Louisiana Oil Rig Fire / Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill - Page 9 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Hektore · 06-08-2010, 06:37 AM

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.

roachboy · 06-08-2010, 06:52 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-08-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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...

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

Quote:

President Barack Obama would have fired BP's CEO Tony Hayward over controversial comments downplaying the Gulf oil spill — if the executive had been working for him.

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.

The_Jazz · 06-08-2010, 08:04 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-08-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

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

roachboy · 06-08-2010, 09:48 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-08-2010, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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

roachboy · 06-08-2010, 10:09 AM

do you work for your landlord?

aceventura3 · 06-08-2010, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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?

roachboy · 06-08-2010, 10:37 AM

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"

The_Jazz · 06-08-2010, 11:11 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-08-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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"

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

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.

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.

The_Jazz · 06-08-2010, 11:46 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-08-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

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.

roachboy · 06-08-2010, 12:10 PM

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.)...

aceventura3 · 06-08-2010, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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.

My focus is on getting results not lodging complaints.

Quote:

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.)...

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:

Quote:

Drivers License is a Contract

between you and the Motor Vehicle Department

Your Drivers License is a Contract.

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

roachboy · 06-08-2010, 12:31 PM

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.

The_Jazz · 06-08-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

Charlatan · 06-08-2010, 04:01 PM

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.

roachboy · 06-09-2010, 08:03 AM

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.

Quote:

Years of Internal BP Probes Warned That Neglect Could Lead to Accidents
by Abrahm Lustgarten and Ryan Knutson, ProPublica - June 7, 2010 10:00 pm EDT

A series of internal investigations over the past decade warned senior BP managers that the company repeatedly disregarded safety and environmental rules and risked a serious accident if it did not change its ways.

The confidential inquiries, which have not previously been made public, focused on a rash of problems at BP's Alaska oil-drilling unit that undermined the company’s publicly proclaimed commitment to safe operations. They described instances in which management flouted safety by neglecting aging equipment, pressured or harassed employees not to report problems, and cut short or delayed inspections in order to reduce production costs. Executives were not held accountable for the failures, and some were promoted despite them.

Similar themes about BP operations elsewhere were sounded in interviews with former employees, in lawsuits and little-noticed state inquiries, and in e-mails obtained by ProPublica. Taken together, these documents portray a company that systemically ignored its own safety policies across its North American operations - from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico to California and Texas.

Tony Hayward, BP's CEO, has committed himself to reform since taking the top job in 2007. Top BP officials would not comment for this story, but spokesman Tony Odone said that in March an independent expert reported that BP has made "significant progress" toward meeting goals set in 2007 in response to a deadly Texas refinery explosion. Odone said the notion that BP has ongoing problems addressing worker concerns is "essentially groundless."

Because of its string of accidents before the recent blowout in the Gulf, BP already faced a possible ban on its federal contracting and on new U.S. drilling leases [3] [3], several senior former Environmental Protection Agency debarment officials told ProPublica. That inquiry has taken on new significance in light of the Gulf accident. One key question the EPA will consider is whether the company's leadership can be trusted and whether BP's culture can change.

The reports detailing BP's Alaska investigations -- conducted by outside lawyers and an internal BP committee in 2001, 2004 and 2007 -- were provided to ProPublica by a person close to BP who believes the company has not yet done enough to eradicate its shortcomings.

A 2001 report [4] [4] noted that BP had neglected key equipment needed for emergency shutdown, including safety shutoff valves and gas and fire detectors similar to those that could have helped prevent the fire and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf.

A 2004 inquiry found a pattern of intimidating workers who raised safety or environmental concerns. It said managers were shaving maintenance costs with the practice of "run to failure," under which aging equipment was used as long as possible. Accidents resulted, including the 200,000-gallon Prudhoe Bay pipeline spill in 2006, the largest ever spill on Alaska's North Slope.

During the same period, similar problems surfaced at BP facilities in California and Texas.

In 2002, California officials discovered that BP had falsified inspections of fuel tanks at a Los Angeles-area refinery and that more than 80 percent of the facilities didn't meet requirements to maintain storage tanks without leaks or damage. Inspectors were forced to get a warrant before BP allowed them to check the tanks. The company eventually settled a civil lawsuit brought by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for more than $100 million.

In 2005, an emergency warning system failed before a Texas City refinery exploded in a ball of fire. BP's investigation of that deadly accident [5] [5] -- conducted by a committee of independent experts -- found that "significant process safety issues exist at all five U.S. refineries, not just Texas City." It said "instances of a lack of operating discipline, toleration of serious deviations from safe operating practices, and apparent complacency toward serious process safety risk existed at each refinery." BP spokesman Odone said that after the accident the company adopted a six-point plan to update its safety systems worldwide. But last year the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined BP $87 million for failing to make safety upgrades at that same Texas plant.

