BP & Deepwater Horizon.

Lukas

That's Dr. to you, cunt.
Adventurer
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
2,272
Age
38
Location
Sydney
Main Job
RedMage-Male
Secondary Job
BlackMage-Male
Third Job
Dancer-Male
FFXIV
Lukas
Original estimates of the amount of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico of 1,000 barrels per day have been revised by experts (ie. people not working for BP) and the figure is now estimated to be somewhere from 12,000 - 25,000 barrels PER DAY. This is absolutely terrifying.

Just to put into perspective the potential damage to the environment we're looking at here, consider the following: the blowout occurred on April 10th . Both cut-and-cap efforts have failed. The top-kill attempt has failed. The only reliable recovery procedure left now is to build a relief well which will essentially drain enough oil from the well in an attempt to either lower pressure and kill the leak, or to suck the oil supply dry completely. BP has already started digging relief wells in the area, only problem is they're not expected to be complete until AUGUST.

This is a very optimistic timeline. In order for the relief well to be successful, it must tap into the original reservoir which is very difficult to locate. Compare it to finding a spot the size of a small window, 5,000ft below the ocean. Experts predict that the chances of BP finding the right location first try is all but statiscally impossible. A failed attempt spells further delays. Meanwhile oil keeps pumping into the gulf at an unprecedented rate.

The sad thing is, the damage to the environment and eco-system is irreversible. We can shovel the oil out of the sand, we can place absorbent booms in the water to soak up minor quantities, we can wash the crude oil off the areas native birds - but the Louisiana marshes which provide a natural buffer during hurricane season will most likely die. On top of that, nobody knows how to extract all that crude oil out of the water. I'm dead serious. There's no scientist with some magical powder to sprinkle into the water to clean it.

Which begs the question: how can an oil company drill off-shore at 5,000ft and not have anything aside from a few valves and saws as safety? The answer is very complicated and involved but the gist is... they never had to think about it. The very same methods being used by BP now, are identical to the ones used to maintain oil spills 20-30 years ago. But surely technology has advanced since then you ask? Surely now that Oil companies are drilling at greater and greater depths, new safeguards have been developed, new solutions? The answer is no. Governements have given permits for off-shore drilling regardless, so there never has been any incentive to pump money into research and development, so why affect the bottom-line?

How is this even justifiable? Well again the answer is a bit tricky but it boils down to the relationship the US government has had with Big Oil for decades. A common element is: money. The government provides subsidies to oil companies as an incentive to well... find oil. The country runs on oil, and they want it bad. In return, Oil companies shower the government with gifts and royalties. If you ever get a job in a government department which is in charge of oil safety regulations or royalties collection, expect representatives to arrive at your door with offers of cushy jobs and perhaps some crystal meth to close the deal. Tie this with favourable legislation such as the Bush Oil Tax cuts and you have a winning combination.

As it stands companies like BP have a liability cap on how much they are enforced to pay when an oil spill occurs - $75 million. What happens if damages exceed that figure? Well, congress shells out tax dollars from an Oil recovery fund. Current attempts to lift the cap in congress have met resistance from Republicans as doing so would be an unfavourable deterrent for "smaller oil companies". So let's put this in perspective: the Republicans want small companies in off-shore drilling situations where if anything goes wrong, they wont be able to cover damages financially. Genius! Forget their constant whining about government spending, when there's billions of dollars flowing into the oil industry in the form of tax subsidies. Forget their incessant need to shoot down government regulations, and antagonise "big government" when there are huge oil companies to needlessly prop up and protect... but I'm getting off track.

Anyway, back to Deepwater Horizon - How much will the disaster cost and how much is BP liable for? Under the Clean Water Act of 1972, a fine of $4,000 per barrel applies for oil leaked into US waters. Calculations place the total fine BP is facing at a conservative $10 billion or as high as $60 billion, depending on when the leak actually stops. Now this is putting aside any criminal charges induced by the federal government, personal liability claims by private residents, compensation to local and state governments to cover losses in tourism/fishery revenue as well as a whole myriad of damages from other law-suits. Meanwhile BP price share keeps on plummeting.

