…and this is a 
British Petroleum isn't so awful after all — it turns out that they have an almost 600 page long emergency response plan to deal with blowouts on their offshore oil wells. All the answers are in there, and I'm sure that they'll soon be implemented. You can read those plans yourself and feel the warm glow of confidence that all is in good hands.
Lists "Sea Lions, Seals, Sea Otters [and] Walruses" as "Sensitive Biological Resources" in the Gulf, suggesting that portions were cribbed from previous Arctic exploratory planning;
Gives a web site for a Japanese home shopping site as the link to one of its "primary equipment providers for BP in the Gulf of Mexico Region [for]rapid deployment of spill response resources on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis"; and
Directs its media spokespeople to never make "promises that property, ecology, or anything else will be restored to normal," implying that BP will only commit candor by omission.
I have reviewed the plan myself. It's amazing.
The walruses in the Gulf of Mexico are all safe. I repeat, the walruses are safe. This part of their plan was executed perfectly. We have to give them credit here.
The site for primary equipment providers is extremely technical, and it's also almost entirely in Japanese, so I'm afraid I can't extract all the details. It does say in English "@nifty" on many of the pages, and nifty sounds like exactly the quality I want in my industrial gear. I think this is a picture of the rapid response team, dressed for deployment to the warm Gulf waters:
I poked around a bit and found this cryptic diagram of a mysterious machine of some sort. I'm pretty sure it's the device that will be lowered deep into the ocean to seal off the gushing wellhead. It is in Japanese, so I can't tell how it will work, but it definitely looks nifty.
That third part of the plan is also a whopping success. Candor is completely absent. BP's CEO, Tony Hayward, has in fact done a sterling job of being an unctuous, lying ass, saying that the spill will have only a "very, very modest" impact on the environment, and doing a fabulous job of trying to get his life back.
One other relevant point is that they do list worst case scenarios for various wells, and they're spot on. The worst-case oil spill for any well is the sum of the amount of oil in various flow lines plus one day's output from the well, and I'm sure it would be accurate if, as they assume, every catastrophic failure were quickly fixed within one day. Or in some cases, the well is simply instantly shut off. That it's been flowing for 7 weeks instead of a single day is a fairly trivial difference, and even that estimates are in the range of 20 million barrels lost instead of the predicted 20 thousand barrels, is easily explained if we simply assume that there are creationists in charge of the schedule. We can even estimate when the pipe will be closed by simply using the kind of creationist math with which I am familiar, so we can be confident that the gusher will end within 134 years.
I think we can safely say that BP's response to this disaster has been as effective as promised in their official response plan, filed almost a year ago. It is so eerily accurate I'm almost ready to credit them with psychic powers. They have the competence of a Sylvia Browne, the infallibility of the Pope, the steely-eyed acumen of Pat Robertson, and the forthright honesty of a Republican senator's opposition to gay marriage.
I shall sleep well tonight in the knowledge that industry has prepared many such environmental response plans.
Environment
Comments
Posted by: Galactus35
|
June 8, 2010 5:30 PM
I hope the equipment provider site is a joke....please let it be a joke.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 8, 2010 5:33 PM
Joke? What joke? That's the url given in the documents: msrc.com/Equipment.htm. It sure sounds like they sell Equipment of some sort.
And I bet you can get to the website 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
Posted by: rob
|
June 8, 2010 5:33 PM
they screwed the gulf. let's screw them.
don't buy bp gasoline.
Posted by: Galactus35
|
June 8, 2010 5:34 PM
So do they plan to stuff the busted well with Pocky and Pokemon figurines?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 8, 2010 5:37 PM
Why, that adorable little vending machine looks just the thing to get it all cleaned up! How can these people even show their faces? They know no shame, apparently.
Posted by: raven
|
June 8, 2010 5:40 PM
The picture of their equipment provider isn't too promising. The girl is holding some sort of pet but it isn't clear if it is a dog, cat, or fox.
What if the gulf emergency response team needs a cat and the Japanese company sends a dog instead? That could slow things down by weeks.
FWIW, a few days after the explosion, I talked to a long time oil industry executive (about something else). He said BP was notorious in the industry for sloppiness and incompetence and if was going to happen to anyone, it would be BP. Guess he is right.
Posted by: amphiox
|
June 8, 2010 5:40 PM
BP needs to be judicially bankrupted.
Corporations are considered persons under the law, right? They get all the rights and privileges, so its high time they get held to the same level of responsibility. The crime occurred on U.S. soil, and the U.S. has capital punishment. This is the corporate equivalent of a captial crime.
BP needs to cease to exist.
Posted by: eigenperson
|
June 8, 2010 5:44 PM
#6: That sounds like the amazing wisdom of hindsight to me.
Posted by: nejishiki
|
June 8, 2010 5:45 PM
They'll clean up that oil with lolita-fetish Body Pillows.
Kawaii, ne!?
Posted by: raven
|
June 8, 2010 5:48 PM
Well this is no doubt one of the largest ecological disasters in history. Like watching a huge slow motion train wreck.
But how does anyone stop a runaway oil well a mile deep in the ocean?
No point in asking BP, they don't know.
The federal government doesn't know.
The xians are asking god. Despite being the all knowing supernatural being, not expecting an answer soon...or ever.
So who does know? Near as I can tell, no one has any idea what to do. Maybe if they drill some more wells to intercept the old one and divert the oil, that will work. But one doesn't drill wells in a mile of water very quickly.
Posted by: Givesgoodemail
|
June 8, 2010 5:48 PM
I thought the idea of a $1 billion/day fine for BP was a good idea.
Now I think BP ought to stuff Tony Hayward down the pipe to see if he and his hot air might stop the flow.
