Spill, Baby, Spill!

[LJL]

Sounds a bit disingenuous, Lars. If is he is one of the "good guys" as you have mentioned, and he has power in the company as CEO, why is he not doing more, rather than just looking to pull a "golden parachute" cord? Not looking to argue or be disrespectful, but he knew going in what responsibilities would be, just as he knew how much he would be compensated. If he feels that expectations from shareholders for profits cannot be met because of this disaster, and he is also not taking more actions to get things under better control, and he maybe wants to distance himself from the mess (as you and friends have guessed), then he should simply resign, give back any bonuses, not seek a forced exit just to get more compensation, and move onto something he may be better able to manage. No offense intended, but if your (and colleagues) conclusions are correct, then he should grow a spine either way.....get the company straightened out, get things under control and cleaned up, or he should just admit he is not the right guy for the job and resign, yielding all those perks he undoubtedly was showered with when he signed on. Simple fairness, and it will really show what he is made of, either way. To use another phrase, it is time for him to "man up" and make some tough calls.

LJ

 

[Lars]

Sounds a bit disingenuous, Lars. If is he is one of the "good guys" as you have mentioned, and he has power in the company as CEO, why is he not doing more, rather than just looking to pull a "golden parachute" cord? Not looking to argue or be disrespectful, but he knew going in what responsibilities would be, just as he knew how much he would be compensated. If he feels that expectations from shareholders for profits cannot be met because of this disaster, and he is also not taking more actions to get things under better control, and he maybe wants to distance himself from the mess (as you and friends have guessed), then he should simply resign, give back any bonuses, not seek a forced exit just to get more compensation, and move onto something he may be better able to manage. No offense intended, but if your (and colleagues) conclusions are correct, then he should grow a spine either way.....get the company straightened out, get things under control and cleaned up, or he should just admit he is not the right guy for the job and resign, yielding all those perks he undoubtedly was showered with when he signed on. Simple fairness, and it will really show what he is made of, either way. To use another phrase, it is time for him to "man up" and make some tough calls.

LJ

Svanberg is chairman, not CEO. The responsibility of execution lies with the CEO and it wouldn't be completely surprising if the new chairman in this situation doesn't assume the full responsibility of what is actually the CEO's job - execution.

Re perks, according to BP Svanberg is paid about £700K annually for his work as chairman. No pocket change, but the CEO is paid some £4M. So it's pretty clear where the big bucks go - and the responsibility that goes with that.

 

[LJL]

Lars,
Sorry for my oversights, but the chairman has the power and responsibility to bring heat down on the CEO and BP's overall performance in this matter. That is sort of why he has this job, to oversee, guide, and help out in any way to protect the shareholders interests, and the company's reputation and continuance. For example, IF (as is strongly suspected) BP has been grossly underestimating and reporting the spill rate, a critical factor in the ultimate settlement determination, he and others are essentially complicit in this ongoing damage to BP's reputation, not just its fudging numbers in an attempt to lessen immediate financial responsibility. If he, and board, are approving of the way things are being handled, shame on them. The actions and inactions are not doing any benefit to company, nor the environment that they are claiming to protect. Their activities now have impact, both immediate and long term on BP's ultimate ability to due business, win future concessions and approvals for operations, and the overall "bankability and trust" of the company, as reflected by share prices. No, he is not directly running things, but the board should be able to mandate how things should be handled (not the details) to better serve the company. So the board could call for the replacement of the present CEO for failure to do more and faster, and to not create a longer term distrust and disinterest in the company's business practices.

Again, not trying to nit pick on the possible corporate malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance, all of which may be applying in this disaster, but more to question just who is or is not doing positive things to correct things. Remaining silent, or looking to exit because things have gone really bad does not sound courageous right now, does it?

LJ

 

[M5-Guy]

I heard on the a news program (NBC or MSNBC), That BP could be responsible for even more damages. if more oil than their estimates are discovered. This means that BP is lying with a underlying agenda. And are willing to risk "Contempt of Congress" to save a few bucks... Yes, to them even $100m (or what ever they figured out), is a few bucks! Last Q profit over $6b !!!!!
So, Does BP KNOW how much oil is already spilled out. (I think they know full well), Scientists can figure this out, and they will. and BP will have to release ALL Documents relating to the spill sooner or later.

 

[bensonga]

Time for an update from Louisiana, where the the oil is hitting the marshes and islands that are home to pelican and tern nesting grounds.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/louisiana_coasts_battle_agains.html

Gary

 

[Vivek]

I heard on the a news program (NBC or MSNBC), That BP could be responsible for even more damages. if more oil than their estimates are discovered. This means that BP is lying with a underlying agenda. And are willing to risk "Contempt of Congress" to save a few bucks... Yes, to them even $100m (or what ever they figured out), is a few bucks! Last Q profit over $6b !!!!!
So, Does BP KNOW how much oil is already spilled out. (I think they know full well), Scientists can figure this out, and they will. and BP will have to release ALL Documents relating to the spill sooner or later.

It appears no one seems to have looked at the NASA link I provided.

