe you do?

meanwhile the "clean-up" continues to stumble and fumble along:

Onshore Oil Spill Response Is Described as Chaotic - NYTimes.com

No, it's more a question of capacity. In theory a company charges $x premium for $y limit. There's no such thing (in the casualty world, which is what this is) as no top end on the limit. Generally speaking, BP (for instance) probably self-insures the first $1M to $5M and then buys excess coverage over that. There are probably 2-5 companies on the first $100M in limits, then they probably buy increments of $25M to $50M to build up to probably about $500M. After that, there are a few players that can offer up to $100M in limits over that first $500M. The problem is that there's a finite number of times the same insurance companies will participate in an insurance program because they're concerned about this exact set of circumstances - a massive loss where they're paying all their limits that turns a $25M bad bet into a $250M career-killer.

Here's an example from one carrier:

HIf I remember correctly, Aspen wrote the hull coverage on the Deepwater Horizon.

ah. ok. so this is a suicide prevention deal for the insurance companies that enables them to play the game of insuring something like the deepwater horizon without exposing themselves to all the losses associated with all the consequences of the explosion etc.

and this is all up front, so there's no secret about it. more policies with limits that are being reached. that kinda makes sense.

===

as a side note i find this strange:

Oil Executives Try to Explain Differences From BP - NYTimes.com

what's strange is the claim that the deepwater horizon was an aberration. of course it was an aberration; massive ecological disasters aren't happening continuously except maybe in the niger river delta but no-one in the northern hemisphere particularly cares about the niger river delta i mean it's so far away and so.....african....

but the main theatrical point i put in bold above and i am not sure how much need be said about it.

For those who want to know how these large policies are written:

Insurance companies operate under a formula: based on investments and premium income, an insurance syndicate has X number of dollars to "risk". That risk is then distributed into various industries, locations, etc. in order to mitigate massive loss all at once. For example, in the residential market they might insure 50 houses on the coast, 50 in the plains, and 50 in the mountains. For large commercial endeavors, a syndicate will insure container ships which are travelling in different oceans. Once any boat makes port, the policy is satisfied and cancelled. That "risk" money is now available for another endeavor. Mathematically, there will always be policy limits so that a company will know what its risk is at all times, in order to make decisions about other underwriting. Anything above policy limits is the responsibility of the insured.

There aren't any companies who could take on the risk of an entire offshore well endeavor. By it's nature, that doesn't spread the risk adequately. Consequently, many companies take a portion of that risk. When the insurance broker gets enough aggregate to reach an acceptable level (assuming the insurer will be left with the rest), they build the platform, sail the ship, whatever.

In this case, the bean counters determine the expected risk for an oil rig is Y. They divide up the risk to the insurers. I don't think anyone expected that Y was really $50B. If they had determined that, no one would have underwritten the rig because too much of the syndicates' monies would be tied up for too long. I would say, they probably estimated the risk at $1B, or something. Yes, that means BP now gets $49B to self-insure.

Oh, and this:

cimmaron: i have a meeting in a minute, so will just say that i misunderstood jazz's initial post. it may have just been my oversight or maybe the sentences didn't link overall capacity to pay to specific risk limits on specific policies--i don't remember. but there was something wobbly up there. it's better now. gotta go.

edit: actually my meeting was postponed. so. the initial post jazz made read to me as though there was a market-wide mechanism of some kind that enabled insurers who had taken on policies with very high degrees of risk (and presumably accompanying that high returns) to be confronted with a clusterfuck situation (that's the technical term) and throw up their hands, arguing effectively that we just can't pay that. the next post cleared it up...i think my confusion followed from not thinking like someone who knows insurance as a bidness so not being able to fill in detail in that way. clearer now tho. thanks.

Heh. There is a possibility of the clusterfuck that you've described. Generally those are triggered because of the policy exclusions and policy wording that isn't perfectly clear. In this case, however, the chances of that happening are diminishingly small given the high profile of the loss. That said, there was a huge case over the WTC loss. The building owner maintained that it was two separate events (effectively meaning that each insuror would pay twice), and the insurance carriers alleged that it was one. The courts eventually found for the owners.

