TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › BP Exec "We care about the small people..."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BP Exec "We care about the small people..."

post #1 of 29
6/16/10 at 5:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
"He is frustrated because he cares about the small people, and we care about the small people," he said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...44-503544.html

The chairman of BP was trying to say that it isn't true that oil companies only care about profits and not people. Isn't it nice to know they care about the "small people" along the coast.

If they cared about people BP wouldn't constantly ignore safety regulations that can, and did, get people killed and cause a major ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The government doesn't get a free pass either because for far too long the Feds haven't seemed to have an interest in enforcing their own laws and regulations.
Reply
post #2 of 29
6/16/10 at 5:58pm
What bothers me most is that this huge oil company, drilling off shore, did not have a go-to plan in place if something happened.

Wouldn't you think that some of these boneheads sitting around trying to figure out ways to get the all-important oil would also figure, "Gee. We should figure out what we should do it some disaster happens and people are killed and we totally mess up the area around where our all-important oil drilling is taking place."

Duh.
Reply
post #3 of 29
6/16/10 at 8:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nanner View Post
What bothers me most is that this huge oil company, drilling off shore, did not have a go-to plan in place if something happened.

Wouldn't you think that some of these boneheads sitting around trying to figure out ways to get the all-important oil would also figure, "Gee. We should figure out what we should do it some disaster happens and people are killed and we totally mess up the area around where our all-important oil drilling is taking place."

Duh.
That's been my question -- ever since Day 6 or 7

The meeting btwn Obama and the BP top guys should have happened a long time ago.
Reply
post #4 of 29
6/16/10 at 8:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nanner View Post
What bothers me most is that this huge oil company, drilling off shore, did not have a go-to plan in place if something happened.

Wouldn't you think that some of these boneheads sitting around trying to figure out ways to get the all-important oil would also figure, "Gee. We should figure out what we should do it some disaster happens and people are killed and we totally mess up the area around where our all-important oil drilling is taking place."
Yup. I've never been at or around a school that caught fire but we have to do fire drills (and earthquake, tornado, lockdown...I don't think they do nuke drills any more...).

(I'll censor this the best I can and try to still get the message across...)
Oil well going haywire = f_.
No one knowing what to do about it = clusterf_.
It is always advisable, when issues of f_ are at stake, to avoid raising it to "cluster" level.
Reply
post #5 of 29
6/17/10 at 4:36am
I saw that clip on the news this am re the small people. Man, what a gaffe that is. I am at a loss.....

The only excuse I can come up with is maybe his "english" isn't so good and he meant "small towns" or something?????

I am utterly shocked he would say something like this. It is like pouring salt in the wounds of the gulf.
Reply
post #6 of 29
6/17/10 at 5:12am
I think the man is Swedish or Norwegian judging by his name and even I thought what he said was a strange choice of words that really sounded patronising.

I originally come from Aberdeen, Scotland which is (or was) the oil capital of Europe.

I have worked for BP, Chevron, Mobil and several contractors, namely Brown & Root which is (or was as the oil operations in Aberdeen were scaled back years ago) which is part of the Halliburton Group - an American company.

I heard that it was Halliburton who were running that rig yet it is the British who are getting the entire blame for the accident?

Safety on oil rigs should be paramount but it isn't. Too much cost cutting in the wrong places.

In 1988, the Piper Alpha blew up killing 167 men - one of them was my next door neighbour's husband. Everyone in Aberdeen knew at least 1 person who was killed. It is something that as long as I live, I will never forget.

For years prior to the disaster, workers had been complaining of lack of safety on the Piper A. Some refused to work on it, claiming it was jinxed. Those who dared to complain lost their jobs and were declared "Persona Non-Grata" so they never worked for any oil company or contractor again.

The inevitable happened and the Piper A blew up. The rig was owned and run by Occidental - a French company. They promptly off-loaded to Elf.

At the end of the enquiry, it was decided that someone had forgot to install a simple 'O' ring which caused a leak of gas and the subsequent explosion. Of course, that poor man was dead and dead men can't defend themselves.

What I'm saying is it's not just BP who are responsible for the current disaster. So are those who were running that rig, whether it is Halliburton or whoever else.

Why weren't contingency plans put in place? Probably penny-pinching - and the arrogant assumption that something like that probably wouldn't happen - it did.