It is difficult to compare safety records among companies in industries like oil exploration. Some companies drill in harsher environments. And bad luck can play a role. But independent experts say the pervasiveness of BP's problems, in multiple locales and different types of facilities, is striking.

"They are a recurring environmental criminal and they do not follow U.S. health safety and environmental policy," said Jeanne Pascal, a former EPA debarment attorney who led the investigations into BP. "At what point are we going to say we are not going to do business with you any more, bye? None of the other supermajors have an environmental criminal record like they do."

Since the late 1960s, BP has pulled oil from underneath Alaska, usually without problems. But when the company pleaded guilty to a felony conviction in 1999 for illegal dumping at an offshore drilling field there it drew fresh scrutiny to its operations and set off a cascading cycle of attempted -- and seemingly failed -- reforms that continued over the next decade.

To avoid having its Alaska division debarred -- the official term for a cancellation of contracts with the federal government -- BP agreed to a five-year probationary plan with the EPA. The company would reorganize its environmental management, establish protections for employees who speak out about safety issues, and reform its approach to risk and regulatory compliance. The company pledged to improve its conduct and reform its safety and maintenance programs.

Less than a year later, employees complained to an independent arbitrator that BP was letting equipment and critical safety systems languish at its Greater Prudhoe Bay drilling field. BP, in the spirit of reform, hired a panel of independent experts to examine the allegations.

The panel identified systemic problems in maintenance and inspection programs -- the operations that keep the drilling in Prudhoe Bay running safely -- and warned BP that it faced a "fundamental culture of mistrust" by its workers, in part because senior management lacked a structure of accountability.

"There is a disconnect between GPB (Great Prudhoe Bay) management's stated commitment to safety and the perception of that commitment," the experts said in their 2001 operational integrity report [4] [4]. "Correcting these underlying causes is essential ... for ensuring long term operational efficiency and mechanical integrity. Without a concerted effort to address these basic issues, any other action will provide only temporary relief."

According to the report, "unacceptable" maintenance backlogs ballooned as BP tried to sustain profits in the aging North Slope even though production was declining. The consultants concluded that BP had neglected to clean and check pressure valves, emergency shutoff valves, automatic emergency shutdown mechanisms and gas and fire safety detection devices essential to preventing a major explosion. It warned management of the need to update those systems, which "have a potential immediate safety impact or that pose an environmental threat."

It also warned that emergency shutdown systems would need to be operated manually, that there may not be enough staff to do so, and said that even if closed, the isolation valves were known to leak.

"Workers believe internal leak-through of isolation valves is a significant problem and under certain circumstances may pose a potential hazard to workers and equipment," the report stated.

In May 2002 -- less than seven months later -- Alaska state regulators underscored the panel's critical findings in a tersely worded order warning BP that it had failed to maintain its pipelines. Alaska struggled for two years to make BP comply with state laws and clear the pipeline of sedimentation that could interfere with leak detection systems.

Soon after, BP hired another team of outside investigators to check complaints made by workers on the North Slope. The resulting 2004 study by the law firm Vinson & Elkins warned that pipeline corrosion endangered operations on the Slope.

"Due to corrosive conditions present at the Greater Prudhoe Bay oilfield and the age of the field, corrosion control is and has been a major issue for BPXA," the study said.

It also offered a harsh assessment of BP's management of health, safety and environment concerns raised by employees. According to the report, workers accused BP of allowing "pencil whipping," or falsifying inspection data. The report quoted an employee who said BP workers felt pressure to skip key diagnostics, including pressure testing, cleaning of pipelines and checking for corrosion, in order to cut costs.

"To reduce staff workload it was suggested by BPXA management not to rebuild the pulling equipment as often ... and possibly not pressure test the equipment," BP employee Marc Kovac wrote in a safety complaint filed with the company. "This obviously would increase the potential for equipment failure resulting in equipment damage, environmental spills and injury to workers."

The report said that the manager in charge of corrosion safety in Alaska at the time, Richard Woollam, had "an aggressive management style" and subverted inspectors' tendency to report problems on the pipeline.

"Pressure on contractor management to hit performance metrics (e.g. fewer OSHA recordables) creates an environment where fear of retaliation and intimidation did occur."

Woollam was soon transferred, but the damage was done.

Two years later, in March 2006, disaster struck. More than 200,000 gallons of oil spilled out of a corroded hole in the Prudhoe Bay pipeline into the snow, the largest spill ever on the North Slope. Inspectors found that the steel pipe -- the inside of which hadn't been inspected in years -- had been corroded to dangerously thin levels along nearly 12 miles of pipeline. It was exactly the kind of situation BP's auditors and Alaska officials had feared.

When Congress held hearings into the cause of the spill later that year, Woollam pleaded the Fifth Amendment. He now works in BP's Houston headquarters. Reached at his home in Texas this week, Woollam referred questions to the BP press office, which declined to comment on the matter.