Posted by: Phil G
|
June 8, 2010 5:49 PM
But it wasn't BP. They only provided the platform. It was Simon Cowell who took the risks and stood to make the most profit. If the X factor reserves are offset against the actual loss and the TV rights are factored in, then it will all be ok.
Posted by: frisbeetarian
|
June 8, 2010 6:00 PM
We'll have to seize BP's assets just like any other terrorist organization or else they'll just declare bankruptcy and walk away with some little fine.
Posted by: Shadow
|
June 8, 2010 6:01 PM
#7: I agree -- it also shouldn't be limited to BP.
Corporate personhood should be eliminated.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
June 8, 2010 6:02 PM
Hmm. Maybe they figured Superman would be unavailable, so decided that all the super hero like Anime characters would be available to fix the problem. Or.. they got the address wrong, while trying to contact Godzilla. lol
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 8, 2010 6:03 PM
Guys, guys, guys: chill out. BP has it all under control. It's not in BP's rational self-interest to muck up the Gulf, so it didn't happen. See, Michael Shermer explains how it works, using pirates as an example. Clearly, this oil spill is just BP talking up its 'street cred'.
Anyways, I know this emergency response plan looks odd to us, but that's only because we've been relying on the nanny state so long that we don't even recognize true, entrepreneurial innovation. Why, with the right incentives, I wouldn't be surprised if some bright young thing soon invents a new and improved Gulf of Mexico.
Posted by: Foggg
|
June 8, 2010 6:07 PM
Given the MMS staffed with Cheney ex-aides and ex-oil company employees, it's amazing the report wasn't filled with hentai p0rn and job offers for MMS family members.
It might have been read.
Posted by: G.D.
|
June 8, 2010 6:09 PM
Raven #6:
I think you show, in an excellent manner, why this kind of shit is bound to happen again and again and again (unless your post was a poe?). If your executive friend had said it some days before the explosion, it might have been worth something. But a few days after? I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
June 8, 2010 6:17 PM
don't buy bp gasoline.
I'm not sure that not buying at BP gas stations would help screw the corporation much. I don't know what the franchise deal with BP is, but many BP gas stations might be independently owned and use BP as their contracted source of fuel. If an independent owner has been using BP as its supplier, then some economic pressure might be useful.
If there is any kind of boycott, BP may just close their retail end and act as a supplier for other oil companies. I'm sure Exxon or Shell would be happy to have an additional source without having to do the exploration and drilling.
One thing that Rachel Maddow has been saying and blogging is that all the while the oil companies have been making record profits, virtually none of it has gone to research remediation of oil spills. All of the technology is 20+ years old, with most of it at least 30 years old. It's past time for the whole industry to make a significant contribution towards ameliorating their messes. BP in particular, since it is a **person**, should be held in some way criminally responsible. That means that subpoenas should be flying out of the Justice Department and investigators should be combing through the records of the company. This should have been done long ago, since BP haws been responsible for about 97% of the infractions in the oil refining industry. Once that has been done, they will have to build a new federal prison. There's gotta be evidence from a number of sources of willful disregard for safety.
Posted by: dominicjh
|
June 8, 2010 6:19 PM
Re #7: Don't think you need to to bother with judicial bankruptcy for BP, just keep them to their publically made commitment to remediate the whole Gulf and BP will spend every penny they have ever or will ever earn. They are already spending vastly more than any likely fine.
Posted by: windy
|
June 8, 2010 6:22 PM
Should we go glue tusks on the manatees...?
I forget where I read the explanation but they screwed up the url, it should have been www.msrc.org (=actual oil spill cleanup site). Even so, apparently no one checked before approving this plan...
Posted by: dominicjh
|
June 8, 2010 6:24 PM
Hey, what happened there, I've got a real name for an ID, not googledegook.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 8, 2010 6:26 PM
Hah! But msrc.org doesn't have that nifty blue unidentifiable gadget, and in fact, doesn't use the word "nifty" even once.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 8, 2010 6:28 PM
good luck with that. if you use any oil products at all, it's likely you buy BP somewhere down the line.Posted by: willbxtn
|
June 8, 2010 6:29 PM
The 'B' in 'BP' is making it increasingly embarrassing to tell people my nationality.
Oil companies - now with an even lower reputation than before! I was unaware that was physically possible...
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 8, 2010 6:31 PM
actually, this "don't buy bt gasoline" thing reminded me of a discussion i once had with a bunch of people about synthetic vs natural winter clothing. which now gives me visions of those anti-fur commercials, but as anti-oil-based synthetics ones ;-)
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 8, 2010 6:34 PM
bp* gasoline, that is. i'm not sure gasoline needs bt :-p
*and I wrote that as bt again, at first. wtf?
Posted by: jared.cormier
|
June 8, 2010 6:40 PM
At my blag, I discussed "the cause" (there were literally dozens) and what the consequences should be, I doubt my ideas will be looked at seriously, but since (as someone has mentioned already) corporations are persons under the law, I see no reason for BP to not be held criminally liable for any of these cases of negligence.
dominicjh, you underestimate just how much BP makes; on the order of $16 billion/year in profit after taxes, interest, etc. Every fisherman-fuck, every person-in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (and all in the Florida panhandle) could receive $1,000/year and the BP still wouldn't go bankrupt, that's their break-even point. BP's gross revenue is on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. It's a very large corporation, and it became so by cutting corners on safety, environmental precautions, and equipment maintenance.
Here's my remedy suggestion (from my blag):
BP is required to pay out of pocked for the entire cost of clean-up. BP is not allowed to produce this well or sell any of the crude which is recovered from the cleanup. Instead, another company should be given this well and the oil salvaged; the company which receives this gift should be the one(s) with the best environmental and safety record. Half of the profit from this well and the oil from the cleanup should go to the states affected by this spill. (The remaining half, of course, goes to the company that takes environmental and personnel safety seriously).