The environmentalists also have to take a share of the blame. I believe they kicked up a fuss when BP wanted to drill on land. Had the rig been on land, the leak would have been far easier to cap.

The repercussions and devastation to wildlife is going to be felt for a long time.

The disaster is also having a very bad effect here in the UK too. Apart from making American/British relations very strained, people's pensions are being affected as some pensions are dependent on BP shares. People have already had their pensions plundered several times by the previous government. After this, some will now have very little or even no pension when they retire despite paying £thousands over the years to provide for their retirement.

It is a bad situation all round which could have been avoided if things had been done properly.

Me, I feel so sorry for all the birds covered in oil. It's heartbreaking
Reply
post #7 of 29
6/17/10 at 5:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Python View Post
The environmentalists also have to take a share of the blame. I believe they kicked up a fuss when BP wanted to drill on land. Had the rig been on land, the leak would have been far easier to cap.
That is basically the same thing as the rapist saying he wouldn't have beaten his victim if she's just cooperated.

The environmentalists don't want them drilling ANYWHERE that a fragile environment would be endangered. They want investments in clean energy, renewable energy, synthetic lubricants, etc. But, that's not where the money is, so that's not where "big oil" is going. They're going to keep pushing the envelop and playing the fringes, just as they've done here. It's their baby.

As for the "small people" part...I can't help but think that the smallest person BP is caring about is their least invested shareholder.
Reply
post #8 of 29
6/17/10 at 5:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Python View Post
I think the man is Swedish or Norwegian judging by his name and even I thought what he said was a strange choice of words that really sounded patronising.
He is Swedish. I have a couple of Swedish friends and honestly, they at times do sound patronizing due to word choice - that or stuck up/very precise (unless drunk - but that's another story). It's just how a lot of them come off so word choice may have to be overlooked a bit.
Reply
post #9 of 29
6/17/10 at 9:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
The chairman of BP was trying to say that it isn't true that oil companies only care about profits and not people. Isn't it nice to know they care about the "small people" along the coast.
They care about the small people only to the extent that they buy their gas and fill their cheap labor jobs. In other words, that the small people contribute to the value of the company.

If you think for a minute that big corporations care about anything other than their shareholders, think again. I worked for large corporations for 30 years and was responsible for gathering the data to make large spending decisions. It usually boiled down to this type of argument: We can lay off enough people to save $5 million annually if we spend $10 million to change the process used today - you get payback in 2 years. The typical question back was: did you factor in the cost of severance for those laid off - they didn't care about people losing their jobs, only that they could make an announcement to the trade magazines that could increase their stock value. People in large corporations are simply trained to think this way. If anyone presents a proposal that doesn't improve their stock, the proposal is simply rejected so why do it? And you wonder why I'm so happy I retired from the craziness of it all.

Does BP care about the small people? NOPE. They care about the effect of this disaster on their stock price. If they cancel dividends for the rest of the year, their stock price drops because investors don't invest in things without payback.

I could write a book on the greed of corporations. Individuals within a corporation may honestly care about others, but the "corporation" itself doesn't allow any behavior that reduces its value.
Reply
post #10 of 29
6/17/10 at 9:54am
I am impressed with the questions being asked of Tony Hayward. They are really putting him on the spot, and he has no choice but to say "I don't recall" or "I wasn't involved in that decision."
Reply
post #11 of 29
6/17/10 at 10:08am
Python, check this out.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...930780190.html
Quote:
BP also skipped a quality test of the cement around the pipe—another buffer against gas—despite what BP now says were signs of problems with the cement job and despite a warning from cement contractor Halliburton Co.

I don't think we can blame Halliburton for this one.
Reply
post #12 of 29
6/17/10 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
That is basically the same thing as the rapist saying he wouldn't have beaten his victim if she's just cooperated.

The environmentalists don't want them drilling ANYWHERE that a fragile environment would be endangered. They want investments in clean energy, renewable energy, synthetic lubricants, etc. But, that's not where the money is, so that's not where "big oil" is going. They're going to keep pushing the envelop and playing the fringes, just as they've done here. It's their baby.

As for the "small people" part...I can't help but think that the smallest person BP is caring about is their least invested shareholder.
First sentence has absolutely no bearing on what I said.

Had the rig been on land, it would have been sealed and capped very quickly.