Given the Federal promises, I doubt that will be allowed to happen here.

Policy exclusions, that's where the crime in insurance takes place (IMO). Water damage is covered, mold caused by the water damage...not covered....unless you buy the mold damage rider (which your agent didn't mention). Crap like that is what rightfully gives insurance companies a bad rep.

rb-

Yeah, I started writing all of that and published it. The refresh of the page showed that you guys had moved far beyond what I was saying. I reworded the beginning and left it there for others who might not understand the way these big policies get underwritten.

Read your own damn policy. You're the one who paid for it. Pick it up and at least thumb through the table of contents. And if your agent didn't point out that you could have bought the mold rider and you can prove it in court, his Errors & Ommissions/Professional coverage will cover that.

And comparing homeowners insurors and commercial insurors is a bit of apples and oranges, especially since companies like BP, Transocean and Halliburton all employ teams of inhouse risk managers, outside risk consultants and brokers who all point out potential gaps in coverage.

That said, none of that is relevant at this point since the insurance companies are taking a back seat thus far. Given the type of coverage most likely in place and who's buying it, the policies are probably on "pay on behalf of" forms, but I'll bet that they've talked to the carriers and switched that to a reimbursement since the first few layers are just going to tender their limits immediately anyway.

Settle down their Sparkie, it didn't happen to me. My wife is the claims supervisor for an MGA.

/grammar nazi

//insurance nerd

And the masculine form is "Sparky", but I let that slide since I figured you were trying to make a dig. ;)

Whenever I have trouble sleeping, I pull out her old CIC study manuals.

more information.

1. a quite grim interview about the oil disaster with thomas shirley of texas A&M, a marine biologist who specializes in the gulf of mexico:

The Oil Spill?s Growing Toll On Sea Life in the Gulf of Mexico by David Biello: Yale Environment 360

2. a curious analysis of obama's tv speech tonight from the guardian. what i take as interesting in it really i've bolded. but feel free to discuss (or not) the article:

Why the oil spill is getting the Oval Office treatment | Environment | The Guardian

carter was right.

3. meanwhile a piece from the washington post about strains in the obama-bp relationship. like it's a soap opera. because of course that's the way to see it.

washingtonpost.com

4. meanwhile fitch's cuts bp's bond rating from aa to bbb.
BP credit rating slashed as oil spill costs mount | Business | guardian.co.uk

and there's an awful lot of oil shooting out into the gulf:

http://mxl.fi/bpfeeds2/

so it's a little like the old days: got *really* shitty news about which there is nothing obvious to be done certainly nothing in the way of Manly Intervention, then release it during the national teevee news/infotainment hour and hope that most people will be watching the celtics/lakers tonight and so will miss the second infotainment cycle.

Panel Sharply Raises Estimate of Oil Spilling Into the Gulf - NYTimes.com

on the other hand, there is to be a presidential address to the country tonight about this fiasco so maybe it's connected to that somehow.

it'd be good were obama to turn back to the carter speech on energy policy cited above because we are living through a colossal demonstration of the prescience of the words.

a new thread from the oil drum which outlines the possibility that all the various numbers have been approximately true and what explains the variance in the flows (and by extension the numbers) could be erosion. this is interesting:

The Oil Drum | BP's Deepwater Oil Spill -Why Flow Rates are Increasing and Open Thread

and some bad news for transocean:
Offshore drilling specialist Transocean cannot limit its liability in the Gulf of Mexico oil slick disaster - swissinfo

Okay, so now we're looking at a spill gushing at the rate of one or two Exxon Valdez spills a week. And....we don't know how many more weeks of this.

I almost want to laugh as this just gets progressively worse. You know, in one of those laugh-in-the-face-of-death kind of laughs---the hopeless kind.