Gulf of Mexico oil leak

[Humodour]

Of course BP will have done a risk assessment on the rig. But it doesn't automatically follow that this situation was

 

a) foreseen

b) doesn't lie far outside their acceptable loss

c) they have any capability to fix it no matter what their intent is

 

More importantly, Gromnir, what alternative is there to a risk management approach? Don't get involved in anything more risky than baking cupcakes?

 

I thought we'd already covered that fact that this rig's failure was human error? Reasonably preventable human error, too?

 

Genuine question actually. My memory of this thread and the latest news on this issue is fuzzy.

[Gromnir]

More importantly, Gromnir, what alternative is there to a risk management approach? Don't get involved in anything more risky than baking cupcakes?

 

the hyperbolic strawman is hardly convincing, eh?

 

in any event, you is clear missing the point. the risk management approach does not dissuade multinationals from engaging in risky ventures in part 'cause the worst case scenario, in which a couple billion dollars is lost, may be largely mitigated. the sheer magnitude o' this disaster were not enough to encourage bp to be more careful? is not as if bp were unaware o' the risks involved. so why did bp ignore safety in favor o' speed? risk management means they understands worst case scenarios before they start construction. if the Genuine cost o' mistakes and failure were higher, then multinationals would be much more careful.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[lord of flies]

"Ignore it" is not a form of risk management. BP purposefully, knowingly avoided putting together any plan for purely marginal benefits. They had no plan, and they continue to show off their incredible incompetence as the oil spill grows out of control. Seize BP.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Seize BP.

 

No.

[lord of flies]

Seize BP.

 

No.

Isn't it funny how libertarians are all about how people should "take responsibility" so long as they're poor and "responsibility" means "staying poor"? Whereas when a major corporations dumps billions of barrels of oil on the coast, debilitating the ecology on which so many's livelihood relies, we shouldn't do anything about it and just leave them be.

 

Just a curious little thing I thought was worth noting.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Seize BP.

 

No.

Isn't it funny how libertarians are all about how people should "take responsibility" so long as they're poor and "responsibility" means "staying poor" government should stay out of the economy and other facets of life? Whereas when a major corporations dumps billions of barrels of oil on the coast, debilitating the ecology on which so many's livelihood relies, we shouldn't do anything about it and just leave them be.

 

Just a curious little thing I thought was worth noting.

 

Fix'd.

[lord of flies]

Fix'd.

lol so I can just dump oil all over your house? Cool, good to know.

[Enoch]

Skipping over the both-sides-are-equally-nuts LoF-IWtK2 exchange, I think we're talking about two different things. Grom's earlier point was about BP's decisionmaking process right now-- he asked why is it assumed that they, a privately owned company with a duty only to return value to their shareholders and to not violate any laws along the way, are operating in the public interest in their efforts to stop the leak. I think that's a decent question-- the optimal course for them might well be to throw only token resources at the leak while focusing most of their might on mitigating the liability claims that will be spilling in over the next decade. (For example, if stopping the leak a week earlier than otherwise were possible for an additional $500M investment, but if doing so would reduce BP's estimated eventual liability by only $200M in present-value dollars, that sucker is gonna keep gushing.)

 

I don't see that as particularly related to the question of whether they would have incorporated a "complete destruction of the rig and ongoing deepwater oil leak" scenario into their pre-investment risk management projections. (IMO, they probably did, but if the recent financial crises have taught us anything, it's that a good portion of the costs associated with the "complete cluster****" scenario often end up being borne by the government, anyway.) That risk assessment might have called for different precautions if it had been done differently, but whatever it said, it certainly isn't governing BP's decisionmaking today.

[Hiro Protagonist]

James Cameron has been called in to save us from the Oil Spill. You know you're in trouble, when you have to call in a movie director to plug an oil spill.

[~Di]

James Cameron has been called in to save us from the Oil Spill. You know you're in trouble, when you have to call in a movie director to plug an oil spill.

 

That link didn't work for me, but my curiosity was piqued and I found this: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37453610/ns/...-entertainment/

 

Apparently the guy is an expert in deep sea submersible technology, having designed some equipment himself in order to film two documentaries about the Titanic. I did not know that!

[Orogun01]

They should already have their own experts and should had prepared to handle this situation. This whole thing has a permeating stench of incompetence to it, like everyone handling the situation has no idea what to do. The sad part is that none of them are going to be held responsible for their actions, or lack thereof.

[Walsingham]

Skipping over the both-sides-are-equally-nuts LoF-IWtK2 exchange, I think we're talking about two different things. Grom's earlier point was about BP's decisionmaking process right now-- he asked why is it assumed that they, a privately owned company with a duty only to return value to their shareholders and to not violate any laws along the way, are operating in the public interest in their efforts to stop the leak. I think that's a decent question-- the optimal course for them might well be to throw only token resources at the leak while focusing most of their might on mitigating the liability claims that will be spilling in over the next decade. (For example, if stopping the leak a week earlier than otherwise were possible for an additional $500M investment, but if doing so would reduce BP's estimated eventual liability by only $200M in present-value dollars, that sucker is gonna keep gushing.)