In August 2006, just five months after the spill at Prudhoe Bay, a pipeline safety technician for a BP contractor in Alaska discovered a two-inch snaggle-toothed crack in the steel skin of an oil transit line. Nearby, contractors were grinding down metal welds, sending a fan of sparks shooting across the work site. The technician, Stuart Sneed, feared the sparks could ignite stray gases, or the work could make the crack worse, so he ordered the contractors to stop working.

"Any inspector knows a crack in a service pipe is to be considered dangerous and treated with serious attention," Sneed told ProPublica. "The crack could have created a hellacious leaker with people grinding on it."

Sneed believed that the Prudhoe Bay disaster had made BP management more amenable to listening to workers concerns about potential safety problems. The company had replaced its chief executive for North America with Robert Malone and had ordered him to make fundamental changes. Malone quickly focused on reforming the company's culture in Alaska.

But instead of receiving compliments for his prudence, Sneed -- who had also complained that week that pipeline inspectors were faking their reports -- was scolded by his supervisor for stopping the work. According to a report from BP's internal employer arbitrators, Sneed's supervisor, who hadn't inspected the crack himself, said he believed it was superficial.

The next day, according to multiple witness accounts and the report, that supervisor singled out Sneed and harassed him at a morning staff briefing. Within a couple of hours, the supervisor sent emails to colleagues soliciting complaints or safety concerns that would justify Sneed's firing. Two weeks later, after a trumped up safety infraction, he was gone.

During the investigation BP inspectors substantiated Sneed's concerns about the cracked pipe. The arbiter also investigated Sneed's account of what happened when he reported the problem. Not only did the report confirm his account, but it determined that he was among the best at his job.

The investigators interviewed dozens of workers and according to most of them Sneed "was likely to be the most careful technician on the Slope with respect to safety and quality of his inspections. If there was corrosion in existence... he would find it," said the report, which was authored by Washington, D.C., attorney Billie Garde and environmental investigator Paul Flaherty and delivered to BP executives in late 2006.

So why would BP want to get rid of one of its most effective inspectors? The report echoed BP's internal investigations from 2001 and 2004, finding, once again, that BP pressured its contractors and employees in order to save money.

"Many of the people interviewed indicate that they felt pressured for production ahead of safety and quality," the report stated.

Contractors received incentives to list large numbers of completed inspections, the report found, something Sneed said routinely led workers to falsify their reports. Contractors also received a 25 percent bonus tied to BP's production numbers. With fewer delays, more oil would be pumped, and more cash would flow to companies executing the work under BP supervision.

The message to workers was clear.

"They say it's your duty to come forward," said Sneed of BP's corporate policies and public statements, "but then when you do come forward, they screw you. They'll destroy your life."

"No one up there is ever going to say anything if there is something they see is unsafe," he added. "They are not going to say a word."

The following year saw another shakeup at BP. The company had already replaced its chief executive of Alaskan operations with Doug Suttles -- the man now in charge of offshore operations and cleanup of the disaster in the Gulf. In May 2007 it also named a new global CEO, Tony Hayward, a 25-year BP veteran.

But worker harassment claims continued to be made in Alaska and elsewhere, and more problems with the Alaska pipeline systems also emerged.

In September 2008, a section of a high pressure gas line on the Slope blew apart. A 28-foot-long section of steel -- the length of three pickup trucks -- flew nearly 1,000 feet through the air before landing on the Alaskan tundra. Sneed had raised concerns about the integrity of segments of the high-pressure gas line system before he left the company. If the release had caught a spark the explosion could have been catastrophic, said Robert Bea, a University of California Berkeley engineering professor who has worked for BP on the North Slope.

Three more accidents rocked the same system of pipelines and gas compressor stations in 2009, including a near explosion that could have destroyed the entire facility. According to a letter that members of Congress sent to BP executives [6] [6], obtained by ProPublica, the near miss was the result [7] [7] of malfunctioning safety and backup equipment.

BP spokesman Tony Odone said BP is continuing to roll out a company-wide operating management system that helps track and implement maintenance. He said the company reduced corrosion and erosion-related leaks in Alaska by 42 percent between 2006 and 2009.

As BP battled through the decade to avoid accidents in Alaska, another facility operating under a different business unit, BP West Coast Products, was having similar problems.

For years the BP subsidiary that refined and stored crude oil was allowed to inspect its own facilities for compliance with emission laws under the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the agency that regulates air quality in Los Angeles. The thinking was that companies had the technical knowledge and that self-inspection was cheaper and more efficient.

But in 2002, eight years after the program began, inspectors with the management district thought BP's inspection results looked too good to be true. Between 1999 and 2002, BP's Carson Refinery had nearly perfect compliance, reporting no tank problems and making virtually no repairs. The district began to suspect that BP was falsifying its inspection reports and fabricating its compliance with the law.

