I’d say that this gulf oil spill problem occurred to begin with, due to the lack of governmental regulation, or at least, the lack of enforcement of those regulations. The same is true of the financial industry, which led into perhaps the worst recession in American history this past year. Bottom line: People need regulated; else they invariably game a free-enterprise system. Those who oppose regulation very often have much to hide. Goverment solves many more problems than it creates, IMHO.
I’d also point out that those very same people who trumpet this “less government” call are also heard to complain about the government’s “slow response” to this crisis, as they put it. This situation seems to have changed their call from “less government” to “where is government?” Sometimes, you just can’t win; no matter what you do.
Which party would most benefit from that $75 million cap; the government, or the oil industry? Seems to me that it would be the oil industry since they’re the ones that stand to lose the most if the cap is raised or abolished altogether. I disagree with the cap. BP should pay whatever it’s going to cost to set things right if they’re able. If that bankrupts them, then so be it.
Over the past decade anyhow, the government has encouraged (though not mandated) deep water, offshore drilling; no doubt by the big-bucks persuasions of the lobbyists. I’m not crazy about the lobbying system such as it is. It needs better regulation. Yes, today’s lobbying system in Washington epitomizes corruption. I agree.
Perhaps you’re right that we don’t need more regulation; but better enforcement of existing laws. However, going through the course of getting more regulation (or at least, more modern regulation) gets you more than just more regulation. As new proposals make their way through congress, the process spreads awareness and educates the public at large about the subject issue(s). So while we may not need more regulation for regulation’s sake, it’s good to periodically review existing laws and update them; not only so that the public stays in-the-know, but also to account for changing technologies and conditions.
I’m sure you heard about BP’s spill recovery plan mentioning walruses, when in fact, walruses haven’t been in the gulf for years. Laws become stale after a while and very often cease to be enforced. So by putting a new face on them, you rekindle public interest and understanding in them. If more regulation brings about this sort of general awareness, then I’m all for it.
We’re a nation that can change its laws as circumstances dictate. If that cap law stinks, then vote against it. Yes, if the majority rules on a law, then generally, we’re forced to obey it. But we need not take that lying down. Fortunately, our system of government allows for the “little” guys to try and persuade the big majority to vote in their favor; through the lobbying system. But it allows that through other means as well. Laws are meant to be followed, yes. But if enough powerful people find them objectionable, then they should be challenged. IMHO. That’s how a healthy nation evolves.
It’s been heavily reported by workers on the Deep Water Horizon that in the weeks prior to the explosion, BP senior management ignored the recommendations of its own engineers, and pushed for faster drilling of that well; thereby abandoning numerous drilling safety protocols. They also dismissed reports that the blow out preventer was leaking several weeks prior to the mishap; opting instead to continue well production without stopping for a few days to thoroughly check it out.
Further, the “current” disaster plan BP produced appeared to be quite old, and way out of step with advancing technology and changing eco systems in the region (walruses in the gulf that haven’t been there in years). Apparently, they did not deem a disaster plan important enough to keep up-to-date.
In the aftermath of the explosion, BP executives, with their numerous PR blunders, incited much of this blame (misplaced or not); especially when Tony Hayward said that he wanted his life back, and appeared to show little regret for the incident. He said all the right words but IMHO, lacked any of the appropriate emotions to go with them. He appeared shifty and evasive before congress, and I just didn’t get the impression that he was really all that interested in the plights of the gulf residents. He just didn’t seem to care.
In the several days following the explosion, BP opted not to make the live video of the undersea gusher in progress available for reporters to view and re broadcast, and it was not until the government compelled them to do so, did they offer the stream for public consumption. Even then, they hinted that they’d shut down the feed during the first attempts to stem the oil flow.
BP also appears to be attempting to muzzle its contractors doing the cleanup work; insisting that they sign agreements not to talk to the press, lest they be fired. They also refuse to appear on CNN’s AC 360 show (and likely others as well) to take on the hard questions that the public has about this debacle. They have not been forthright it seems.
Finally, BP has been slow to pay claims to legitimately displaced workers in the gulf who essentially live hand to mouth, and so, can’t afford to be waiting around for months on end for a payout even though they’re businesses have been completely halted.
Now I don’t mean to say that BP is the only entity to blame for this accident. But being that they were the ones with the most direct control over the well and supporting operations, it seems reasonable to expect them to be held to account for much of what went wrong down there. While they’re not fully to blame, they are largely to blame, in my opinion.