An additional point which should be made; since it was negligence on the part of BP, all assets of this organization within the United States should be seized and auctioned.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey
|
June 8, 2010 6:42 PM
http://msrc.com is a dead domain. The japanese stuff looks like an advertiser squating on the address. http://msrc.org looks more likely.
Simple typo to make. But if it's your emergancy contact list you should really double check it. This is like putting in the wrong area code for an emergancy contact number.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
June 8, 2010 7:02 PM
Britain needs a new song.
Hail Britania ! Is bad PR.
Hail Deutchland! - Nah, copyright infringement.
Hail U.S. Jr! - Nah, that's already been taken by Canada.
Hail United Kingom! - Well, it's not really a big change and it doesn't flow off the tongue but it's my vote.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/06/catholic-cleanerupper-man-ii.html
Posted by: Dan
|
June 8, 2010 7:12 PM
Well, not to cut them any slack, but at the time the plan was written, and up to at least Mar 16, 2008, mrsc.com did look like mrsc.org.
see Wayback Machine
This does not, in any way, lessen the comedic (as in tragic) value of the "new site."
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
June 8, 2010 7:13 PM
Oh thank goodness, the Gulf walruses are safe!
Posted by: Mixolydian
|
June 8, 2010 7:17 PM
To clarify, Nifty Corporation is a major ISP in Japan owned by Fujitsu. The company was originally called NIF (Network Information Forum) but later changed its name to Nifty because it sounds nifty! The broken link redirects to their web portal.
That "mysterious machine" is a vending machine for capsule toys known as Gachapon and is unrelated to Nifty.
Posted by: Teshi
|
June 8, 2010 7:31 PM
Good news!
is hiring and has been hiring since April 5th, so I guess they're on the case.Posted by: Teshi
|
June 8, 2010 7:36 PM
Oops,that was intended to be this link.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 8, 2010 7:37 PM
Sacrifices to Poseidon have not yet been tried.
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe
|
June 8, 2010 7:45 PM
I hear BP is watching the first season of MacGyver for some ideas.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 8, 2010 7:50 PM
Irony: is it dead?
Maybe a junkshot of irony?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/CmcUpM0h2eQXK59uQE5a80Vb74cwyvFNMMk-#20c72
|
June 8, 2010 8:19 PM
Not to worry; most of us here in 'Merica won't pile the blame of an oil company on its citizens/ex-pats/transplants, etc.
We have a bunch of oil companies of our own, you know, not to mention the other fossil fuel digger-uppers. All of which are wiping their collective brows and thinking 'there but for the grace of gawd go we'
- dwarf zebu
Posted by: Scorpy1
|
June 8, 2010 8:20 PM
Now I know where they got the inspiration for those cutesy ads a few years back:
Safety is not guaranteed...
Posted by: alglyn
|
June 8, 2010 8:22 PM
The important thing is that we learn from our mistakes and truly aspire to do better. It would be awful if those involved just did the PR dance until the next catastrophe arrived to push them off the headline and then carried on doing exactly the same ... wouldn't it? Thanks to ProfMTH and Rachel Maddow for showing us what to expect from the oil companies (again... and again...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPbUrB0moUA
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 8, 2010 8:31 PM
There is not enough facepalm in the world.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 8, 2010 8:35 PM
Dammit! I cannot tell you how many hours I've spent on our Incident Response plans, when I could have just cut & pasted BP's. The only difference I can see is that, being a community bank and all, we have either a federal or state regulatory exam every year, and they just might catch the bogosity. (bogitude?, bogalisciousness?)
Posted by: Utakata
|
June 8, 2010 8:46 PM
Thanks for the link, nejishiki @ 9. Haruhi Suzumiya doesn't get enough respect over here, IMO.
Posted by: amphiox
|
June 8, 2010 8:52 PM
Maybe so. But's it's the symbolism of the judicial bankrupcy that also matters. It's about time that precedent be set that corporate negligence should have real, legal consequences up to and including a judicially overseen complete destruction of the corporation, with attendent catastrophic financial loss to every shareholder involved. Every corporate board member should have that in mind the next time they consider their "sole obligation to produce a profit for their shareholders".
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 8, 2010 9:01 PM
... And this constitutes an an informal trackback.
... Since standard trackbacks never seem to work here, probably because PZ's system gets the hell spammed out of it, like everyone else's.
(/Shakes fist at spammers.)
Posted by: robertdw
|
June 8, 2010 9:07 PM
Applying massive fines to BP will either:
a) not really hurt it; or
b) drive it bankrupt
In the event of driving it bankrupt, they'll spin off all the good assets into another company, leaving the debt and obligations behind. You know they'll find a way to do that legally.
In either case, the _people_ behind this won't be hurt. You need to target criminal felony charges at the people. Starting at BP's CEO and all of the directors (including the non-executive ones), and working down to the engineers who worked on the oil rig.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 8, 2010 9:09 PM
Just saw on CNN that cutting the pipe has actually made the spill much worse.
If they keep letting BP try to fix this, I fear for the Canary Islands.
Posted by: Bald Ape
|
June 8, 2010 9:11 PM
" That it's been flowing for 7 weeks instead of a single day is a fairly trivial difference, and even that estimates are in the range of 20 million barrels lost instead of the predicted 20 thousand barrels, is easily explained if we simply assume that there are creationists in charge of the schedule. "
I'm often annoyed when people give YEC's credit where none is due. This grossly understates how stupidly, ludicrously, and insanely WRONG creationists are: the proper comparison would be 20,000 barrels to 15 BILLION barrels, not 20 million.