The management district sent its own inspectors to investigate, but when they tried to enter BP's plant, the company turned them away. According to Joseph Panasiti, a lawyer for the management district, the agency had to get a search warrant to conduct inspections required by state law.

When the regulators did finally get in, they found equipment in a disturbing state of disrepair. According to a lawsuit the management district later filed against the company, inspectors discovered that some tanker seals had tears that were nearly two feet long. Tank roofs had gaps and pervasive leaks, and there were enough major defects to lead to thousands of violations.

"They had been sending us reports that showed 99 percent compliance, and we found about 80 percent noncompliance," Panasiti told ProPublica. "It was clear that no matter what was said, production was put ahead of any kind of environmental compliance."

Panasiti sued BP for $319 million, alleging, among other things, that emissions from the refinery forced nearby schools to be evacuated on two separate occasions. After 24 months of litigation, BP settled out of court, agreeing to pay more than $100 million without admitting guilt. Colin Reid, the plant's operations manager during the prosecution, was later promoted to a vice president position at a BP office in the United Kingdom. Reid recently left BP; he did not respond to requests for comment.

Allegations that BP or its contractors falsified safety and inspection reports are a recurring theme. Similar allegations were attributed to workers in BP's 2001 and 2004 internal reports on Alaska, but the internal auditors stopped short of confirming that fraud had occurred. The 2004 Vinson & Elkins report, titled "Report for BPXA Concerning Allegations of Workplace Harassment From Raising HSE Issues and Corrosion Data Falsification," says investigators did not thoroughly examine those allegations and couldn't conclude whether fraud had occurred. But the report extensively quoted workers who described how it was done.

As recently as 2006 a North Slope worker told a BP investigator that he suspected tests had been faked after an inspection team produced 2,500 completed reports from a weekend's work in remote territory. In 2007 another North Slope safety engineer brought in to examine a pipeline system quickly identified a pattern of problems in an area that had received clear inspection reports for the previous five years.

In August 2008, Kenneth Abbott accepted a job with a BP contractor as a project control leader on the Atlantis, a monstrous deepwater drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico that is significantly larger than the Deepwater Horizon rig that sank in April. The Atlantis is capable of producing more than eight million gallons of oil a day from the ocean floor.

Abbott supervised a staff of six charged with doing internal audits and making sure the rig machinery was built to specifications and had the documents and instructions necessary to operate safely. It was an important job on one of the world's most advanced drilling platforms.

Yet it quickly turned sour. In a debriefing with the person who last held the post, Abbott was told that BP did not have final design drawings ready to deliver to the crews that would operate the Atlantis in the Gulf, Abbott said in an interview with ProPublica [8] [8].

Final design drawings, called "as-built" drawings, are considered an essential safety component. They prove that a piece of equipment -- say a shutoff valve or an engine winch -- was built the way it was supposed to be. Those drawings are thus the final checks to make sure the equipment operates properly. They also serve as instruction manuals for emergencies. If there is a fire on deck or a blowout, for example, operators under extreme stress and danger can use the design drawings to find the hidden kill lever that can shut an engine down before it explodes.

Abbott told ProPublica that as-built documents had been issued for only 274 of more than 7,100 pieces of equipment, the equivalent of constructing a house without having an architect or engineer sign off on the blueprint.

In May, Abbott filed a lawsuit against the Minerals and Management Service in federal court in Texas aiming to force the regulatory agency to stop Atlantis operations until BP could prove the documents are in place. He is not seeking monetary damages or compensation.

In the court filings, he said that some of the most critical spill-protection infrastructure, including the wellhead documents, hadn't been approved. None of the sub-sea risers -- the pipelines and hoses that serve as a conduit for moving materials from the bottom of the ocean to the facility -- had been "issued for design." And the manifolds that combine multiple pipeline flows into a single line at the sea floor hadn't been reviewed for final use.

Abbott -- an engineer with 30 years of experience completing design documents for companies like Shell and General Electric -- said the completion of "as-built" documents is standard for the industry. Machinery is designed, approved for manufacturing, checked to make sure it was built properly, and then approved for final use. If BP didn't provide the documentation to its workers in the field, it would be a stark exception.

Yet to Abbott's surprise BP's engineers resisted completing the process.

"I just hit a lot of resistance form the lead engineers," Abbott told ProPublica. "They got really angry with me. They wanted to shortcut the system and not do the reviews, because they cut short the man hours."

Abbott estimates BP saved $2 million to $3 million by streamlining the process.

"There seemed to be a big emphasis to push the contractors to get things done and that was always at the forefront of the operation," Abbott said. "I felt there had to be balance. You had to have safety because peoples' life depended on it. My management didn't see it that way."