Because it is in the sea, thousands of feet deep, therein lies the problem - a huge problem. If I'm not mistaken, it's too deep to put divers down - the water pressure would crush them. I have heard they are drilling two relief wells but again, I'm not sure if this is true or not. Whatever they do, they must stop that leak.

God knows what will happen if there is an electrical storm in that area. The thought of lightning igniting it is really scary.

The oil industry is a cut-throat industry. I worked in it (secretarial) for long enough to know that. They wanted their pound of flesh. I worked in the oil industry during the mid 1980s through to the mid 1990s. I wasn't fantastically paid and I had to work whatever hours were thrown at me - sometimes 18 hours a day and more.

They do care only about making profit - and the more profit the better so, traditionally, for years, safety, which should have been the single most important issue to them was the one they skimped on most.

In the end, it will cost them far more than if they'd done things properly from the start.

Never has the old saying "penny wise and pound foolish" been more appropriate.

Unfortunately, until someone comes up with a far better idea than oil for fuel, we're stuck with it and disasters like this will happen again.

CKBLV. Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure who had been doing what.
Reply
post #13 of 29
6/17/10 at 3:44pm
Thread Starter 
There are still some large obstacles to renewable/alternatie energy sources. One of the two biggest are money and the amount of energy required for production. Some of the alternatives that are currently available or in the process of being tested don't produce enough energy at this point in time to justify the cost of production. Technology also plays a large part because the level of current technology isn't quite there to make production possible or cost effective.

Another problem is that while there is an increasing demand for cleaner, renewable sources of energy there is the problem of NIMBY. They may want the energy but as long as the unsightly and noisy wind farm is in a place where they can't see or hear it.

I'd like to see a push towards using more true geothermal energy, but there are only so many places on the planet where this is feasible due to the varying depth of the Earth's crust.

When it comes to generating electricity in this country the word efficiency is a nonexistent concept. Our electrical production in the United States is between 10-20% efficient by the time it reaches your home. The majority of the energy is lost into the environment as thermal energy (heat) and as it travels along the "grid". The system would be more efficient if the energy lost as heat energy during electrical production is captured and reused in the process. That makes too much sense, though.

I'm a huge fan of nuclear power. The problems involved with nuclear plants in the United States is that we can't build anything in this country with a single productive design. The plants were built differently and became too expensive due to on-the-fly changes made to plans because engineers kept coming up with more "What if...?" scenarios that created backup systems, upon backup systems, upon backup systems and so on which contributed to costly construction delays. Three Mile Island should have been seen as a positive because the event proved that the safety systems do work. The Chernobyl disaster was caused solely by negligence. Five levels of safety systems were removed to test a theory that an some engineer came up. When the problem did occur they couldn't restart the safety systems in time. The site where the one reactor was exploded due to the amount of sodium that was there. The other three reactors kept running with no problems. The amount of waste produced by better and more efficient reactors is less than in the past and the some of the waste can be recycled to use again as fuel.

I'm getting long winded, but there are social costs will vary but they are involved with every proven and unproven energy reserve out there. Hopefully, someone will be able to come up with some viable, cost effective energy sources that can be produced on a large scale. It just isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Reply
post #14 of 29
6/17/10 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
They may want the energy but as long as the unsightly and noisy wind farm is in a place where they can't see or hear it.
In areas where it's fairly windy, we don't notice any noise from them - the wind itself is noisy. Oklahoma now has 9 wind farms. It would be great if the rest of the Great Plains follows suit - all have plenty of wind and rural areas to put the farms.
..You get used to seeing them on the horizon after a while.

One thing that I never see anyone really point out is the problem with commercial vehicles and farming. It's a lot harder to get them off of diesel.
Reply
post #15 of 29
6/17/10 at 6:08pm
For heating our homes, those of us who can use them, one form of sustainable, renewable fuel is wood.

Modern wood burning stoves put out virtually zero carbon emissions but wood burners are not pushed enough and new build houses are either heated by gas or electricity which in this country is getting horrendously expensive.

We installed a multi-fuel stove in January. We burn predominantly logs sourced from renewable forests, at least we will be this year. We are lucky to back onto woodland and there are so many fallen trees and boughs that not for this coming winter but the next, we will have a free supply of logs.

Before we installed our stove, we were spending £25 - £30 per week ($37 - $44) and our house, only a two-bedroomed house was often still cold.

We put the stove in and immediately slashed 66% off our gas bill - and the whole house was warm. It is a highly efficient stove with regard to heat output and, like I said, has virtually zero carbon emissions.

