Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety, do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?

I would hope at this point, that the companies would work together to end this nightmare....this is practically a world war effort they are doing here....every single company needs to work together or this may never end...

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety, do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?

I think that's a good question and that's where all of this headed. On one hand, Sunoco and Exxon can't start running ads about how much safer they are than BP in terms of drilling. That just won't fly, but they can start some internal campaigns and double down on saftey standards and let the watchdog groups and the EPA vouch for them.

As far as helping out, yeah, I would stay away from that too unless the government mandated it, which I doubt they will. Simply because I wouldn't want my company's name attached in any way, shape, or form to this incident in the smallest way. Let BP own this 100% from start to finish. I will say this though, if the other to oil giants get involved, it should be with the clean-up effort ONLY. I would ensure that oil has been stopped 100% before we start with the clean-up effort.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

im no business attorney but from an elementary stand point, LLCs and what not protect the individual assets of the corporation's CEO, president etc from lawsuits that arise from their corporate activities. (you cant take BP's ceo's mansion for an oil spill)

im sure some people alot smarter than me can come up with something. cmaybe you can you attach a judgment to the ceo's mansion if his decisions and actions rise to a level of reckless endangerment (not complying with safety regs and employees are killed).

if a metro bus driver rear ends you, you can sue WMATA and the bus driver.

if a metro bus driver punches you in the face, you can sue the bus driver but you cant sue WMATA b/c punching people in the face is not within the course and scope of employment as a bus driver.

maybe, somehow, it can be shown that BP's ceo punched someone in the face (disregarding and covering up safety hazards which results in foreseeable deaths is not within the corporate activity of drilling and refining oil?)

Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

Piercing the corporate shield to impose personal liability is difficult and should be so. However, it can be done. I think this is one of those situations where it should be made perfectly clear to BP executives that, unless it changes its tune, the Feds and States are going to be looking awfully hard to pierce the corporate veil in order to impose personal liability and criminal penalties.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

Piercing the corporate shield to impose personal liability is difficult and should be so. However, it can be done. I think this is one of those situations where it should be made perfectly clear to BP executives that, unless it changes its tune, the Feds and States are going to be looking awfully hard to pierce the corporate veil in order to impose personal liability and criminal penalties.

Good luck trying to convince Rand Paul and the Tea Party revolution to do that. They are gonna take the House and Senate. If you take a long hard look Republicans and Democrats are falling to the Tea Party. They operate on principle. They would never vote for this on principle alone. It will never happen because in November we all can do whatever we want and pay no taxes.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think that's a good question and that's where all of this headed. On one hand, Sunoco and Exxon can't start running ads about how much safer they are than BP in terms of drilling. That just won't fly, but they can start some internal campaigns and double down on saftey standards and let the watchdog groups and the EPA vouch for them.

As far as helping out, yeah, I would stay away from that too unless the government mandated it, which I doubt they will. Simply because I wouldn't want my company's name attached in any way, shape, or form to this incident in the smallest way. Let BP own this 100% from start to finish. I will say this though, if the other to oil giants get involved, it should be with the clean-up effort ONLY. I would ensure that oil has been stopped 100% before we start with the clean-up effort.

Not sure I agree. There certainly is the risk of being tainted with BP's foul ups. On the other hand, as CRedskin pointed out, there would be a serious financial incentive to be the team that comes up with some technological breakthrough that resolves this mess (Just a thought: A government incentive for the company that finds a way to stop the leak or expedite clean up?). There could be some serious upside to the company that stops the leak - both from a purely financial/technological stance and from a public perception basis.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Seriously though, it's a tragedy. There is nothing we can do about it. When Shell Oil built a pipeline through the water supply of a Nigerian village people laughed. When BP used to be Anglo-Iranian Oil and assasinated Iran's democratically elected president because he wanted to turn a 85-15 split to 65-45, no one cared. When they charged us 4 dollars a gallon and made 500 billion dollars in profits in one quarter we didn't care. When we invaded Iraq and they thought they were gonna build a pipeline from and independent Kurdistan to Israel we saw dollar signs. Now it's our turn and we can't do anything about it unless we fundamentally change our country. Is that we want to do now? We play ignorant, we knew BP was crooked. Stop fronting!!!!!

You do realize your factual claims are just more fodder for my laughter? Just so we're clear - based on you posting history, no factual claim you make is worth reading other than for pure entertainment value.

But for Friday afternoon reading, they certainly are entertaining!! Thanks again!

[CRedskinsRule]

YahooNews

UPDATE: #Obama says after #oilspill briefing: `It seems like we're making progress' (AP) 2 minutes ago via TweetDeck

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Good luck trying to convince Rand Paul and the Tea Party revolution to do that. They are gonna take the House and Senate. If you take a long hard look Republicans and Democrats are falling to the Tea Party. They operate on principle. They would never vote for this on principle alone. It will never happen because in November we all can do whatever we want and pay no taxes.