Abbot's complaint wasn't the first time the company had been warned about not maintaining as-built drawings. According to BP's internal 2001 operational integrity report conducted in Alaska, as-built documentation wasn't being maintained at the company's Prudhoe Bay operations either.

It was among the issues BP executives were encouraged to fix after the audit of their operations there nearly a decade ago.

BP declined to discuss Abbott's allegations, telling ProPublica it does not comment on pending legal matters. In a previous statement made to federal investigators, BP said the drawings were updated and in place before the Atlantis began operating. The Minerals and Management Service is reportedly investigating Abbott's claims and Congress has also launched an inquiry that is still in progress.

A BP ombudsman letter written by Billie Garde and obtained by ProPublica confirmed Abbott's allegation that the company had violated its own safety and management protocol by not completing as-built documentation. The ombudsman's office has not yet investigated Abbott's claims about the specific pieces of equipment that lacked documentation because Abbott didn't make that information available until he filed the lawsuit last month.

Shortly after he raised his complaints to BP management, Abbott lost his contract to work with BP.

Among the most important pieces of safety equipment that BP was criticized for not having in place in Alaska, according to its own 2001 operational integrity report, were gas and fire detection sensors and the emergency shutoff valves that they are supposed to trigger.

When gas leaks from a pipeline break or a blowout near a running engine, it's a lot like stomping on the accelerator of a car: The engine will suck up the fuel vapors and scream out of control. Gas sensors are critical to preventing an explosion, because they can shut down a rig engine before that happens.

Now investigators are learning that similar sensors -- and the shutoff systems that would have been connected to them -- were not operating in the engine room of the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.

In sworn testimony before a Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation panel in New Orleans last month, Deepwater mechanic Douglas Brown said that the backstop mechanism that should have prevented the engines from running wild apparently failed -- and so did the air intake valves that were supposed to close if gas enters the engine room. The influx of gas from the well gave the engines "a more volatile form of burning mixture," he said, and caused them to rev out of control. Another system was supposed to kick in and shut the engines down, but that system also failed. He said the engine room wasn't equipped with a gas alarm system that could have shut off the power.

Minutes later, the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in a ball of fire, killing 11 workers before sinking to the seafloor, where it left a gaping well pipe that continues to gush oil and gas into the Gulf.

The investigation into that massive spill is still under way, but these revelations -- plus evidence that BP skipped key parts of the drilling process intended to prevent a blowout to save roughly $5 million -- echo the problems that BP's auditors, attorneys and investigators have identified in the past 11 years.

Over the next few months, the Department of Justice will decide whether what happened in the Gulf violates criminal or civil laws intended to protect the environment. Separately, EPA investigators are considering whether to end BP's ability to do business with the federal government, a sanction that could cost it billions in revenue. The investigators say a pivotal question in that investigation will be whether BP's record over the past decade amounts to a corporate culture of "non-compliance."

ProPublica Director of Research Lisa Schwartz and researcher Sheelagh McNeill contributed to this report.

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

roachboy · 06-10-2010, 04:33 AM

Quote:

David Cameron is to discuss the oil spill crisis with President Barack Obama after shares in BP plunged to their lowest level in more than 13 years this morning.

A spokesman for the prime minister said he was "sure" that the pair would speak about BP during a telephone call this weekend, in a further sign that the Deepwater Horizon disaster has now escalated into a political issue.

"The prime minister understands that there are many people who are angry and emotional about what has happened," said Cameron's official spokesman.
BP share price graph BP's shares have plunged over the past three months. Source: Thomson Reuters

"This is an environmental tragedy and the impact will be much broader than the environmental impact, and that is why we are encouraging BP to find a solution as soon as possible," he added.

Investors rushed to offload BP shares when trading began today, as fears grew over the future of the company. The oil giant's shares dived 11% to 345.15p in early London trading, their lowest level since April 1997, as analysts predicted that it will be forced to cut its dividend payout.

They then clawed back some of these losses as stockbrokers speculated that BP could fall to a takeover bid from Chinese firm PetroChina, and were down 5.5% at 370p shortly before midday.

At today's low BP had lost 47% of its value since the Gulf of Mexico disaster struck, wiping around £58bn off the market capitalisation of one of Britain's biggest companies.

The cost of insuring BP's debt against default also rose sharply this morning, as concern grew that its long-term future was under threat. The credit default swaps on BP's short-term debt have now leapt to the level of a junk bond, research firm Markit reported today.

This morning's sell-off came after the US government intensified the pressure on the company by demanding that it pays the wages of thousands of American oil workers laid off since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded. BP moved to reassure the City that it has enough cash to deal with the disaster and in a statement released before trading began, said it was "not aware of any reason which justifies" a 15% plunge in its share price on the New York stock exchange last night.