Posted by: Jbags
|
June 8, 2010 10:06 PM
I'm tired of the "eliminate corporate personhood" slogans that get bandied about.
Limiting liability is absolutely fundamental to encourage people to start up businesses. At the other end of the giant spectrum - giants like BP - these companies can make mistakes that have global ramifications yes, but the way to punish them is not to get vindictive and start taking money from people.
If they have been criminally negligent, then they deserve a jail sentence or they will at least be fined. If not, vindictiveness will get us nowhere.
The corporation will be punished by this mistake, have you seen its share price lately? No doubt there will be redundancies and restructuring. Just because you don't see a head on a spike over outside the tower of london, doesn't mean no one is held accountable.
Posted by: CW
|
June 8, 2010 10:24 PM
Well, isn't that a coincidence? I'm rather tired of the inane suggestion that the only possible way to limit liability is to grant unfettered personhood to multinational profit-engines.It's not a slogan, it's an imperative. Corporate personhood is needs to go.
Posted by: Jbags
|
June 8, 2010 10:35 PM
Its as fantastical an idea as "return to the gold standard" which is also head-in-the-clouds bizarre.
I whole-heartedly agree that there needs to be accountability for MNCs, but it has to be done in the real world, with real policy tools. Eliminating corporate personhood is no answer at all; cutting off your nose to spite your face.
There's a real issue here, going to extremes is not helpful.
Posted by: Gliewmeden
|
June 8, 2010 11:22 PM
Ok. I’m getting cranky. This BP issue is NOT about “Big Bad Oil”. This is about you and me and world traveller PZ, and our everyday lifestyle.
We drive cars, heat homes, light homes, use plastic products (check your shampoo bottle, zip loc bag, grocery bag, children’s toys, et al.) EVERY amenity we cherish comes from our addiction to oil.
“Big Oil” does nothing more than supply all of these luxury items for us.
If you really want to hurt BP, quit driving your car, lighting/heating your house, quit purchasing your cool synthetic clothing. Any plastic water container in your hand, you are to blame. It is merely supply and demand.
35%+ CO2 emissions are caused by your cars.
PZ, (I love you dearly man…read you every morning) park your ass, quit globe trotting, and do your “preaching” from home. You/we have the web capability! (I know, the camaraderie is invaluable. I agree. However….)
Everyone, look in the mirror and fix YOUR “big bad oil” use first.
I am in the middle of a home renovation: vinyl windows here. For others, it is vinyl siding. And, every water bottle! Just ban these already!
I challenge those of you who whine about this disaster (although I need to see the issue resolved quickly and the culprits of the blowout dealt with severely) to take a good look around you and see how you can put BP and every other supplier of your lifestyle out of business. Until you can honestly deal with your own supply/demand addiction, just shush or get real!!!
Posted by: bcoppola
|
June 8, 2010 11:33 PM
The original limited conception of corporate personhood for the sake of liability and contract law is not at issue for those of us who advocate the revocation of corporate personhood; it is the concept that corporations have many of the same legal and (in the US) constitutional rights as natural persons, i.e., humans. This latter conception is the basis for much of their disproportionate political power as I and others see it.
Corporations should not have "free speech" rights, or the right to contribute to candidates or lobby. Those rights should be limited to natural persons.
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
June 8, 2010 11:43 PM
Gliewmeden #53:
Like many of us don't do that already. I've never owned a car, I rent one when I absolutely must - that happens maybe once every two or three years. I never fly. I spend less than 100 € per year for clothing; hell, I live with less than 10,000 € per year and somehow I manage. I guess that's something like $12,000 today.
Maybe you should also stop blaming others and take a good look at your own consumption habits.
Posted by: CW
|
June 8, 2010 11:44 PM
I do not propose that we eliminate legal entities but the notion that such entities are persons, foolish enough at its inception, has become ever more pernicious with time. If you want to talk about bizarre and self destructive you need look no further than Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 8, 2010 11:51 PM
@ 53,
And this has what exactly to do with BP shortcutting security and safety regulations and having no proper strategy to deal with adverse events like say, exploding oil rigs?
Posted by: Jbags
|
June 8, 2010 11:56 PM
I agree it has had some painful ramifications. In particular, entitling corporations to contribute to government campaigns and so on. By all means allow individuals within corporations to engage in politics, but allowing corporations as entities themselves to engage in politics is an exceedingly bad idea.
Limiting liability on the other hand, is a necessary mechanic. After all, without this, its shareholders who would liable when a company like BP makes an arse of things, and not the people who actually made the decisions - that surely is misplaced accountability.
We can clearly both agree there are problems with the current system, but aspects of it that are necessary. So, may I ask, in what way would removing corporate personhood improve the current situation with BP?
Posted by: spurrymoses
|
June 9, 2010 12:04 AM
The blue machine is yelling "Let's give it a try!"
The first word in the title states that it's free of charge.
And the instructions are to try turning (the handle).
Sounds promising.
Posted by: CW
|
June 9, 2010 12:08 AM
Oddly enough it turns out that they do a little more than that. Stuff like recycling big chunks of their obscene profits back intopurchasinglobbying the politicians and inspectors supposedly overseeing their actions on our behalf. Stuff like following Tobacco Road to the creation of the AGW denialism machine. Fortunately it turns out that letting reckless, rapacious multinational plunderers loose on the planet's ecosystem is not the only way to meet our energy needs.Posted by: Autumn
|
June 9, 2010 12:21 AM
"Limited liability" is, indeed, important in allowing companies to take risks, however, it refers to the financial liability, not the criminal liability. Shareholders will hopefully learn a lesson from losing the value of their poorly considered investments; the executives of the company, as well as the ability of any of them to ever serve in any executive capacity in any publicly traded entity, should be removed from society forever.