How can I even argue with such stunning logic! I can't, I concede! Overwhelming brilliance and rationality on display once more! The Tea Party will reign b/c the vast majority of the U.S. population is just not as smart as you. Please, please, save us from ourselves JTF!!

[CRedskinsRule]

What JoeRedskin wrote:

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You do realize your factual claims are just more fodder for my laughter? Just so we're clear - based on you posting history, no factual claim you make is worth reading other than for pure entertainment value.

But for Friday afternoon reading, they certainly are entertaining!! Thanks again!

What JTF read and comprehended:

You do realize [blah blah blah] Thanks again!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

STFU and stay as far away from this as possible, all while conducting a serious and thorough internal review of all corporate safety procdures/policies in place.

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety

No, because the same thing could happen to any other company. And Exxon certainly won't say a word. People who live in glass houses....

do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?

No. If I'm another oil company I only get involved if requested and contracted by the U.S. Gov't.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

dang it, nobody has liked my analogies this week. i battle WMATA and their "king can do wrong" soveriegn immunity all the time. currently they are claiming that they are not liable for a finger being cut off b/c of a broken gate/fence b/c get this . . .. .

the decision to put up or not put up a fence/gate was discretionary and therefore they are immune. they could have put up a fence, they could not have put up a fence, in their discretion they decided to put up a fence.

alos that the maintenance and repair of a fence on their property is not a proprietary function. really? you claiming the maintenacne of a fence on your property is not "propritary" in nature?

reading companies making decisions based on weighing the ecomonic cost vs doign the right thing; you should read the complaint filed in response to the '09 train crash in which 9 people dies. it is brutal. WMATA is hopefully screwed. i hate those people. they literally did what you outlined in your greyhound BOD hypo.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Not sure I agree. There certainly is the risk of being tainted with BP's foul ups. On the other hand, as CRedskin pointed out, there would be a serious financial incentive to be the team that comes up with some technological breakthrough that resolves this mess (Just a thought: A government incentive for the company that finds a way to stop the leak or expedite clean up?). There could be some serious upside to the company that stops the leak - both from a purely financial/technological stance and from a public perception basis.

That scenario is very unlikely to happen in the next 90 days, in my opinion. Besides BP has already offered $500 million over a ten year period to study the impact on the environment and how the oil industry could respond better. So if the answer is out there, there's one helluva reward to figure it out.

I think there's more risk for a corporation to get involved with the "answer, have that fail than not getting involved at all. There's no silver bullet answer at this point. Much of this would have been avoided had the relief wells been in place along with the original pipeline to anticipate this disaster. At this point, it's a race against the clock and keeping our fingers crossed.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

That scenario is very unlikely to happen in the next 90 days, in my opinion. Besides BP has already offered $500 million over a ten year period to study the impact on the environment and how the oil industry could respond better. So if the answer is out there, there's one helluva reward to figure it out.

I think there's more risk for a corporation to get involved with the "answer, have that fail than not getting involved at all. There's no silver bullet answer at this point. Much of this would have been avoided had the relief wells been in place along with the original pipeline to anticipate this disaster. At this point, it's a race against the clock and keeping our fingers crossed.

Agreed. I also think SS33 nailed it too. I was just thinking out loud - I'll stop now as that just causes my head to hurt and irratation to those around me.

[mlmpetert]

I thought this was pretty interesting. I guess when you hear largest American oil spill with Exxon Valdez you kind of associate it with maybe being one of biggest oil spills ever, simply because America is the largest user of oil.


The Exxon Valdez, the tanker responsible for the worst oil spill in American history [...] will likely surprise you to know that the Valdez spill was actually only the 34th largest oil spill in history.
These ten oil spills, all massively larger than the Exxon Valdez, were all smaller new stories, either because the ships were offshore, or dropped their toxic loads in less developed parts of the world. The Valdez spilled 10 million gallons off the coast of Alaska, the smallest spill in the top ten was four times larger.
· Kuwait - 1991- 520 million gallons
Iraqi forces opened the valves of several oil tankers in order to slow the invasion of American troops. The oil slick was four inches thick and covered 4000 square miles of ocean.
· Mexico - 1980- 100 million gallonsAn accident in an oil well caused an explosion which then caused the well to collapse. The well remained open, spilling 30,000 gallons a day into the ocean for a full year. (This is the subject of the story above)
· Trinidad and Tobago - 1979 - 90 million gallonsDuring a tropical storm off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago, a Greek oil tanker collided with another ship, and lost nearly its entire cargo.
· Russia - 1994 - 84 million gallonsA broken pipeline in Russia leaked for eight months before it was noticed and repaired.
· Persian Gulf - 1983 - 80 million gallonsA tanker collided with a drilling platform which, eventually, collapsed into the sea. The well continued to spill oil into the ocean for seven months before it was repaired.
· South Africa - 1983 - 79 million gallonsA tanker cought fire and was abandoned before sinking 25 miles off the coast of Saldanha Bay.
· France - 1978 - 69 million gallonsA tanker's rudder was broken in a severe storm, despite several ships responding to its distress call, the ship ran aground and broke in two. It's entire payload was dumped into the English Channel.
· Angola - 1991 - more than 51 million gallonsThe tanker expolded, exact quantity of spill unknown
· Italy - 1991 - 45 million gallonsThe tanker exploded and sank off the coast of Italy and continued leaking it's oil into the ocean for 12 years.
· Odyssey Oil Spill - 1988 - 40 million gallons
700 nautical miles off the cost of Nova Scotia.