But traders said that President Obama's stinging criticism of BP was alarming investors, and bolstering fears that the company could be forced to cut its dividend.

"The best we can hope for is a postponement of what should be a very decent dividend," predicted David Buik of BGC Partners.

Evolution Securities agreed that BP was likely to suspend payments to shareholders until the leaking well had been permanently capped, in an attempt to assuage some of the anger felt against the company in America.

"Unilateral action against BP over its US operations, be it unreasonable or illegal, hangs over BP. Short-term dividend suspension looks a prudent move to protect BP's US asset base," said Evolution analyst Richard Griffith.

Last night US associate attorney general Thomas Perrelli said that the justice department was considering issuing an injunction to block BP from paying a dividend.

"We are looking very closely at this and we are planning to take action," he told a congressional hearing.

BP's dividend is worth $10bn (£6.9bn) a year – around a seventh of the total payout to shareholders from the FTSE 100.

Investment bank Standard Chartered has argued that it could make economic sense for PetroChina to acquire BP, although they conceded that political pressure could make such a deal impossible to complete.

"We expect China would support such a deal, while regulators in the US may raise antitrust concerns. While we cannot rationalise any argument that the deal should be blocked on grounds of national interest, local politicians may take a different view," they said in a research note published today.

Buik agreed that PetroChina would be thwarted if it attempted to buy BP. "Hell has a better chance of freezing over than Obama agreeing to China drilling in the Gulf of Mexico," he said.

Boris Johnson weighs in

Yesterday the White House said it would press the company to pay the salaries of staff laid off as a result of a six-month moratorium imposed by the Obama administration on exploration activity in the gulf. The freeze means a halt to work on 33 existing oil rigs, affecting thousands of jobs.

"It is an economic loss for those workers and those are claims that BP should pay," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs last night.

BP also told shareholders this morning that its total spending on the clean-up operation has now hit $1.43bn, with another $300m promised to complete a series of sand banks off the Louisiana coastline.

The British government has maintained a low profile over the oil spill, but two Conservative politicians have gone public with their views. London mayor Boris Johnson accused President Obama's government of "anti-British rhetoric", warning that the slump in BP's share price was bad news for UK pensioners.

"I would like to see a bit of cool heads rather than endlessly buck-passing and name-calling," Johnson told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"When you consider the huge exposure of British pension funds to BP it starts to become a matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on the airwaves."

It has emerged that BP's contingency plan to handle an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was riddled with errors, including naming a deceased scientist as a recommended expert. Johnson, though, suggested that BP should not be blamed for one of the worst manmade environmental disasters in America's history.

"It has presided over a catastrophic accident, which it is trying to remedy," Johnson said. "But ultimately cannot be faulted because it was an accident that took place and BP, I think, is paying a very, very heavy price indeed."

Lord Tebbit, the former government minister, also criticised Obama's attacks on BP and its management.

"The whole might of American wealth and technology is displayed as utterly unable to deal with the disastrous spill – so what more natural than a crude, bigoted, xenophobic display of partisan political presidential petulance against a multinational company?"

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.

powerclown · 06-10-2010, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

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.

roachboy · 06-10-2010, 07:10 AM

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

powerclown · 06-10-2010, 07:15 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-10-2010, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

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.

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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,...

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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.

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.

The_Jazz · 06-10-2010, 07:46 AM

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."

roachboy · 06-10-2010, 07:48 AM

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?

aceventura3 · 06-10-2010, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

welcome to the reality of captialism,...

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

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."

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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?

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

roachboy · 06-10-2010, 08:10 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-10-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

"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.

Quote:

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.

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

roachboy · 06-10-2010, 09:32 AM

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.

ARTelevision · 06-10-2010, 10:11 AM

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.

roachboy · 06-10-2010, 12:42 PM

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:

Quote:

Increase in inspectors hasn't kept pace with boom in offshore U.S. oil rigs and projects

By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2010; A01

Over the past quarter-century, oil companies have pushed the frontiers of offshore drilling, sharply stepping up the number of deep-water rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

However, although the number of exploration rigs soared and the number of deep-water oil-producing projects grew more than tenfold from 1988 to 2008, the number of federal inspectors working for the Minerals Management Service has increased only 13 percent since 1985.

That brings the number of inspectors for the federal waters of the entire Gulf of Mexico to 62 -- only seven more than in 1985. To visit deep-water rigs, they often make two-hour helicopter rides from shore. The same inspectors also examine dozens of rigs and thousands of production platforms in shallow water.

The shortage -- and quality -- of manpower at the MMS is coming under scrutiny as Congress looks at the causes of the oil spill that started in the gulf with the April 20 blowout on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

One key question is whether the agency could carry out the required minimum once-a-month inspections or do a thorough job in an increasingly complex area. Investigators are also looking at whether applications for changes in the well design received only cursory reviews, including one that was approved seven minutes after being filed.