Posted by: LilPoppa
|
June 9, 2010 12:25 AM
BP should stick to pizza and pasta and leave the oil to the big boys.
Posted by: Autumn
|
June 9, 2010 12:28 AM
Oh, and as for the "boycott BP gas stations!" vibe: as someone who has worked at gas stations of many different brands, the name on the sign is no indication of where the fuel comes from. Follow a gas truck, one of the ones with a big old logo on it, around for a day.
When I worked at a BP-branded station, we got gas from a BP truck some days, a Chevron truck other days, and the situation would be reversed for the Chevron station across the street. And other days a Shell truck would service both stations.
The product of the refineries is sold to whoever is there to pick it up; it all has to meet the same standards to be called a certain octane, all the other bullshit is just marketers masturbating.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 9, 2010 12:30 AM
Right. So I own a hybrid and try to bike and walk a lot...
Buuutt while I do try to do things on the phone and over the net, I do also periodically fly for business purposes, at the insistence of my employer. Also, father, I have sinned: I also live in a cold climate, and as I am rather fond of not freezing to death, I do tend to heat my house, on and off... And while me and mine have this notion we'd like to set up some of our own solar stuff, take a little less from the generally coal-powered grid that way, we haven't got that done quite yet...
Sooo: am I sufficiently environmentally pure that I have your ever-so valued leave to comment upon BP's containment plan? Or should I move somewhere warmer, first, and 'shush' until then?
Somewhat more seriously: while it is absolutely valuable to encourage conservationism, suggesting PZ or anyone else cannot criticize BP's safety practices (or lack thereof) until they have met your personal standard for environmental responsibility is roughly as coherent as suggesting Al Gore's opinion on climate science may be ignored since he lives in a large house. Which is to say: not very.
Likewise: it is neither hypocritical nor irrational to use the existing transportation system and say you'd really rather the fuel for it be prospected and harvested with due care for the environment (or even that technological means to reducing its impact would be a wise thing to pursue). I would agree, again, as a general principle, that conservation is by far the best answer, and I'm also one who's pretty much certain there's no way in hell we can continue with our current habits and get to an energy economy we can sustain, technological fixes or no. But failing to meet some arbitrary standard in the conservation department does not mean by any means you must 'shush' about that or anything else. Especially, I might add, as CW points out in #60, about certain other stupid shit certain current oil companies do, as it doesn't so much seem to me that merely buying their gas is implicitly giving anyone carte blanche to douse searbirds in crude and fuck with responsible legislation to increase their own profit margins...
Hell, shushing anyone on that sort of thing is just about the last fucking thing on Earth I'd want to do. Not nearly enough people say nearly enough, loudly enough, if anything. Sure, saying to 'em at the same time: look, maybe you could fly less, okay, that's worth saying. But 'shush'? Not so much.
Arguing, finally, that 'demand made 'em do it', in my mind, rather dishonestly and inappropriately transfers responsibility. Demand absolutely must be reduced, as a general policy principle, but demand alone does not require they be such fucking idiots about what they do for a living. And it's perfectly appropriate to remind them of this, even as someone who does use what they make.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
June 9, 2010 12:31 AM
#59
But the note at the bottom seems a bit ominous - "normally one turn costs 20 coins" (are we talking in pieces of silver here I wonder?)...
Posted by: toth
|
June 9, 2010 12:46 AM
PZ, I must admit I'm really surprised at how supportive you're being of BP. I figured you'd be the first to...wait a minute. I see what you did here.
Posted by: Gliewmeden
|
June 9, 2010 1:00 AM
I am not in denial of my own use of oil/gas products. I am merely stating that the use of left wing whining is of no use.
We all need to yoik up our trousers and make sure we do our part. We've created our lifestyle and we're living it. I admire those who, as #55 does, walk the walk. I too do that whenever I can. I do not abuse my life in this time.
However, when one has choices to make whether to use up resources to heat a very old house or to renovate with newer innovations (don't like having frost on the inside of my closet doors, or ice on the inside of windows), one has few choices to decide on within one's budget.
It's a see-saw approach in this life.
My crank was merely that the pendulum gets swung to the "blame big oil" side versus changing the incentives and our mind set to create less use of "big oil" products.
Posted by: Gliewmeden
|
June 9, 2010 1:03 AM
@ 57
"And this has what exactly to do with BP shortcutting security and safety regulations and having no proper strategy to deal with adverse events like say, exploding oil rigs?"
I already said "I need to see the issue resolved quickly and the culprits of the blowout dealt with severely".
Posted by: Kagehi
|
June 9, 2010 1:15 AM
Moron logic - Finding that you have just bought furniture made from rotted and worm infested wood is the *your* fault, for wanting furniture, not theirs, for using substandard fracking lumber... Or, about 80 billion other similarly idiot arguments.
They didn't spend money of developing safety and cleanup systems, they lied in their documents, the bribed officials to ignore violations, under staff their rigs, put the wrong specialists on them for the job, etc. If **any** other fracking company did this, and you knew it, you wouldn't be whining about all the people that "over use" the resource, you would be calling them incompetent, idiots, and criminally dangerous. It would be like blaming car buyers for... say, a company making cars whose accelerators stick, not the engineers that made a mistake in the bloody design.
Then again, this is standard tactic in some minds. You get the same gibberish in the software industry, "Its the fault of all the people buying Windows without having any choice, not Microsoft, that 99% of the bots, zombies and viruses are on Windows machines!" What the hell is wrong with this country that some of us are more willing to believe the CEO of some multi-billion dollar company who, "Just wants his life back.", than arrest the bloody bastard for criminal negligence, bribing of state officials, and being a complete bloody idiot? Never mind. I know the answer - Big L Libertarianism.