It's also brought our living room to life and the cats and dogs love it. In fact, we all love it and I just wish I'd bought one years ago.
Reply
post #16 of 29
6/17/10 at 11:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Python View Post
First sentence has absolutely no bearing on what I said.
Of course it did. To claim they "had to drill in deep water because the environmentalists kicked up a fuss" is exactly the same type of defense.
Reply
post #17 of 29
6/17/10 at 11:13pm
Actually, "alternative fuel" has already been successful, but never followed up on. The Otto Company demonstrated a version of the diesel engine that was designed to run on vegetable, groundnut or peanut oil back in 1900.
Reply
post #18 of 29
6/17/10 at 11:39pm
Thread Starter 
Good point, Mike.

I'm not saying that alternative fuel hasn't been used successfully, I know that some people are currently running alternate in their own vehicles. At this point in time, is the technology available that would allow the mass production of an alternate fuel for a gasoline or diesel engine so that it is cost effective? That's what I'm wondering.
Reply
post #19 of 29
6/18/10 at 7:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Good point, Mike.

I'm not saying that alternative fuel hasn't been used successfully, I know that some people are currently running alternate in their own vehicles. At this point in time, is the technology available that would allow the mass production of an alternate fuel for a gasoline or diesel engine so that it is cost effective? That's what I'm wondering.
Likely not...but we'll never know, because it won't be researched any further on any kind of significant level. Big Oil and their conservative puppets and cronies are running the show, and it's all about their lord and master...money.
Reply
post #20 of 29
6/18/10 at 8:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Of course it did. To claim they "had to drill in deep water because the environmentalists kicked up a fuss" is exactly the same type of defense.
Not me who said it, someone (not sure who) said it in one of the newspaper articles I read. I was quoting them, not giving my own opinion. Perhaps should have made that clearer to start with

As for cars running on vegetable oil. Diesel engines are already capable of doing that. The other year when the price of diesel went through the roof here, people started putting veggie oil in the tank - myself included.

Didn't affect the running of the car at all except that there was a definite aroma of frying chips outside the car which was murder if I was feeling hungry

Unfortunately, the veggie oil companies cottoned on and hiked the price of the veggie oil so in the end it was actually more expensive than buying diesel at the fuel pumps.

You are not quite right when you mention one word - money. It should be three words. Money, Profit and just sheer Greed.

Didn't General Motors, not so very long ago, develop a car that ran off solar power and drove as well as any other car? That was a great invention but I believe the oil companies kicked up a fuss (scared for their profits) and threatened to pull funding from GM unless they recalled the cars (I think about 6 were made for people to test drive) so GM ended up recalling the cars and destroying them, and, as far as I believe, the plans for these cars also.

Really stupid move. Would the oil companies concerned not have been better investing in these cars and diverting away from digging holes in the ground and in the seabed?

They seem to forget that oil is a commodity that is running out. Not to invest in alternative ways of propelling vehicles and other machinery is very short-sighted and will end up biting them in the bum in the long term.
Reply
post #21 of 29
6/18/10 at 8:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Python View Post
Not me who said it, someone (not sure who) said it in one of the newspaper articles I read. I was quoting them, not giving my own opinion. Perhaps should have made that clearer to start with
Ah, I completely understand! My apologies.

Quote:
As for cars running on vegetable oil. Diesel engines are already capable of doing that. The other year when the price of diesel went through the roof here, people started putting veggie oil in the tank - myself included.

Didn't affect the running of the car at all except that there was a definite aroma of frying chips outside the car which was murder if I was feeling hungry

Unfortunately, the veggie oil companies cottoned on and hiked the price of the veggie oil so in the end it was actually more expensive than buying diesel at the fuel pumps.

You are not quite right when you mention one word - money. It should be three words. Money, Profit and just sheer Greed.

Didn't General Motors, not so very long ago, develop a car that ran off solar power and drove as well as any other car? That was a great invention but I believe the oil companies kicked up a fuss (scared for their profits) and threatened to pull funding from GM unless they recalled the cars (I think about 6 were made for people to test drive) so GM ended up recalling the cars and destroying them, and, as far as I believe, the plans for these cars also.

Really stupid move. Would the oil companies concerned not have been better investing in these cars and diverting away from digging holes in the ground and in the seabed?