 

I don't see that as particularly related to the question of whether they would have incorporated a "complete destruction of the rig and ongoing deepwater oil leak" scenario into their pre-investment risk management projections. (IMO, they probably did, but if the recent financial crises have taught us anything, it's that a good portion of the costs associated with the "complete cluster****" scenario often end up being borne by the government, anyway.) That risk assessment might have called for different precautions if it had been done differently, but whatever it said, it certainly isn't governing BP's decisionmaking today.

 

I do think there's a culture of 'distributed stupidity' in most large organisations. No-one wants to be the bloke who flags a big risk, and even when they do most oragnisations have no 'red channel' to tackle them. I'm not just talking about BP here. The banks obviosuly did it, governments mostly do it, manufacturing definitely does it. the only epopel i can think of who don't are construction. If you point at a bridge and say "this **** is about to fall down" then they generally wake up.

[Tigranes]

At this point, what conflict of interest could there be? Why wouldn't BP be interested in plugging this asap? Just curious.

 

you're serious? really? how often does corporations drag their feet when it comes to fixing problems they created? auto makers discover a defect in a car and don't fix 'cause it is cheaper to pay injury/death benefits than it is to fix the car. "you can't put a value on a human life." sure you can. companies do it all the time. it looks like bp rushed their gulf platform construction and they didn't have adequate measures for fixing potential problems... but do you really think they didn't anticipate a disaster and affix a dollar amount to a worst case scenario? *chuckle* tobacco, asbestos, petrochemical, etc... name all the industries that has been accused o' reacting slowly (or not at all) to environmental or human disasters. btw, folks is still fighting with exxon over valdez. it is very possible that the most cost-efficient response for bp is to do as little as possible... look good for the cameras while this is a public disaster, and then find ways to mitigate and avoid eventual fines two or three years from now when only the locals care/remember.

 

I would have thought that the damage on their reputation, and also the cost of cleaning up the whole mess, and the policy implications for future operations, etc., would have been sufficient incentive for them to get a move on. On smaller scales, like your car example, sure, the money wins out, but in this case I'd have thought it was more economical for them to get the clean job done. But this does let me understand things better:

 

I think that's a decent question-- the optimal course for them might well be to throw only token resources at the leak while focusing most of their might on mitigating the liability claims that will be spilling in over the next decade.

 

Also, now that I think about it, there's surprisingly little media uproar surrounding BP... telling, really.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Nuke it!!!

[mkreku]

An interactive map to show how large this spill is by now:

 

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

 

Just wow.

[HoonDing]

Nuke it!!!

Sheer madness.

[Gromnir]

At this point, what conflict of interest could there be? Why wouldn't BP be interested in plugging this asap? Just curious.

 

you're serious? really? how often does corporations drag their feet when it comes to fixing problems they created? auto makers discover a defect in a car and don't fix 'cause it is cheaper to pay injury/death benefits than it is to fix the car. "you can't put a value on a human life." sure you can. companies do it all the time. it looks like bp rushed their gulf platform construction and they didn't have adequate measures for fixing potential problems... but do you really think they didn't anticipate a disaster and affix a dollar amount to a worst case scenario? *chuckle* tobacco, asbestos, petrochemical, etc... name all the industries that has been accused o' reacting slowly (or not at all) to environmental or human disasters. btw, folks is still fighting with exxon over valdez. it is very possible that the most cost-efficient response for bp is to do as little as possible... look good for the cameras while this is a public disaster, and then find ways to mitigate and avoid eventual fines two or three years from now when only the locals care/remember.

 

I would have thought that the damage on their reputation, and also the cost of cleaning up the whole mess, and the policy implications for future operations, etc., would have been sufficient incentive for them to get a move on. On smaller scales, like your car example, sure, the money wins out, but in this case I'd have thought it was more economical for them to get the clean job done. But this does let me understand things better:

 

I think that's a decent question-- the optimal course for them might well be to throw only token resources at the leak while focusing most of their might on mitigating the liability claims that will be spilling in over the next decade.

 

Also, now that I think about it, there's surprisingly little media uproar surrounding BP... telling, really.

 

 

am glad enoch cleared up for you. no, wait...

 

"btw, folks is still fighting with exxon over valdez. it is very possible that the most cost-efficient response for bp is to do as little as possible... look good for the cameras while this is a public disaster, and then find ways to mitigate and avoid eventual fines two or three years from now when only the locals care/remember."

 

 

am guessing that this is like advertising and tig simply needs to hear multiple times for the message to genuine sink into his brain.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

An interactive map to show how large this spill is by now:

 

http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/

 

Just wow.

Why did they had to put it over my home?

[Aram]

Finally, money shots.

[Humodour]

Nuke it!!!

 

It's what Russia always did in the past and it seemed to work. Dunno.

[HoonDing]

If BP doesn't start doing something, it might look like this in two months:

 

[Slowtrain]

To say Florida's tourism industry is going to have problems seems an understatement.

[Calax]

http://kotaku.com/5555599/the-daily-shows-...n-correspondent

 

linked vid for some Oil coverage.

[Orogun01]

http://kotaku.com/5555599/the-daily-shows-...n-correspondent

 

linked vid for some Oil coverage.

Unless is a video of Olivia Munn covered in baby oil it is not relevant to my interests.

[Humodour]

It turns out that BP's estimates are only half the true amount of oil leaking.

 

It's the equivalent of 1 Exxon Valdez oil spill per week.

 

The Exxon Valdez oil spill "is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters ever to occur in history."

 

How immensely ****ed is that?

 

Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world...o-1225878633549