BP’s Well Failure Due to Effort to Save $10 Million?

[flyarm]

BP’s Well Failure Due to Effort to Save $10 Million?
By: emptywheel Monday June 14, 2010 12:01 pm

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/

Henry Waxman just put up a letter and a whole bunch of backup documents in preparation for a hearing with Tony Hayward Thursday. In it, he lists 5 shortcuts BP used in the days before the well explosion, all of them with real risks. But BP chose them to save money and time.



read the rest please!



snip:

BP willfully ignored numerous warnings in an attempt to save $10 million here and there, and several days of time. And as a result, precisely what they were warned against happened, causing tens of billions of monetary damage and permanent environmental damage to the Gulf.

[Old and In the Way]

1. Your "Free Market" at work.

Sometimes, they really need government to save them from themselves. I'm betting the Board and stockholders would certainly like to revisit their views on tough government regulation in light of their Deepwater Horizon disaster. Would they trade, say 10%, of their ongoing profits on tough government regulation/compliance vs. the crater of a balance sheet they own today?

[blindpig]

2. Due diligence in the service of the investors.

Capitalism, what's to like?

[Gin]

3. just read these issues listed in the letter sent to Tony that he will

be asked to respond to at the hearing....its very damning....the decisions made to cut corners were all about money and they were advised not to do it...oh well....now it still is all about money....much more money you fools!

[flyarm]

4. It's about destroying our eco system..eom

[Junkdrawer]

5. And you wonder why Tony sold 1/3 of his BP Stock weeks before the disaster....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8553591

Risk Management.

[TexasObserver]

6. I have no doubt this is true. That is their history. That is who BP is.

Take this decision, multiplied thousands of times in every major job. That's BP making profit from taking chances that are unsafe. They make money by risking lives, and they kill workers far too often from it.

[4_TN_TITANS]

7. I'm lucky enough to work for a large international company

that invests in ethics and compliance training that provides the ounce of prevention to stave the pound of cure, but many companies are just willing to take the risks. For years, in certain industries, it has paid off to buy regulators and risk disaster.

This time, BP just got a bad roll of the dice.

[gratuitous]

8. Why shouldn't BP cut corners?

It's not like they're going to be held responsible, although that's the right thing to do. There will be a ton (or a tonne) of excuses not to do so: It will hurt pensioners; it will hurt shareholders; it will cost jobs; it will raise the price of gas; and so on, and so forth.

But really, why shouldn't BP be held completely and totally responsible? After all, the takeaway for other companies should be "You cut corners and fuck up, you could be out of business." Just as the prospect of being hanged in the morning focuses the mind wonderfully, the prospect that by saving a $10 million you could put your entire billion dollar enterprise at risk should make the calculus quite easy: Follow the law, do the right thing, and keep your company (not to mention your job, those other jobs, the pensioners and the shareholders) safe. Profitability might go down a little, but measure that against the company's continuing viability, and the risk/reward analysis writes itself.

So, in order to safeguard BP and other large companies, it is the best course to let the company take the full hit for its poor choices. Anything else is a betrayal of mankind.