What is interesting (to me) was one older aerial image which had been interpreted as "spontaneous" (or "natural") oil expulsion from earth.

I think BP would argue their way out of the actual quantity in a court (most likely it will be an out of curt settlement).

However, BP's name is now forever linked with oil spill.

 

[bensonga]

This is the best map I've seen of the oil spill with total volume spilled, using various estimates of the flow rate.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/01/us/20100501-oil-spill-tracker.html

 

[LJL]

This is a bit at odds.....regardless of how big "natural" oil spills may have been or continue to be, the disaster in the Gulf in not "natural", but man-induced through whatever final determinations get placed on it. It is something beyond what happens naturally, and should have been prevented and now curtailed. So to argue that worse things happen naturally is a poor point to make, as the environment has to adjust to those natural spills, and adding more burden to a delicate ecosystem when it could have been prevented is horrible. (This is not really any different than the weak arguments about now much "natural" things cause damage to the air and may impact global warming. Fine, they are going to happen, but humans CAN stop adding more problems that need to be cleaned.

BP may not know just how much oil has been released, but I would bet the price of the clean-up that they know for sure they were significantly underestimating, and that is where the criminal elements come into play. They under-report, or underestimate to try to reduce their potential liability.....penalties and claims are based a lot on the total volume of the spill. So, making it appear to be a whole lot smaller hopefully works to their advantage when it comes time to settle claims. Now, the world knows they are not even close to being correct on the volumes being released, and their own claims were blown out by their misleading volume recovery statements (5,000 bbl/day recovery with an estimated 5,000 bbl/day spill rate, while we all saw the video showing pretty much unabated flow AFTER the recover straw was being used). That is pathetic.

I know a number of folks that live in the area now being inundated with oil, plus I also know scientists that are doing the monitoring work, and they say the media reports are still way short of just how bad the situation is and will become. I think an interesting and highly ironic situation that could occur would be having the oil get caught in the "loop current", then getting transported by the Gulf Stream to the shore of the UK and Europe. How do you think folks will respond to BP as a global environmental steward then? No need to speculate or answer, and let's hope that tragedy does not occur, but things are not looking good on any front right now.

And calling this "an accident" is pure b.s.....this could have and should have been prevented. I still feel for the lives lost in the initial explosion, and now for all the lives impacted by this mess, including the environment.

LJ

 

[Lars]

Lars,
Sorry for my oversights, but the chairman has the power and responsibility to bring heat down on the CEO and BP's overall performance in this matter. That is sort of why he has this job, to oversee, guide, and help out in any way to protect the shareholders interests, and the company's reputation and continuance. For example, IF (as is strongly suspected) BP has been grossly underestimating and reporting the spill rate, a critical factor in the ultimate settlement determination, he and others are essentially complicit in this ongoing damage to BP's reputation, not just its fudging numbers in an attempt to lessen immediate financial responsibility. If he, and board, are approving of the way things are being handled, shame on them. The actions and inactions are not doing any benefit to company, nor the environment that they are claiming to protect. Their activities now have impact, both immediate and long term on BP's ultimate ability to due business, win future concessions and approvals for operations, and the overall "bankability and trust" of the company, as reflected by share prices. No, he is not directly running things, but the board should be able to mandate how things should be handled (not the details) to better serve the company. So the board could call for the replacement of the present CEO for failure to do more and faster, and to not create a longer term distrust and disinterest in the company's business practices.

Again, not trying to nit pick on the possible corporate malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance, all of which may be applying in this disaster, but more to question just who is or is not doing positive things to correct things. Remaining silent, or looking to exit because things have gone really bad does not sound courageous right now, does it?

LJ

Well, as I said we were speculating over dinner what might possibly go through Svanberg's mind. We thought it unlikely - but not impossible - that Svanberg could be looking for an exit. (There were people at the dinner who have worked with him personally at Ericsson.) It's also possible that the CEO has insisted that the chairman is mum to not undermine his position. Sure, he could perhaps have fired the CEO on the spot and basically taken over management, but then he would kill any chances of finding a new qualified CEO. So he's been doing what a chairman should do - for the time being let the CEO manage the business.

Anyways we do not know what the internal dialog is like, we can guess but it will be some time before we have answers to the questions raised here.

 

[M5-Guy]

It appears no one seems to have looked at the NASA link I provided.

What is interesting (to me) was one older aerial image which had been interpreted as "spontaneous" (or "natural") oil expulsion from earth.

I think BP would argue their way out of the actual quantity in a court (most likely it will be an out of curt settlement).

However, BP's name is now forever linked with oil spill.

Yes, Looked at the link and photos, And passed it on to few people.

As far "the earth" having a natural expulsion of oil... Maybe...BUT NOT IN THESE Quantities IMO...AND, Is there ANY Other example of this amount of oil "naturally erupting" in history?? I think BP is "Testing" it's "Arguments" with Congress, for future financial damage control IMO.

 

[jlm]

i had looked at the nasa link, found it a bit hard to quantify the impact of the spill from the images...used to the mfdb i guess.

 

[bensonga]

A few photos from Barataria Bay in Louisiana.