[mlmpetert]

Also a good artical that offers a somewhat optimistic view. You need a subscription so I posted it:

Experts seek to learn from similar blowout

By Javier Blas, Commodities Correspondent
Published: June 1 2010 05:59 | Last updated: June 1 2010 05:59

As BP struggles to contain the leaking Macondo oil well, engineers, policymakers and environmentalists are looking south in the Gulf of Mexico to a similar accident three decades ago for clues about solutions and the long-term damage from the spill.

The parallels are striking. In June 1979, Petróleos Mexicanos’ exploration well Ixtoc 1 suffered a massive blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, about 600 miles south of Houston. The uncontrolled well gushed oil and gas for nine months and 22 days, spilling about 3.3m barrels of crude until it was finally capped in March 1980.

The episode sets a sombre precedent because it shows that oil companies struggle with underwater blowouts. On the surface, Ixtoc 1 was an easier problem than Macondo: the Mexican well lay under just 150ft of water while BP’s oilfield is about 5,000ft down. But engineers say that, taking into account the differences in technology, Ixtoc was probably as difficult to tackle as Macondo is today.

Drawing conclusions from other accidents, the Obama administration and BP have warned that the Macondo leak could continue for months.
Tony Hayward, BP’s chief executive, said over the weekend there was no doubt that “the ultimate solution lies on the relief well, which is in August”.

Carlos Morales, Pemex head of exploration, is sharing technical information with BP about the spill, the Mexican oil company said. Mr Morales has warned that it could take “four to five months” for a relief well to cap the spill.

As with BP in the current crisis, Pemex tried everything two decades ago, from the conventional to the radical, in its effort to contain the spill. Its efforts ranged from a cap or funnel above the well, or sombrero which largely failed, to pumping mud and debris in a “top kill” and “junk shoot” manoeuvre – a partial success – to relief wells.

The failure of the blowout preventer was critical – another parallel between the two incidents. After the blowout, Pemex tried to close the BOP by pumping in seawater, drilling fluids and chunks of rubber. For three hours, the operation was a success. But shortly afterwards, there was a large rupture underneath the BOP, according to the report “Ixtoc 1, Blowout and Control Operation” by Oscar Luis Ulloa and Ignacio Osorio, of Halliburton de México and Pemex, respectively.

“In view of this, it was decided to drill two directional wells in order to pump fluids to the formation and bring the well under control,” they wrote in their study, considered one of the best accounts of the incident.
“The drilling of the control wells Ixtoc 1-A and Ixtoc 1-B ... brought about the final plug operation.”

Beyond the parallels in dealing with the blowout, Ixtoc offers policymakers and scientists clues about the effects of the spill on the economy and the environment.

Surprisingly, marine life recovered swiftly from the spill.
Arne Jernelov, an expert on environmental catastrophes who studied Ixtoc, says that in the case of Macondo, it is a safe bet that shrimp and squid populations will suffer, as they did in the Ixtoc case, “but so is a close-to-complete recovery within a limited number of years”.
Other scientists who studied Ixtoc concluded that the recovery of marine life was in part due to the fact that a large amount of oil evaporated, dissolved in the hot waters of the Gulf of Mexico or sunk into the seabed, forming sediment. The studies were, however, largely supported by Pemex and the Mexican government 20 years ago, so it is impossible to ascertain their independence.

The Mexican Institute of Petroleum concluded in a report after the accident that Ixtoc’s crude oil broke down due to the effect of sunlight, hot water and weather conditions. “The tar oil landing on the beaches is largely innocuous,” it said.

The Ixtoc case also offers a warning about the potential cost of compensation claims. Oil from the Mexican well reached Texas, polluting beaches and hitting the US fishing and tourism industries, according to a report published at the time by the US interior department.
Washington asked for financial compensation from Pemex, but the Mexican government rejected the claim. The precedent could prove important if the Macondo spill continues for months and the oil reaches Mexico or Cuba.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a13b73e-6d31-11df-921a-00144feab49a.html