"It would seem that we're spreading these inspectors pretty thin, given the increasing complexity of these rigs and the distances they have to travel," said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), whose panel is examining MMS oversight of offshore drilling. "What's happened here at Deepwater Horizon is a perfect example of how there is very little room for error when it comes to the safety of these oil rigs."

On Tuesday the Obama administration ordered companies working in shallower waters to hire outside inspection firms to do what it thinks its own agency has failed to do. Drillers already use outside firms to check rigs for seaworthiness, which is also the subject of Coast Guard inspections. But it is unclear whether those outside firms will be independent while being paid by the companies they inspect.

"The use of third parties seems to underscore a lack of confidence in the MMS," said a senior executive at a leading drilling rig company who asked for anonymity to protect his relationship with federal authorities. "And who is the third party? What are the standards of neutrality and independence, and are we subcontracting independent regulatory review?"

Even the agency, which has been criticized for being too cozy with the oil industry, has said that it was overwhelmed. By this year, the number of drilling rigs in deep water had climbed to more than 30 and the number of deep-water production platforms to 141.

Two-and-a-half months before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the MMS told Congress that both the agency and the oil and gas industry faced "significant engineering, logistical and financial challenges" given the rapid expansion of deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

"As activities continue to move into deeper waters, MMS will need to ensure that exploration and development is conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner while regulating cutting edge technology in distant areas under increasingly difficult conditions," the agency wrote in its Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2011, which it submitted to Congress on Feb. 1.

The Obama administration asked for six additional inspectors as part of its 2011 budget request but has not received the $900,000 it would take to pay for such an expansion.

The agency has a sign on its Web site: Help wanted. The qualifications: a year or more of work experience in the field, willingness to work for less than half of what private industry would pay, and the ability to bend and stoop and climb tall ladders.

Some lawmakers say that isn't enough training for the people who stand between the powerful oil industry and ecological catastrophes such as the one now afflicting the Gulf of Mexico.

Those applying for MMS inspection jobs, or petroleum engineering technicians, are only required to have a high school degree and some experience in the oil and gas industry. Federal mine inspectors undergo standardized training at the government's Mine Health and Safety Academy, but MMS employees have no such preparation. As a 1990 National Academy of Sciences report said, "Generally speaking, specific training in inspection procedures is limited to on-the-job training gained while accompanying a trained technician."

"We have to have a government-wide system and plan in place and not rely on the industry and allow them to just say, 'We've got it taken care of if something happens,' " said Rahall, who sent a letter Tuesday to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking him for details on MMS inspectors' training, educational qualifications and ties to the oil and gas industry. Americans, Rahall said, "want to see professional, highly trained inspectors that are not just pushing paper."

Some oil industry executives praise MMS inspectors.

"They are required to visit working rigs every 30 days, and they almost always visit our rigs more frequently than that," said Randall D. Stilley, chief executive of Seahawk Drilling, the second-largest operator of Gulf of Mexico rigs that stand on legs in relatively shallow water. "I can't attest to their IQs or educational background, but they tend to be knowledgeable about rigs and rig equipment."

But the MMS can't compete with salaries in private industry. The agency's job ad says that inspectors can make $38,790 to $84,139 a year. Seahawk and Hercules, another shallow-water drilling rig operator, typically pay more than $100,000 a year.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster has only intensified questions about MMS inspectors' rigor and judgment.

A review of internal BP documents submitted to the MMS before the explosion suggest that agency officials gave the company's plans only a cursory review as it moved to close the Macondo well. On April 15, five days before the blowout, BP submitted an "Application for Revised Bypass" outlining a well design that omitted a metal pipe 9.875 inches in diameter that had been in the plans up until that point; MMS officials approved the change seven minutes later. Later that day, according to documents obtained by congressional investigators, BP told the agency that it had "inadvertently removed the 9 7/8 inch" liner from the well design information. Have reincorporated it."

There were other discrepancies. On April 16, BP submitted its "Temporary Abandonment Procedure" plan, in which it indicated that the well liner would go down to 17,157 feet, rather than the 17,500 feet it had indicated in permit applications earlier in the week. Although this change showed that BP had not revealed the gap between its lining and cement job -- a gap that could potentially give oil and gas an opening to rush up through the pipe -- the company did not acknowledge the error, nor did the MMS.

BP spokesman Andrew Gowers said in an e-mail that there were "no significance to the changes" in the permit applications. "They resulted from a simple clerical error, and there was no material change in the casing plans."

Interior Department spokesman Kendra Barkoff said she could not comment on BP's permit applications to the MMS because of "the ongoing investigation" of the spill.

Staff writer Mary Pat Flaherty contributed to this report.