Cutting corners to save a few million dollars on the cementing job?
http://www.adn.com/2010/05/23/1291298/experts-suggest-bp-took-cheap.html

Gary

 

[M5-Guy]

A few photos from Barataria Bay in Louisiana.

Cutting corners to save a few million dollars on the cementing job?


Gary

Probably part of the "Closed Door" negotiations with Dick Chaney and the Oil CEO's a few years back

We'll NEVER know what deals were made that compromised safety.

 

[monza]

(NECN: Barataria Bay, La.) - Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said the state will not wait for federal approval to begin building sand barriers to protect the coastline from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Our government bureaucracy in 'action'

 

[M5-Guy]

It is now on official record that BP employees "Filled out the inspection forms in pencil" and mailed them to MMS, where they wrote in PEN over the BPs Penciled in answers and signed off on the inspections.

NOW......
All you that want "The Private" sector to "Self Govern" now have a very vivid REAL TIME account of "Self Governing" with BP in essence, since MMS Did Squat. They were to busy taking bribes!! So, it lays blame at both ends....BUT, And I Mean BUT..... BP did everything they could (w/o a budget) to BUY THEIR SAFETY INSPECTIONS (and they won !!!)... And, a few very corrupt MMS employees took it on... BOTH are to blame... BUT.... IF BP would have NOT gone all out to bribe them, and allowed the required inspections w/o interfering with THEIR JOB to inspect, Maybe, the Repairs needed would have been made... Maybe....(I don't trust BPs core business practices at this point)....
.....................................
NOW......
All you that want "The Private" sector to "Self Govern" now have a very vivid REAL TIME account of "Self Governing" with BP
......
Do YOU STILL want A TOTAL SELF GOVERNING private sector w/o ANY checks and balances to protect YOUR A** YOUR $$$$, and YOUR COUNTRY...... REALLY ????? you do.... Blind and a fool all in one....
RANT OVER.

We need a huge change in Corporate Ethics and Government Ethics in What regulation means, and get honest people who don't need Bribes... Pay $1m a year to MMS employees, if that will stop the bribes and keep them on the up & up.

Oh, now I have done it....:lecture:

 

[monza]

You mean MMS right?

 

[M5-Guy]

You mean MMS right?

Thanks, corrected.

 

[Oxide Blu]

... Is there ANY Other example of this amount of oil "naturally erupting" in history??

LaBrea tar pits, southern California.

 

[LJL]

LaBrea tar pits, southern California.

Yes, that was mentioned in post#165 above, but honestly, that is not even close on the scale of what we are seeing in the Gulf right now. The total volumes are significantly different, just as are the nature of the hydrocarbons. The LaBrea tars were already starting out as a heavier, more biodegraded and not as thermally mature oil source, while the lighter crude oil from the Gulf well is capable of spreading much further and thus being far more damaging....a little oil spread far can do a lot of damage, while a lot of thick heavy tar, not spread very much, can also do a lot of damage, but it was over a much smaller area.

There are "natural" seepages and spills, as noted, but even the biggest on record are not quite of the same scale as this Gulf well is capable of creating or producing. If it is not capped, it could flow oil for decades, and essentially poison a very huge part of the world's ocean and shorelands. Not something any of us would ever want to see or experience. No "natural" seeps had that kind of potential. They usually were contained in a much smaller area, or are shut off naturally because of lowered reservoir pressures and natural plugging of cracks and crevices of seepage. The oil flowing from the Gulf well is under a lot of pressure in the reservoir, and that will not abate anytime soon, even as the gas cap is depleted.

LJ

 

[M5-Guy]

LaBrea tar pits, southern California.

Yes, that was mentioned in post#165 above, but honestly, that is not even close on the scale of what we are seeing in the Gulf right now. The total volumes are significantly different, just as are the nature of the hydrocarbons. The LaBrea tars were already starting out as a heavier, more biodegraded and not as thermally mature oil source, while the lighter crude oil from the Gulf well is capable of spreading much further and thus being far more damaging....a little oil spread far can do a lot of damage, while a lot of thick heavy tar, not spread very much, can also do a lot of damage, but it was over a much smaller area.

There are "natural" seepages and spills, as noted, but even the biggest on record are not quite of the same scale as this Gulf well is capable of creating or producing. If it is not capped, it could flow oil for decades, and essentially poison a very huge part of the world's ocean and shorelands. Not something any of us would ever want to see or experience. No "natural" seeps had that kind of potential. They usually were contained in a much smaller area, or are shut off naturally because of lowered reservoir pressures and natural plugging of cracks and crevices of seepage. The oil flowing from the Gulf well is under a lot of pressure in the reservoir, and that will not abate anytime soon, even as the gas cap is depleted.

LJ

Thanks for the info....
Like I Mentioned....NONE on the scale of the Horizon Oil spill.
I hope you are wrong that THIS ONE can spread across all the major oceans if not capped...I fear this too....the whole ocean eco-system is at risk, which will effect every populated area in the world. from more starvation, to who knows what diseases will come about because of lack of marine life world wide. Worst case scenario of course.... but, now very possible!