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 9, 2010 1:19 AM
Is anyone else reminded of the part of Sea of Slaughter in which Farley Mowat claims walrus (and polar bear) ranged as far south as off-shore islands of New England, said islands serving as a breeding ground?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 9, 2010 1:19 AM
What you did was connect 2 unrelated topics, the oil spill in the Gulf and BPs failure to prevent it and now deal with it, and individual's use of oil as an energy source.
@ 64 said it best :
Posted by: monado
|
June 9, 2010 1:28 AM
It's a real problem trying to get corporations to review or even finish documents like emergency plans or planning documents required by their technology lifecycle methodology of choice. It's so much easier just to change the title on the first draft or the first document and call it done. Thus you get functional requirements masquerading as detailed design specifications and they are too vague to work with.
So they end up with a draft saying, "You'll really have to think about this and come up with some details and numbers," put together by some consultant who warns them that they have at least six months of planning meetings ahead to make it specific to them, and they relax without actually finishing it.
Posted by: negativezero
|
June 9, 2010 2:12 AM
The link you posted simply goes to a "page not found" site on Nifty - which is a Japanese webspace provider along the lines of Geocities or something - and redirects to its front page after a while. The image you posted is some ad for an online game of sorts appearing on that same front page.
The other image appears to depict some vending machine that you are allowed to "spin and try out for free" (it would normally cost a 20-yen coin). Frankly, the context on that puzzles me.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
June 9, 2010 3:17 AM
So what do you do if you're a multinational oil company and you accidentally pour untold millions of gallons of crude oil into the sea?... Of course, you buy the top spot on all the search engines you can, just so that the public can get the best information about what's happening (yours of course silly)!
There now, I'll bet everyone's comforted knowing BP's actually doing something... better now?
*spits in BP's general direction*
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 9, 2010 4:13 AM
#23
A definite drawback there...and well spotted!
#36
Might I suggest xians?
Especially the ones muttering total poppycock and gobblygook to invisible fantasy fairies... or no one in particular... except to out do other dingelberries to 'prove' their own egotistical holiness, as well as getting in the way of the clean up just to appear on telly to advertise their mediocre grasp of reality and denial of intelligence.
They would be more malleable then old car tyres and bits of plastic and it would clean up the environment no end.
Less oil and far less pointless human detritus.
I cannot, offhand, conclude a more appropriate reason to breath the air of rational folk other then providing stuffing to inconvenient geological features , like drill wells gone moody or volcanoes gone rogue.
A flotsam and jetsum of barking dingelberries that are really no use to anyone or anything deserve to be honoured in such a self sacrificing role, they can mutter inanity to their god on the way down, I am sure he will not let them down!
Start off with Pat Robinson for tone, then the ID guru's, work your way down the list...perfect!
Special sacrifices could be an RCC day...a pope, then a few cardinals for balance!
A few ecclesiastical paedophiles, a teabagger or ten!
Never so much pure entertainment to be had since the 'Amphitheatrum Flavium,' went bust!
Seems a solution made in heaven!
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 9, 2010 4:34 AM
In response to Brit's feeling rather ashamed of this company...don't be!
BR does not stand for British Petroleum anymore!
It is an empty logo 'bp' means nothing!
Certainly not 'British Petroleum'.
In fact the majority shareholders are a mish mash of American and Saudi/Kuwaiti bunnies with a few European interests..Queen Beatrice of the Netherlands is a major share holder here.
95% of bp's oil comes from American sources.
Kuwait owns a 27% stake...they sell original American drilled oil from US owned land back to the US at a profit!
It has an HQ in Blighty but only because the original BP company was bought our several years ago...the new owners just purloined the old infrastructure!
The company is not owned by British interests...simple like so!
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 9, 2010 4:36 AM
#76
'BR does not stand for British Petroleum anymore!'
Typo excuses...should be...
'BP does not stand for British Petroleum any-more!'
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
June 9, 2010 5:08 AM
Anubis Bloodsin III, King of Ellipsis Abuse.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 9, 2010 5:16 AM
#78
Walton at least I own and accept my own challenges.
What exactly is your excuse?
Posted by: Donald Oats
|
June 9, 2010 5:21 AM
Tony "@nifty" Hayward; yeah, it could be that the CEO's nickname is "Nifty". The "@" symbol is probably just some Internet Age gag thing, maybe an in-joke about Nifty's inability to master email, or maybe it's just there because the Japanese made an error in translation. Whatever... :-)
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
June 9, 2010 5:27 AM
I was just teasing... I pointed out my own over-use of ellipses (...) in posts the other day, but today I noticed that you were winning on that front, as you use about a hundred of them in every post. :-D
It wasn't intended as a serious criticism. Just a joke.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
June 9, 2010 5:53 AM
#81
Accepted as such, and the remedial medication is helping but the therapy not so much!
But you are correct, and it is a habit I am trying to quit but the addiction is such a harsh mistress!
It is the way I compile the rants, the ellipses is only indicative of my own textual pauses trying to collect what random thoughts happen to be orbiting!
I even irritate myself with the nonsense. ;-)
Posted by: MikeInJapan
|
June 9, 2010 6:20 AM
@Nifty is a Japanese ISP. I use them actually, you can probably check the logs to confirm that.
The msrc.com link goes to a dead page which is redirected back to @Nifty. I'm pretty sure that @Nifty has nothing to do with BP other than having previously hosted the site of one of their suppliers.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
June 9, 2010 6:45 AM
Rorschach
Everyone, look in the mirror and fix YOUR “big bad oil” use first.
And this has what exactly to do with BP shortcutting security and safety regulations and having no proper strategy to deal with adverse events like say, exploding oil rigs?