Kind of bittersweet really - one hopes that karma swings back around to slap BP on the face and that the company goes under.... but then who picks up the bill? Even more distressing, will the Gulf ever recover from the pollution, and will the government take measures to make sure this doesn't happen again? Who knows?

TL;DR - BP sucks.
 
Last edited:
The justification, such as it is, for the liability cap is to keep the insurance down, thus keeping oil prices down.

I think we're going to have to seriously re-evaluate that position. Along with a horde of other re-evaluations regarding safety regulations.

How would we handle this situation in Raestopia?

Well, in Raestopia, we probably wouldn't be in this situation to begin with, but I digress. BP has assets worth ~$230 billion or so, iirc.

I figure that should just about cover it.
 
What is a little annoying is that most pension companies have a big amount of shares in BP so I wonder how this is going to affect the old people in England.
 
I just, quite literally and unflinchingly, want to see Tony Hayward hanged for committing crimes against nature.
 
The justification, such as it is, for the liability cap is to keep the insurance down, thus keeping oil prices down.

I think we're going to have to seriously re-evaluate that position. Along with a horde of other re-evaluations regarding safety regulations.

How would we handle this situation in Raestopia?

Well, in Raestopia, we probably wouldn't be in this situation to begin with, but I digress. BP has assets worth ~$230 billion or so, iirc.

I figure that should just about cover it.

Is that before or after the 15% drop in share prices last week, Raes? I'm not so sure. Mind you, BP will definitely stretch the litigation process as far as they can so it may be a decade or two before they'll have to dig deep into their pockets. It's frustrating because time is a factor here.

I agree about the insurance prices. But then again, it's another sign that maybe drilling off-shore without solid safety measures should not even be happening in the first place. I just cited the reason provided by most senate Republicans who opposed the change on the floor. Both are equally convoluted.

The crux here is the change to alternative fuels. I don't know how many previous administrations have made it an empty campaign promise. The goverment has been flirting with the oil industry for far longer than decent. I think that if some of those huge subsidies had been directed towards the research and development of alternative fuels years ago, then policy wouldn't be quite so centred around the price of oil.
 
Oil, as a fuel, is really hard to beat for a variety of reasons. It's unlikely we'll discover some magical substance that will be better than oil, so this becomes one of those rare situations where, if the government really wants to change the market, they're going to have to legislate it into existence.

The easy way is to tax the hell out of oil. Double the price of oil over the next, say, 3 years, and you'll see a significant push towards more sustainable fuels. I don't think the administration has the stones for it, though.

Another aspect, of course, are the campaign finance reform issues I talked about a while back. As in, campaigns should be financed with tax dollars, and tax dollars only. No more contributions, no more wealthy individuals, period. Done. You want to run, run on the issues, not your wallet.

And, for the record, I'm not talking about lawsuits bleeding BP dry over the course of the next 20 years, or BP stalling said lawsuits as creatively as possible until people give up.

I'm talking about nationalizing BP and breaking it up. All of it.
 
I've always been of the opinion that the oil companies should be treated in a fashion similar to tobacco companies. I think the government should require oil companies to pay a certain percentage of their profits, perhaps 3-4%, into a fund from which researchers and startup renewable resource energy companies could draw funds to further R&D. This would be similar to how the tobacco companies are having to fund health initiatives in several, if not all, states due to litigation settlements. Now I know that the tobacco companies were forced to do this by court order due to some illegal and highly unethical business practices; however, I don't see a very large difference between oil companies and tobacco companies in terms of sustainability--tobacco use is an unsustainable lifestyle choice, reliance on petroleum is an unsustainable economic policy choice. The technology exists right now to dramatically reshape our energy policy, consumption, and distribution in the United States; the only major obstacle is making the process more cost efficient. I've always found it extremely hypocritical how the government and investment advisors preach to people to diversify their investment/retirement portfolios to minimize their exposure to natural market flucuations, yet our economic policy makers can't seem to apply the same principles to our energy policy in the United States. Make no mistake about it, energy, in all its forms, is the lifeblood of the Western economic system. If all the oil immediately dried up tomorrow, or if America, or really any country for that matter, were suddenly cutoff from petroleum imports by the rest of the world, our economic system would collapse in a matter of days.
 
