Local BPs losing money.....do you care?

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by a|ex

transocean safety director Adrian Rose claims that abnormal pressure caused the blowout. i couldn't find any information about BP's unsafe practices causing the blowout.

Seriously? I found this in less than five minutes using Google:

The Oil Drum | BP Deepwater Oil Spill - Energy and Commerce Committee's Letter Outlining Risky Practices in Anticipation of Hayward's Thursday Testimony

The Oil Drum | Deepwater Oil Spill - the BP CEO and Congress - and Open Thread 2

http://priceofoil.org/2010/06/15/%E2...ense%E2%80%9D/

BP Engineers Worried About Well in Advance : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

BP Used Riskier Method to Seal Oil Well Before Blast - NYTimes.com

[KevK]

I will not go near a BP station now or in the future. Just the name makes me vomit. I am sorry the local owner is taking the hit but he should apply for recovery from the BP Superfund for his losses which can be easily proven. Or he can change the name of his station as some Citgo stations did when conservatives quit buying from them. But as for me, I am not going into one. Ever.

[a|ex]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Seriously? I found this in less than five minutes using Google:

The Oil Drum | BP Deepwater Oil Spill - Energy and Commerce Committee's Letter Outlining Risky Practices in Anticipation of Hayward's Thursday Testimony

The Oil Drum | Deepwater Oil Spill - the BP CEO and Congress - and Open Thread 2

http://priceofoil.org/2010/06/15/%E2...ense%E2%80%9D/

BP Engineers Worried About Well in Advance : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

BP Used Riskier Method to Seal Oil Well Before Blast - NYTimes.com

i've had this discussion on other boards and i'll just cut and paste one of my replies:

you hit the nail on the head! BP's decisions to cut cost is normal. the options given to them may not have been the best solutions and should never have been provided. there were questionable recommendations made by account reps with no engineering backgrounds and those with engineering backgrounds should have had the authority to stop the job if safety was a real concern. when i worked at AT&T, anyone at the job site had authority to stop the job if safety was a concern. my supervisor even had the head engineer fly over to verify that the number of bolts holding a support structure is sufficient for the job. no one sent a memo to the executives asking approval to verify the structure. the more dangerous the occupation, the more authority they have concerning safety. assuming oil riggers are unionized, this is standard practice.

it's kinda lame for an engineer to blame BP executives for not following his recommendation when he has the authority to stop any unsafe practices. he should never had recommended the cheaper option. as for BP not following through with the test log for the cementing, i thought that was the third party's job who was doing the cementing. gota blame someone though. but it should fall unto all those responsible and not just BP.

-a|ex

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by a|ex

i've had this discussion on other boards and i'll just cut and paste one of my replies:

Will all due respect, I was responding to the following statement of yours:

Originally Posted by a|ex

i couldn't find any information about BP's unsafe practices causing the blowout.

My background is IT in flight ops for a major airline. Operational safety at an airline is paramount, as I'm sure you know, and it usually trumps the whims of management, even in bad economic times, because one ship down (besides being a terrible thing in its own right) can create a bad reputation that can hover over an airline for decades. It doesn't take much for a customer to choose another airline, especially these days.

The pilots union was formed because of issues like this. Management tends to focus on $$, and rightly so, but they sometimes do so without the proper regard for safety. Not maliciously in many (most?) instances, I suspect, but rather because of a lack of detailed understanding. Operations are simply not their primary focus.

To the topic at hand: I admit that I don't know whether or not the engineers who protested BP's decisions were actually able to effectively protest by not taking action.

If such action would have resulted in the destruction of a lengthy career, I can't say I blame them for not standing firm, especially in this economy and being in a position with a very specialized skillset.

This would be even more true (imo) if those engineers don't have a union or other strong organization to back them up (are such engineers unionized?), and if the managers in question come from an organization which seems to have a culture of taking shortcuts in spite of the safetly violations they might cause.

I'm assuming you've also read this:

BP's Horrible Safety Record: It's Got 760 OSHA Fines, Exxon Has Just 1

That seems to indicate, to me, that BP has differentiated themselves in the past from their peers ... on more than a few occasions ... when it comes to making decisions that involve cutting corners versus safe operation.

The article makes BP's safety violations seem like a trend, perhaps even the result of a company culture which holds safety in somewhat lower regard than other organizations seem to.

You can disagree. I admit that all I know about it is what I've read in various places. I agree that I've not seen anything which explicitly proves that BP's decisions made the difference. However, I do think there have been some fairly strong hints in that direction, and that those hints are not without basis.

[DeaconJ]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Statements like that are ridiculous.

If you don't buy a product...and millions of others don't buy a product...it will impact the supply chain. Sure, not buying a soda at the food mart won't do anything, but that's not what I'm referring to when I discuss a boycott. I'm talking about not buying fuel at BP.

Why don't you tell Rosa Parks how ineffective of a tactic a boycott can be?

Your "boycott" will hurt local business owners and employees MUCH more than it will ever hurt BP. In the end, BP will continue to prosper...while the people that a boycott actually hurts will not (i.e. Exxon). People with any common sense can easily understand this. Additionally, "millions of people" will not be boycotting BP. People make purchases based on convenience and price.

Rosa Parks? You must be joking to try and connect a boycott for social change with a boycott against a corporate giant. Those two could not be more different.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by DeaconJ

People with any common sense can easily understand this.

Yeah, guess I have no common sense. My bad.

Originally Posted by DeaconJ

Additionally, "millions of people" will not be boycotting BP.

So do you choose how you act and whether or not you do the right thing based on what other people do? Good thing folks like Ghandi, MLK, and Rosa Parks didn't. I do what I believe to be right, popular opinion be damned. I do believe that many people share my view, and if so, then a boycott can have impact. If not, at least I will have done what I believe to be right, and not be apathetic like so many others.

Originally Posted by DeaconJ

People make purchases based on convenience and price.

Some do, but I also factor in other things. For example, I spend money to recycle, and I spend more if a product is available that is more environmentally responsible. Sometimes I go for the cheapest, where other things are equal. Sometimes I spend more for quality or to support a local business.

Originally Posted by DeaconJ

Rosa Parks? You must be joking to try and connect a boycott for social change with a boycott against a corporate giant. Those two could not be more different.

A boycott operates under the same principles, no matter the motivation. Anyone with common sense can easily understand this.

[cityrover]

Originally Posted by DeaconJ

Your "boycott" will hurt local business owners and employees MUCH more than it will ever hurt BP. In the end, BP will continue to prosper...while the people that a boycott actually hurts will not (i.e. Exxon). People with any common sense can easily understand this. Additionally, "millions of people" will not be boycotting BP. People make purchases based on convenience and price.

Rosa Parks? You must be joking to try and connect a boycott for social change with a boycott against a corporate giant. Those two could not be more different.

It's what i've been telling people. If BP doesn't sell their gas through their stations, they will use the crude market or major resellers. Their gas will sell either way..

I never use BP because they are overpriced so this spill doesn't affect my loyalty in any way - i was never a customer.


However i hope this whole thing presses bp to reduce prices so their stations get to lower prices which in turn will help them out long term. There is no reason to be 30c over the qt across the street. Just no reason other than greed

I hope they fail btw. I am just evil like that