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:

Quote:

According to marine biologist Rick Steiner, my companion on a boat ride through the slick, this is the most volatile and toxic form of crude oil in the waters and lapping on to the beaches of Grand Isle, the area at the heart of the slowly unfolding environmental apocalypse that has engulfed Louisiana, and is now moving eastwards, threatening Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle.

roachboy · 06-11-2010, 04:19 AM

and now this, which is not surprising

Quote:

BP oil spill estimates double

US government figures show twice as much oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico than earlier estimations suggested

Helen Pidd and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 June 2010 10.07 BST

The oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico is even worse than previously thought, with twice as much oil spewing into the ocean than earlier estimations suggested, figures show.

Latest estimates from scientists studying the disaster for the US government suggest 160-380 million litres (42-100 million US gallons) of oil have already entered the Gulf. Most experts believe there is more oil gushing into the sea in an hour than officials originally said was spilling in an entire day.

It is the third – and perhaps not the last – time the Obama administration has had to increase its estimate of how much oil is gushing.

The revised figures suggest the disaster will be far more costly for BP, which has seen its stock plummet since the 20 April explosion that killed 11 workers and triggered the spill. Shares tumbled almost 7% to a 13-year low yesterday over fears that the US department of justice could block the company's dividend, due next month. This morning the shares bounced, rising 7%.

If the flow continues, it will easily become the worst oil spill in peacetime history. The Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989 involved a comparatively minor 41m litres of oil.

"This is a nightmare that keeps getting worse every week," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, the biggest grassroots environmental organisation in the US. "We're finding out more and more information about the extent of the damage … Clearly we can't trust BP's estimates of how much oil is coming out."

Trying to clarify what has been a contentious and confusing issue, US officials gave a wide variety of estimates last night.

US Geological Survey director, Marcia McNutt, who is co-ordinating the figures, said as much as 8m litres a day could have been flooding into the Gulf, twice as much as the US government has ever conceded to up to now.

The estimate was for the flow before 3 June when a riser pipe was cut and then a cap placed on it. No estimates were given for the amount of oil gushing from the well after the cut, which BP said would increase the flow by about 20%. Nor are there estimates since a cap was put on the pipe, which already has collected more than 11m litres.

The estimates are incomplete and different teams have come up with different numbers. A new team from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute came in with even higher estimates, ranging from 3.8m litres to 8m litres a day. If the high end is true, that means nearly 400m litres have spilled since 20 April.

Even using other numbers that federal officials and scientists call a more reasonable range would estimate that about 238m litres have spilled since the rig explosion.

By comparison, the worst peacetime oil spill, 1979's Ixtoc 1 in Mexico, was about 530m litres over 10 months. The Gulf spill has not yet reached two months. The new figures mean Deepwater Horizon is producing an Exxon Valdez-size spill every five to 13 days.

Previous estimates had put the range roughly between 1.9m and a 3.8m litres day, perhaps higher. At one point, the federal government claimed only 160,000 litres were spilling a day and then it upped the number to 795,000 litres.

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

Baraka_Guru · 06-11-2010, 05:29 AM

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

The_Jazz · 06-11-2010, 05:37 AM

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.

Cimarron29414 · 06-11-2010, 06:30 AM

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.

The_Jazz · 06-11-2010, 06:41 AM

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.

Cimarron29414 · 06-11-2010, 06:57 AM

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.

roachboy · 06-11-2010, 07:07 AM

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.

06-08-2010, 06:37 AM	#321 (permalink)
Hektore Junkie Location: Greater Harrisburg Area	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. __________________ The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

06-08-2010, 06:52 AM	#322 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-08-2010, 08:04 AM	#324 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-08-2010, 09:48 AM	#326 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-08-2010, 10:09 AM	#328 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	do you work for your landlord? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-08-2010, 10:37 AM	#330 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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" __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-08-2010, 11:11 AM	#331 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-08-2010, 11:46 AM	#333 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-08-2010, 12:10 PM	#335 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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.)... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-08-2010, 12:31 PM	#337 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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 gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-08-2010, 04:01 PM	#339 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	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. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-10-2010, 07:10 AM	#343 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	obama was a moderate from jump street. i don't know what you're talking about. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-10-2010, 07:15 AM	#344 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	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.

06-10-2010, 07:46 AM	#346 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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." __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-10-2010, 07:48 AM	#347 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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 gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-10-2010, 08:10 AM	#349 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-10-2010, 09:32 AM	#351 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-10-2010, 10:11 AM	#352 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	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. __________________ create evolution

06-11-2010, 05:29 AM	#355 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I do believe that this is what one would call an unmitigated disaster. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

06-11-2010, 05:37 AM	#356 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-11-2010, 06:30 AM	#357 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	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. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

06-11-2010, 06:41 AM	#358 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-11-2010, 06:57 AM	#359 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	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. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 06-11-2010 at 07:01 AM..

06-11-2010, 07:07 AM	#360 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite