Oil Spill Timeline

[we vs us]

Idealistic and emotional response we vs us.   

There are individuals that are at fault, and they need to be held accountable. 

BP as a corporation is 97,000 employees, 1,300 franchise owners, and tens of thousands of employees of those franchises. The corporation is also millions of stock holders. 

99.99% of these people are not guilty, and devastated by this disaster.

And yet we treat BP as a single entity for a variety of different things.  It gets taxed as a single entity, it gets traded on stock exchanges as a single entity.  It receives and disburses profits as a single entity, it is able to be sued (for a variety of reasons, not just for this spill) as a single entity. 

Also, in case you weren't watching, BP now has some of the same free speech rights that I as an individual do.  So I'm searching for the corporate equivalent of first degree murder.  The Deepwater Horizon spill may be an imprecise match but in severity and magnitude it's close to the worst thing a corporation can do. 

Maybe because this is due to negligence this is only manslaughter?   

[Gaspar]

And yet we treat BP as a single entity for a variety of different things.  It gets taxed as a single entity, it gets traded on stock exchanges as a single entity.  It receives and disburses profits as a single entity, it is able to be sued (for a variety of reasons, not just for this spill) as a single entity. 

Also, in case you weren't watching, BP now has some of the same free speech rights that I as an individual do.  So I'm searching for the corporate equivalent of first degree murder.  The Deepwater Horizon spill may be an imprecise match but in severity and magnitude it's close to the worst thing a corporation can do. 

Maybe because this is due to negligence this is only manslaughter?   

So. . .You want to hang Grandma for owning BP stock?

[we vs us]

So. . .You want to hang Grandma for owning BP stock?

Nope, I want to hang the company . . . or the equivalent. 

I essentially want to hang BP in the gibbets in the town square as an example. 

[Red Arrow]

Nope, I want to hang the company . . . or the equivalent. 

I essentially want to hang BP in the gibbets in the town square as an example. 

I think the death penalty for BP would not be in our interest.  We may need them around for another 20 or so years to keep paying damages and support to the jobs they destroyed.  If the company were dismantled, someone would pick up the oil leases and equipment.  Do you want the new operators to pay damages for something BP did?  Or maybe you think our benevolent US government should pick up the tab after revenge is had by destroying BP.

Other than feel-good, what is to be gained by destroying BP?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Gaspar is right... it ain't most of the people.  It is the management and the corrupt, morally bankrupt culture they have grown over the last 80+ years.  They were just this arrogant in the 20's and nothing has changed in that entire time.  Except maybe to become worse.

How does one root out this type of rot?  Need the corporate equivalent of a root canal.

But that goes against everything we have 'stood' for over the last 30 years.  Are we going to change??



Oh, and if you do disassemble BP, that just makes each of the remaining big oils that much bigger.  That much more powerful.  That much more prone to corruption and rot.  Quite a dilemma we have fostered, ain't it?

[Gaspar]

Gaspar is right... it ain't most of the people.  It is the management and the corrupt, morally bankrupt culture they have grown over the last 80+ years.  They were just this arrogant in the 20's and nothing has changed in that entire time.  Except maybe to become worse.

How does one root out this type of rot?  Need the corporate equivalent of a root canal.

But that goes against everything we have 'stood' for over the last 30 years.  Are we going to change??



Oh, and if you do disassemble BP, that just makes each of the remaining big oils that much bigger.  That much more powerful.  That much more prone to corruption and rot.  Quite a dilemma we have fostered, ain't it?

War on Capitalism?

[nathanm]

War on Capitalism?

Capitalism does not require an excessively concentrated market. Many of the free-marketeer economists agree with the idea that concentration of a market in the hands of only a few sellers is a bad thing, as it distorts the market as surely as 90% tax rates do.

[we vs us]

Killing BP would accomplish a couple of different things, none of which are achieved by the current structure.  I'm thinking primarily punishment and deterrent.  Punishment in that it locates blame squarely where it should be, which is on the shoulders of the company that ignored its own and federal standards in the name of expediency.  There's a pretty obvious debt to our society that needs to be paid, and I'm not sure that simply money will make us whole.  Just as with individuals we curtail their freedoms and sometimes deprive them of the ultimate freedom (life); if the crime is serious, why wouldn't we do that to BP?  

But it's even more about deterring future bad deeds. It's self-evident that regulation doesn't work, and the company is obviously not afraid of being fined or sanctioned.  It also has deep enough pockets to voluntarily pony up $20billion while still staying a profitable concern.  This isn't surprising, honestly; revenues were way down last quarter and they still came away with $3billion in profits . . . in a quarter.  Point being, isn't it obvious, taken with the similarly flagrant actions of the financial sector, that our penalties should be harsher?  That multinationals are now too rich, essentially, to care about current penalties?  I've come away from this last couple of years thinking that corporations have literally no fear of the federal government.  They know on many levels that they can act however they want and either lobby or litigate their guilt away.  

There has to be a way to deter this kind of behavior, and incentivize good behavior.  My modest proposal is to destroy companies that are the worst offenders, and surely we can agree that BP is one of them.  

Yes grandma's retirement fund might take a hit.  It might, however be an object lesson to investors big and small that they too have a responsibility for what they endorse with their money.  It would definitely be an object lesson to management that not all risk is good risk.  

[Conan71]

Killing BP would accomplish a couple of different things, none of which are achieved by the current structure.  I'm thinking primarily punishment and deterrent.  Punishment in that it locates blame squarely where it should be, which is on the shoulders of the company that ignored its own and federal standards in the name of expediency.  There's a pretty obvious debt to our society that needs to be paid, and I'm not sure that simply money will make us whole.  Just as with individuals we curtail their freedoms and sometimes deprive them of the ultimate freedom (life); if the crime is serious, why wouldn't we do that to BP?  

But it's even more about deterring future bad deeds. It's self-evident that regulation doesn't work, and the company is obviously not afraid of being fined or sanctioned.  It also has deep enough pockets to voluntarily pony up $20billion while still staying a profitable concern.  This isn't surprising, honestly; revenues were way down last quarter and they still came away with $3billion in profits . . . in a quarter.  Point being, isn't it obvious, taken with the similarly flagrant actions of the financial sector, that our penalties should be harsher?  That multinationals are now too rich, essentially, to care about current penalties?  I've come away from this last couple of years thinking that corporations have literally no fear of the federal government.  They know on many levels that they can act however they want and either lobby or litigate their guilt away.  

There has to be a way to deter this kind of behavior, and incentivize good behavior.  My modest proposal is to destroy companies that are the worst offenders, and surely we can agree that BP is one of them.  

Yes grandma's retirement fund might take a hit.  It might, however be an object lesson to investors big and small that they too have a responsibility for what they endorse with their money.  It would definitely be an object lesson to management that not all risk is good risk.  

Do you want your company to be shut down and lose your job if a sister property in New York City, through negligent maintenance practices, killed 20 guests with carbon monoxide?

Should tens of thousands of very good paying jobs be put to the way-side because of the actions and poor judgement of less than .00001% (suppositional figure here) of the total company workforce? What happens to people who need to be made whole who were damaged by the negligence of BP?  It's hard to pay them when the company has been given the death penalty.  There will be claims and costs associated with this spill for at least 20 years using the Valdez as a quantifiable and relevant example.

The blame in this case is acknowledged, and accepted.  They apparently are not sparing any money nor effort in trying to provide permanent solutions for their mess.

According to testimony from other oil industry execs, they have certain safety measures they use and it sounded as if they were all in agreement.  I believe there's enough incentive, after seeing the fall-out from this, for other companies to view the whole episode as a deterrent.  The chances of this ever playing out again on deep water exploration are nil.  IOW- there is no additional deterrent effect by shutting down BP.

Finally, I believe BP is a corporation primarily chartered in Brittain.  I don't think the U.S. has the authority to shut them down, though they could refuse to permit any further drilling operations led by BP and could refuse to sell them off-shore leases, or could prevent them from having any operations in the United States.  I still, though, don't see what good that would accomplish.

BP definitely screwed up, but from what I can tell, it appears they are trying to do the right thing and are willing to correct their mistakes.

I'm also somewhat concerned as to what individual rights may have been compromised by a quick settlement for $20 bln.  Will this wind up waiving tort claims that fishermen or land-owners might have?  Anyone know?

"Landrieu said that although she supports the creation of a compensation escrow account, she wants to be sure that the dollar figure is arrived at in a manner that doesn't inadvertently shove BP into bankruptcy.

"Before we start throwing around figures like $20 billion, I wanted to have some basis for that amount. Why $20 billion? Why not $5 billion? Why not $30 billion? Congress needs to proceed carefully and responsibly to address this issue in a comprehensive way so that our actions do not have unintended consequences on the victims of this disaster," said Landrieu.


"An escrow account should be established, but it must be done in a way that ensures BP remains viable enough to pay every penny of what they owe to those who have been affected by this horrific spill and tragedy. The worst case scenario is BP declaring bankruptcy before our citizens are compensated for the tremendous damage the company has inflicted on our fragile coast and economy."'

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/president_barack_obama_negotia.html

[nathanm]

According to testimony from other oil industry execs, they have certain safety measures they use and it sounded as if they were all in agreement.  I believe there's enough incentive, after seeing the fall-out from this, for other companies to view the whole episode as a deterrent.  The chances of this ever playing out again on deep water exploration are nil.
...
I'm also somewhat concerned as to what individual rights may have been compromised by a quick settlement for $20 bln.  Will this wind up waiving tort claims that fishermen or land-owners might have?  Anyone know?

You'd think they would have learned from Ixtoc, but I guess since it was run by the Mexican government, so was able to claim sovereign immunity when they were sued, the oil companies didn't take notice. (IOW, never say never)

Regarding the escrow, it signs away no rights, at least according to Fineberg. If you take an emergency payment today, you can still go back for more or even later decide to sue. If, later on, you take a payment in full satisfaction of your claim (which is a different procedure from the emergency funds, and requires more documentation), you will probably lose the right to sue. I think that's reasonable.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Oh, hell no, not war on Capitalism!  I am the firmest of firm believers in that stuff.  The problem is, it ain't what we got the most of.  We have capitalistic monopolism.

With paid protection for the monopolists brought to you by your highly company compensated government employees in Congress.

[Gaspar]

capitalistic monopolism.

Not familiar with that term, are you making that up? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's a descriptive term of our reality.

(Yeah...I made it up; describing what really goes on.)

[Gaspar]

It's a descriptive term of our reality.

(Yeah...I made it up; describing what really goes on.)

Hey, I'm all for new words, but we need to establish meaning. . .a definition so that we can all be on the same page when using this fabulous new term. 

So what would your definition for "capitalistic monopolism" be?

[heironymouspasparagus]

US Corporate America.  Encompassing all corporations greater than $1 billion in revenues.