Why isn't the Tea Party protesting BP?
in [Technical]
|
From: jim on 12 Jul 2010 10:03 hls wrote: > > "Hachiroku ハチロク" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:5nu_n.11313 > > > > The rig passed a safety inspection with flying colors months before the > > explosion. > > This was not a rig safety problem.. Yes. > > It arose because of technically questionable (well, no longer questionable, > I guess) operational factors. Maybe. > > For example, your car could pass a safety inspection, but you could drive > recklessly > and kill a bunch of people, destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of > property, etc. > > The fault here, IMO, lies at the feet of BP. Yes. Putting all the blame on reckless BP is the current strategy of the Petroleum Industry. This they believe will have the effect of making the whole thing appear to be a fluke happening that will never happen again. That was the same approach the Nuclear Industry took after Three Mile Island. It didn't work for the Nuclear Industry. Investors ran away after TMI, and that is what is more than likely also going to happen to oil exploration. In particular, companies involved in deep water exploration will see capital investment dry up. This is what the future for petroleum exploration will look like: http://www.anadarko.com/Investor/Pages/NewsReleases/NewsReleases.aspx?release-id=1439847
From: Scott Dorsey on 12 Jul 2010 11:23 jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > Yes. Putting all the blame on reckless BP is the current strategy of >the Petroleum Industry. This they believe will have the effect of making >the whole thing appear to be a fluke happening that will never happen >again. That was the same approach the Nuclear Industry took after Three >Mile Island. It didn't work for the Nuclear Industry. Investors ran away >after TMI, and that is what is more than likely also going to happen to >oil exploration. In particular, companies involved in deep water >exploration will see capital investment dry up. The thing is, when big disasters happen, it's because a whole bunch of things went one. Not just a couple things going wrong, but a whole chain of things going wrong. And when a whole chain of things go wrong, there's plenty of blame to pass around. The TMI accident is actually an example of when things worked out properly... lots of things went wrong and some people did some really boneheaded things, but in the end the degree of redundant safety systems held. That's good, that's how safety is supposed to work. The BP incident is an example of when things don't work out properly. Similar folks made boneheaded decisions but in the end the safety systems weren't enough. I think in the end investment in the oil industry will be reduced, in part due to fears about this sort of thing happening again, and in part because of fears of added government regulation. But in the end, safety is just a part of the cost of doing business, and you can pay a little now or a lot later. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: jim on 12 Jul 2010 12:10 Scott Dorsey wrote: > > jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > > Yes. Putting all the blame on reckless BP is the current strategy of > >the Petroleum Industry. This they believe will have the effect of making > >the whole thing appear to be a fluke happening that will never happen > >again. That was the same approach the Nuclear Industry took after Three > >Mile Island. It didn't work for the Nuclear Industry. Investors ran away > >after TMI, and that is what is more than likely also going to happen to > >oil exploration. In particular, companies involved in deep water > >exploration will see capital investment dry up. > > The thing is, when big disasters happen, it's because a whole bunch of things > went one. Not just a couple things going wrong, but a whole chain of things > going wrong. > > And when a whole chain of things go wrong, there's plenty of blame to pass > around. > > The TMI accident is actually an example of when things worked out properly... > lots of things went wrong and some people did some really boneheaded things, > but in the end the degree of redundant safety systems held. That's good, > that's how safety is supposed to work. From the point of view of investors, there is nothing at all good about that. Wall street doesn't give a hoot about safety. The only thing Wall Street learned from TMI is that engineers in the control room were able to turn a 2 billion dollar asset into a 2 billion dollar liability in about an hour. The dollar amounts involved in the Deepwater Horizon incident are much much larger. > > The BP incident is an example of when things don't work out properly. Similar > folks made boneheaded decisions but in the end the safety systems weren't > enough. You don't know why this happened. The current picture being painted by the oil industry is intended to make it look like this was an easily preventable accident that won't happen again in order to restore investor confidence. The reality is there is no clear evidence that BP did anything that any other well operator wouldn't have done in the same situation. You may be able to convince the pubic that this was just a boo-boo that will never happen again, but investors are a little more savvy than that. > > I think in the end investment in the oil industry will be reduced, in part > due to fears about this sort of thing happening again, and in part because of > fears of added government regulation. But in the end, safety is just a part > of the cost of doing business, and you can pay a little now or a lot later. It has nothing to do with safety. Nuclear energy was much much safer after Three Mile Island and Nuclear has probably always been safer than oil exploration and still no one was willing to invest. It has to do with perceived risks. The magnitude of the potential risk and liability of the investors in oil exploration just got a major revision. -jim > --scott > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Scott Dorsey on 12 Jul 2010 12:34 jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > From the point of view of investors, there is nothing at all good about >that. > > Wall street doesn't give a hoot about safety. The only thing Wall >Street learned from TMI is that engineers in the control room were able >to turn a 2 billion dollar asset into a 2 billion dollar liability in >about an hour. The dollar amounts involved in the Deepwater Horizon >incident are much much larger. Investors do a lot of things that don't make sense. I can't help that. >> The BP incident is an example of when things don't work out properly. Similar >> folks made boneheaded decisions but in the end the safety systems weren't >> enough. > > You don't know why this happened. The current picture being painted by >the oil industry is intended to make it look like this was an easily >preventable accident that won't happen again in order to restore >investor confidence. The reality is there is no clear evidence that BP >did anything that any other well operator wouldn't have done in the same >situation. You may be able to convince the pubic that this was just a >boo-boo that will never happen again, but investors are a little more >savvy than that. I don't know why it happened... but there's a considerable amount of evidence now that BP knows why it happened. You read the press and nobody even mentions the riser pipe having broken... and BP certainly isn't talking about that. So the big questions become ones like when the pipe broke and what other evidence did they have of the hammering in advance, and I'm waiting to see all of that. But it's pretty clear that there were a long chain of failures in place, the problem now is to identify all of them so they can be corrected. This is of course being made as difficult as possible by BP and surprisingly the press isn't helping. >> I think in the end investment in the oil industry will be reduced, in part >> due to fears about this sort of thing happening again, and in part because of >> fears of added government regulation. But in the end, safety is just a part >> of the cost of doing business, and you can pay a little now or a lot later. > >It has nothing to do with safety. Nuclear energy was much much safer >after Three Mile Island and Nuclear has probably always been safer than >oil exploration and still no one was willing to invest. It has to do >with perceived risks. The magnitude of the potential risk and liability >of the investors in oil exploration just got a major revision. Possibly to the point where they might become a bit more realistic about things. Too long the oil industry has been considered some sort of magic scheme that creates money out of nothing. It's not that way, it has severe risks and liabilities like everything else in this world. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Jul 2010 13:48
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:25:33 -0500, hls wrote: > > "Hachiroku ハチロク" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:5nu_n.11313 >> >> The rig passed a safety inspection with flying colors months before the >> explosion. > > This was not a rig safety problem.. > > It arose because of technically questionable (well, no longer > questionable, I guess) operational factors. > > For example, your car could pass a safety inspection, but you could drive > recklessly > and kill a bunch of people, destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of > property, etc. > > The fault here, IMO, lies at the feet of BP. > > Obama, though I detest his administration's methods, cannot be blamed for > this. Of course he can! They blamed Bush for Katrina. |