Another aspect, of course, are the campaign finance reform issues I talked about a while back. As in, campaigns should be financed with tax dollars, and tax dollars only. No more contributions, no more wealthy individuals, period. Done. You want to run, run on the issues, not your wallet.

So lets say this happens. Countless people are going to try for political positions, how do you intend to thin the crowd in this system?
 
So lets say this happens. Countless people are going to try for political positions, how do you intend to thin the crowd in this system?

Local and Regional Primaries.
 
Local and Regional Primaries.

Pretty much. I did a rough outline of the system a while back, but in theory it would work, albeit extending the campaign season somewhat. Local primary to pick a candidate, then regional, then state, and so on. Individual offices would have their own obvious cut-off points on the process, ie, state senate would be cut at local or regional, US senate at state level, and there would have to be a secondary system in place for presidential candidates paste the state level, but that wouldn't be especially complicated to set up. Mandatory televised debates for every step of the process, but no actual television advertising.
 
Pretty much. I did a rough outline of the system a while back, but in theory it would work, albeit extending the campaign season somewhat. Local primary to pick a candidate, then regional, then state, and so on. Individual offices would have their own obvious cut-off points on the process, ie, state senate would be cut at local or regional, US senate at state level, and there would have to be a secondary system in place for presidential candidates paste the state level, but that wouldn't be especially complicated to set up. Mandatory televised debates for every step of the process, but no actual television advertising.
One flaw in your process is that it will lead to either a big jump in taxes or hardly any coverage of the campaigns/candidates. Most people probably wouldn't even know that there's an election coming up(other than POTUS) if it wasn't for all of the advertising, so not allowing any advertising could lead to even lower voter turnout than our already horrible levels.
 
I have thought of these things, rest assured. Raestopia is perfect. But we're rapidly getting off topic here.
 
Yes, back on track. It's very hard to go off oil, I agree. In fact it's speculated that some industries will never be able to wean themselves off their reliance on fossil fuels. It's just silly that something like 4% of all fuel consumption comes from alternative fuels considering how long this has been an issue for the nation.

What I find incredulous is that Tony Hayward released a statement today basically admitting that BP "had not been prepared for a deep-water oil leak". Yeah, no shit.
 
Yes, back on track. It's very hard to go off oil, I agree. In fact it's speculated that some industries will never be able to wean themselves off their reliance on fossil fuels. It's just silly that something like 4% of all fuel consumption comes from alternative fuels considering how long this has been an issue for the nation.

What I find incredulous is that Tony Hayward released a statement today basically admitting that BP "had not been prepared for a deep-water oil leak". Yeah, no shit.

Not only that, its also been revealed that they've disregarded safety warnings for the past year. For example, it had been found that one of the safety thingies wouldn't hold for high pressure. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure bottom of the ocean has very high pressure.
 
I am extremely surprised this thread hasn't gotten more hits.

Is anyone tuning into the CEO testifying on the oil spill? I'm mixed on what to feel. On one hand, Tony seems like he's blowing air with all of his "I was not a part of the decision making process" answers...however the and I quote this..."questions" he is getting has scapegoat sprawled all over it. I feel like we should be asking more questions about how will this change the industry and safety standards and if BP has any plans to secure their current pumps. Any thoughts?
 
he's the Chief Executive Officer. He probably doesn't get to be a part of those business decisions.

HOWEVER

He is the public face of the company. He gets the ridicule, because he gets the paycheck.
 
he's the Chief Executive Officer. He probably doesn't get to be a part of those business decisions.

HOWEVER

He is the public face of the company. He gets the ridicule, because he gets the paycheck.

I understand both things. I guess I'm just hoping we have more answers instead of blowing smoke which it seems like it's all it's doing...
 
Default policy is to throw as few people to the wolves as is necessary to satisfy them, while obfuscating the fundamental issues to the greatest extent possible, so as not to cause significant disruptions in profit flow.
 
I had to laugh at the GOP congressman apologizing to BP for the "shakedown" and then being forced to apologize for the apology by his fellow Republicans.
 
Back
Top