It has everything to do with it! We are at Peak Oil, the easy oil is gone, yet our infinite economic growth paradigm (religion in my opinion) forces us to keep pushing the envelope to try for the ever more difficult to get or more environmentally detrimental sources of fossil fuel. It costs more and more to extract oil from these sources. The financial incentive is huge and the pressure to cut corners enormous.
To get a better idea as to why this is the case read these posts at The Oil Drum. http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/overview
Disclaimer: To be clear none of the petroleum engineers, geologists, engineers, scientists including marine biologists, legal experts, politicians and the general public who post and comment on the site have lost any love on BP and the consensus is they have once again committed criminal negligence and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
That having been said, anyone who lives in a western economy, most especially anyone who lives in the USA is indeed part of the problem. The US uses approximately 20 mbd of oil every day, to put that in perspective the entire world uses about 85 mbd. The US comprises less than 5% of global population, you do the math.
BTW a word to all you armchair quarterbacks who want a quick technical solution to the problem of sealing this well and are ranting and raving about BP or the Government not acting quickly enough. There isn't any such solution. The only thing that will work for sure is drilling a successful relief. If you really want to do something useful then pressure your congress critters to force BP and the government to start at least two more relief wells to better the odds in case the two in progress encounter problems.
And cross your fingers really really hard we do not have an early hurricane in the Gulf.
Posted by: Spiro Keat
|
June 9, 2010 7:33 AM
BP was "British Petroleum", it is now and has been for years a global company called "BP"
Would it not be an idea to legislate to force oil companies to pay into a fund, as has been proposed for the banks, to pay for research into new technology in the industry.
This could be also used to compensate for the damage caused by their cavalier attitude towards the environment.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
June 9, 2010 7:52 AM
The blue machine illustrated in PZ's post turns out to be a feature of an on-line social game, a virtual machine designed to provide distraction with no physical manifestation in real life - Nothing like BP's emergency response plan at all then...
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 9, 2010 8:24 AM
What do you mean?!They've done nothing but pour oil on the troubled waters! Isn't that what one's supposed to do?
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
June 9, 2010 8:31 AM
jbags @50
What makes you tired?
-Corporations outsourcing of their costs on to the rest of society and the environment?
-Their coopting our democracy by funding our elected representatives so that congresscritters cater to corporate desires rather than citizens'needs?
-Their quasi eternal lifespan?
-Their treasuries that dwarf those of Nation States?
-Their inability to feel shame, guilt or responsibility?
-Their inability to be put in jail?
-Their acting, like psychopaths, uniquely for tehir own interest regardless of the harm to people, society and the environment?
-Their unpunnished criminal recidivism?
-Corporate officers being insured against financial liability and personal ethical responsibility and criminal liability (de facto if not de jure)
We don't have to abolish corporations. We can regulate and still permit corporations to operate. We can also permit them to limit personal financial responsibility to encourage entrepreneurialim. What we need to do is legaly rescind the legal fiction that corporations are "persons" and reassert thet "We the people" exclusively means human citizens.
Suggested reading:
The Corporation: the pathological pursuit of money and power by Canadian law professor Joel Bakan
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 9, 2010 8:34 AM
A point which may be encouraging w.r.t. the long-term ecological damage: Deepwater Horizon is not (yet) the largest oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. That remains the Ixtoc I spill of 1979. While I haven't yet found an analysis of the ecological damage caused, that spill clearly did not destroy the Gulf's ecosystem. Of course, there may be differences in type of oil, site of the spill, etc., that make the current spill worse in its effects.
Incidentally, Ixtoc, the Mexican state oil company, avoided paying compensation by claiming sovereign immunity.
None of the above should detract from the responsibility of BP to pay for the entire costs of the spill, nor the potential criminal responsibility of its directors and staff. As for limited liability, it's not clear that modern capitalism could function without it. What it could probably function without is the laws in most capitalist countries that actually forbid corporations considering the interests of those other than shareholders. Longer term, of course, either we destroy capitalism, or it destroys us.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
June 9, 2010 9:02 AM
For starters the Ixtoc blowout happened at depth of 50 meters. The physics of oil emulsification and dispersion into underwater plumes was probably not a major factor. While the impacts to the surface waters of the Gulf were probably very significant, no in depth (no pun intended) studies were ever done. The fact remains that the current blowout of the DWH is a very different animal. It also seems tha BP has been very sucessful in hiding the true magnitude of this spill by not fully disclosing the original flow reates and by releasing dispersants into the well head.
Even if that were not the case a mile deep column of ocean, besides possibly functioning as a fractionation column which sepeartes out different densities of hydrocarbons from the raw crude, also has multiple layers of haloclines, thermoclines and deepsea currents, rivers really, that have facilitated the formation of massive underwater hydrocarbon plumes. This is truly uncharted territory the consequences of which have never been experienced or studied.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4312725
BTW at the time of the Ixtoc blowout I was working as a deep sea diver doing inspections on BOP hydraulic systems off the coast of Brazil sub contracted by Petrobras and Sub Sea Oil. It seems to me that while we have made enormous strides in pushing the envelope of drilling technology in ever greater water depths. The technology for blow out prevention hasn't changed much in the last 30 years.
Posted by: gorunnova
|
June 9, 2010 9:15 AM
@51 ... sort-of agreed. Limited liability is great when it comes to purely business issues like bankruptcy and liabilities that are legal (i.e. the situations in which such liabilities were intended to protect the shareholders / company owners).
When it comes to criminal activity and negligence, however, such limitations should be REVOKED, with PREJUDICE. Limited liability means limited liabilities for losses, and SHOULD NOT mean limited liability from wanton destruction, death, and the destruction of lives in a direct, -physical- way.