They seem to forget that oil is a commodity that is running out. Not to invest in alternative ways of propelling vehicles and other machinery is very short-sighted and will end up biting them in the bum in the long term.
Very well put, I completely agree. I'm not sure about GM's car though. I know they made an electric, but I don't know if it was solar or rechargeable. And you're right, they're weren't many made.
Reply
post #22 of 29
6/18/10 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Ah, I completely understand! My apologies.



Very well put, I completely agree. I'm not sure about GM's car though. I know they made an electric, but I don't know if it was solar or rechargeable. And you're right, they're weren't many made.
I'm sure they were solar powered as opposed to rechargeable. It was my son who saw it - it was on YouTube if I remember correctly. Might still be there. I'll ask my son if he can remember what the video was called.
Reply
post #23 of 29
6/18/10 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Python View Post


Didn't General Motors, not so very long ago, develop a car that ran off solar power and drove as well as any other car? That was a great invention but I believe the oil companies kicked up a fuss (scared for their profits) and threatened to pull funding from GM unless they recalled the cars (I think about 6 were made for people to test drive) so GM ended up recalling the cars and destroying them, and, as far as I believe, the plans for these cars also.

Really stupid move. Would the oil companies concerned not have been better investing in these cars and diverting away from digging holes in the ground and in the seabed?

They seem to forget that oil is a commodity that is running out. Not to invest in alternative ways of propelling vehicles and other machinery is very short-sighted and will end up biting them in the bum in the long term.
I live in Central CA where it is sunny about 300+ days a year. Everytime I am driving around, I keep thinking, why can't they put solar panels on the roof of every vehicle?
Reply
post #24 of 29
6/18/10 at 4:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I live in Central CA where it is sunny about 300+ days a year. Everytime I am driving around, I keep thinking, why can't they put solar panels on the roof of every vehicle?
Don't think they'd be much good here. It's midsummer next week and so far we've had cold weather, rain, cloud and wind. Even at night the temperature has been dropping to single figures. I woke up the other morning freezing. I live in the South West of England and usually it is really warm at this time of year.

My brother who lives in Scotland phoned earlier tonight. He was saying that the ski centres are having a field day as there is still a lot of snow which is suitable for skiing.

They've had a bumper season this year.
Reply
post #25 of 29
6/18/10 at 5:22pm
Thread Starter 
Solar systems still need to be backed up in some way because of nighttime and cloudy weather. Wouldn't a solar powered car also need a backup system?
Reply
post #26 of 29
6/18/10 at 7:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I live in Central CA where it is sunny about 300+ days a year. Everytime I am driving around, I keep thinking, why can't they put solar panels on the roof of every vehicle?
I think it is a cost thing. It is horribly expensive, I have no idea why. I guess that is why Barack and many liberals want our gas prices to hit ten dollars a gallon.
Reply
post #27 of 29
6/19/10 at 5:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Solar systems still need to be backed up in some way because of nighttime and cloudy weather. Wouldn't a solar powered car also need a backup system?
Not sure how the test cars actually worked or whether they had a back up system or not. I do know it was "cutting edge" technology and that's what freaked the oil companies out so it seemed that there was no need for the car to run on petrol or diesel.

Even if the car used a back up system, say petrol or diesel, the fact that it could run during the day would have saved billions or more gallons of oil if the car had gone into full production.

I would think, unless they'd come up with a different type of solar panel which stored it's own energy without the need for batteries then yes, there probably was a back up system but they weren't letting out any secrets.

Just for interest, if I recall, there were no actual solar panels, at least that you could see on the car.

I wonder if the YouTube video of it's still there or if it's been taken off. Will have to see if I can find it.

Of course, the other downside would have been expense as I would have thought such a car would have been out of the price range of most ordinary people just as solar panels for your house are.
Reply
post #28 of 29
6/20/10 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Solar systems still need to be backed up in some way because of nighttime and cloudy weather. Wouldn't a solar powered car also need a backup system?
I'm sure it would, but in my neighborhood an efficient solar battery could power just about anything.

And while solar panels are expensive, I believe that cost would decrease as more and more are produced - just like computers and TVs.
Reply
post #29 of 29
6/21/10 at 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think it is a cost thing. It is horribly expensive, I have no idea why. I guess that is why Barack and many liberals want our gas prices to hit ten dollars a gallon.
They do?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › BP Exec "We care about the small people..."