Clearly, BP has a moral obligation if not a legal one, to make whole those they injured with their carelessness and excessive zeal for profit. Our system of laws is predicated on the idea that if you injure someone, then you must pay to make it right. The entire small-claims court system functions on this dictum. It’s just the right thing to do.
The courts will in part determine what BP pays; the courts, as governed by current US law. Congress may pass new laws to guide this process as well if it’s deemed that the courts aren’t ruling fairly. People filing claims impact this too. Finally, boisterous public opinion will affect how much BP winds up paying. To some degree, to preserve whatever little good reputation they have left, BP would do well to cater to public sentiment.
If it takes the muscle of the federal government to get BP to pay back the losses they generated in the gulf, and if that’s what people want, then so be it. Prevailing public opinion gives our government the authority to act. The fact that so many of us want to live in a society that protects us from the injustices of profit-mongering gives them the authority I think.
In a democracy, we can change laws at will, when the collective will is big enough to do so. That $75 million cap was likely decided arbitrarily, with no experiential history of an oil spill of this magnitude. But now that it’s happened, we’re learning that many laws were inadequate for completely addressing the disastrous ramifications of such a spill; including this cap one. So why not change laws ad hoc, as new information arrives? I mean, if I ran a business in the Gulf, and I lost my shirt because I couldn’t produce or sell anymore, the last thing I’d want to hear is that BP would not pay my claim because that $75 million cap had already been reached. In this case, the law would have been satisfied; but justice would not have. So, as our system is supposed to approximate the just ideal as best we can, when we discover such injustices, we can change the laws to eliminate them.
By “profit mongering,” I’m referring to those people and companies who, for the cause of a bigger bottom line, sacrifice the welfare of their workers, residents, and anyone else who might be impacted by their greed. It’s clear that BP, in order to make more profit, took grave short cuts. As a result, eleven people died, and hundreds of thousands more will be impacted either directly or indirectly by their obsession with getting a bigger piece of the monetary pie.
Now as to who is more to blame for the handling of the oil spill, that depends on what these ongoing investigations eventually reveal. There may indeed be some government culpability. But without further proof, and considering that BP is the expert on these wells (and not the government), then in my eyes, BP is the far more guilty party here.
Admittedly, the line between mere “damage control” and out-and-out lying is a blurry one. But BP has definitely crossed that line in many ways:
- They’ve repeatedly underestimated the amount of oil escaping that well.
- They’ve made numerous promises of transparency. Yet they stonewalled congress, the President, and the American public with their evasive and misleading downplaying tactics. Nor do their top officials seem readily available to the media to answer the hard questions.
- They created that 50 million dollar ad campaign in which Hayward starred, insisting that they would “make this right.” But their payouts have been too little, and in a growing number of cases, too late; as businesses down there are being forced to close.
- During the President’s first Gulf visit after the rig explosion, they brought way more cleanup staff in wearing those white hazmat suits to make it appear that they were more engaged than they actually were. In the days after Obama left, so too did many of the hazmat folks.
Sure what BP is doing is “damage control” at its finest. But with the Gulf ecosystem in such grave peril and the residents under increasing financial and social stress, the time for keeping secrets has passed. BP should openly share what they know so that the government and other organizations can most effectively assist them in fixing this thing. Besides, how much more damage is there left to control anyhow? Their reputation is already seriously tarnished, and at this point, further omissions and inaccurate statements will only serve to intensify public anger at them; not control it. So they need to come clean because they’ve missed the opportunity for damage control already.
Oh, and as far as the welfare of BP investors goes: They’ve enjoyed hefty dividends the past two decades; dividends that were likely inflated because BP opted for profit over safety. So now we have the comeuppance; and rightly so. Perhaps those investors need to give back some of those dividends so BP can, as they promised, make this right.
I play the stock market, and know that along with the joy of big earnings comes the risk of big losses. That’s just how the game of investing is played. If you can’t afford to lose, then you shouldn’t enjoy the win. The fact that American investors might lose a lot from all this is irrelevant in my opinion. After all, they accepted the risk that a spill might devastate the company when they put their money down. Now, it looks like their stock values will indeed head south for a bit. But I’m not moved though because of the large profits they reaped up until now.
Tom Hesley