Pare back those limited liabilities, and allow the people behind the company responsible for the crimes and the negligence to be DIRECTLY responsible for what they've done! XP
Posted by: still hopeful after all the nonsense
|
June 9, 2010 9:16 AM
It's all in the infrastructure.
Recently a friend had to stop driving for medical reasons. His normal NJ commute was 26 minutes. In order to make the same journey on public transportation it's 2 hrs and 37 minutes! And this is in the most densely populated metropolitan region in the country!
His itinerary, just for laughs.
walk to the bus stop - 32 minutes, not allowing any spare seconds
bus #1 11 minutes,
transfer 12 minutes
train 27 minutes,
transfer 15 minutes
bus #2 18 minutes,
transfer 16 minutes
bus #3 17 minutes,
walk to office, 9 minutes.
And that's if everything stays on schedule.
If he ever needs to go to the office during non-commute hours his best option is to go to NYC and then on to his office.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
June 9, 2010 9:22 AM
Posted by: still hopeful after all the nonsense @92,
Any chance he could work from home on his computer?
Quite frankly having lived in NYC I'm not sure I would consider your friend's situation to be very typical. Even for a Garden State resident.
Anyways, the whole concept of bedroom communities and living in the beautiful suburbs and commuting by car to the office in town is FUBAR.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 9, 2010 9:42 AM
You are reminding me of my misery in Philadelphia. I lived in a suburb 10 miles from the university, and it took an hour and a half by bus and subway to get there.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 9, 2010 9:43 AM
Fred the Hun@90,
Thanks for the info.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 9, 2010 10:29 AM
Fred the Hun @ 84,
It is not my decision, or my fault, that I live in an oil-based economy, or that the means of transportation available to me involve burning of fossil fuels.Nor is it my responsibility to be at the forefront of changing or regulating this.
And I will say it again, the fact that an oil company breeches safety regulations has nothing at all to do with me driving a car to get to work.It is not my driving a car that makes a global corporation fail to have safety regulations or emergency plans in place in case one of their oil rigs blows up.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
June 9, 2010 11:06 AM
Rorschach @96,
Posted by: Kagehi
|
June 9, 2010 11:46 AM
Sigh.. Companies refuse to find alternatives, they buy out politicians, who then refuse to push for alternatives, **both** accelerate dependence on the resource they already use and provide, yet its everyone else's fault for buying what is actually being offered... Again, its not my fault that 99.9% of everything on the market is Windows, and the only recognized alternative is MAC ***either***, but the reality is, the whole world is stacked against me either finding a machine without it, or running anything on it, when I do, and in some cases, picking a product, whether its a computer, or a car, which doesn't contribute to the problem, that multi-billion dollar companies and their trained congress monkeys ***created***, without my permission, and often in direct opposition to what many people wanted, is not just inconvenient, but often, depending one circumstances, *impossible*.
I would rather have one of those new atomic batteries for my bloody iPod, and a solid state drive in the damn thing, but a) it doesn't come with the later, and b) the former may never make it to the market, because, in the words (more or less paraphrased) of the original founder of Greenpeace, who gave up on the entire fracking movement, "These people are no longer interested in possible solutions, they want magical ones, which conjure complete solutions out of nothing, which don't involve any compromises, so actual viable alternatives get rejected, right along with the bad ones."
Posted by: Dana J
|
June 9, 2010 12:49 PM
WTF?
"helium filled balloons stationary figures" to save the waterfowl. (pg 268 of plan)
Posted by: Dana J
|
June 9, 2010 1:08 PM
And another one:
"Do not rebut statements by scientists unless you use a comparable scientific source to back
up any statement you make." (pg 531)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
June 9, 2010 1:10 PM
Look I am a little tired of the common idea I hear often that we made energy use system we have today Our over use and wasteful consumption of coal, gas, oil and energy . I do not see it that way if by we it is meant us the "consumers" of these products and this "Life Style" created it.
It occurred as the result of cost to the consumer it was cheaper and easier plastic bags are often cheaper and easier in some ways to the retailer to use than paper bags as an example. If you disregard a large part of the total cost of a system including the environmental cost and effects your profits go up and the price you have to charge to your customers is is lower than your competition then you win. Those costs are still there that they were not taken into consideration does not eliminate them in any way. It is we who must still pay and experience them. You can look at any area of what we do whether it is agriculture, industry, transportation or energy and see that many of those other costs have been ignored as if they do not exist. We have learned much in the last 200 years on how the earth system works it is past time that we take them in to account in the balance sheets and accounting procedures of the business we do.
Like it is said " Do the Crime Do the Time" if corporate person-hood = individual person-hood than corporate crime = personal crime.
Posted by: matthew.james.neil
|
June 9, 2010 2:42 PM
I remember being concerned/curious about how much oil is used to make plastics, and was very very surprised at how small a proportion, even how small an amount, was used for plastics. It might have been a little slanted because I think I was looking at US oil usage, and of course we import a lot of plastic items.
I'll do some digging around and see if I can't find the information again, and parse it a little more closely this time.
Posted by: caseyhov
|
June 9, 2010 4:12 PM
I really want to piss on the leg of the BP CEO just so afterwards I can say "The environmental impact from that is VERY VERY VERY modest, which is also why I shit on your rug, modest environmental impact, no biggie."
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnoo3hQlSexlKGIrGoXe6TtaQ452HpuNHw
|
September 19, 2010 6:02 PM
Although we all know there are no walruses in the Gulf, it was a mindless cut-and-paste action, the "walruses in the gulf" issue left some South Louisianians saddened that some people might really not know what animals are really being damaged down here. We put together this video to show them: http://www.thebananaplant.com/no-walruses-in-the-gulf.html