Joe Barton's Apology to BP

[richlevy]

Listening to the apology, I came away shocked. There have always been two mantras to conservative agendas:

1) Less regulatory interference in business
2) Need for personal responsibility.

It's clear from the fact that there is a Gulf disaster that there was negligence. Anywhere from simple negligence to 'depraved indifference'. There is no denying it.

Beyond the 'before disaster' items that are being discussed, there is also the fact that BP deliberately or negligently underreported the spill rate by a factor of anywhere from 20 to 60, affecting the initial containment response.

Picture a person hitting someone with a car, calling 911, and telling the operator that the person struck was only slightly injured when in fact they were bleeding out.

These are indisputable 'facts'. The only argument is criminal culpability and how much other actors such as Halliburton and the BP's partners were involved.

I'm not a lawyer, but IMO from a tort perspective this is pretty much a lock. You have negligence and damage, and the damage, direct and indirect, is going to be substantial.

From experience with Exxon, it is known how long claims took to be settled, and while the Bush Supreme Court reduced punitive damages, even it couldn't reduce actual claims.

Four states have been impacted. One of those states, Florida, has almost no oil industry. Louisiana, which is taking the worst hit, has a very active oil industry.

Florida is led by a conservative governor who is concerned about the effects on his economy. He is pretty much %100 for principal #2 and %0 for principal #1.

Joe Barton is from a state which has a large oil industry and has been unaffected by the spill. He is pretty much %100 for principal #1 and %0 for principal #2. In other words, if a business causes direct damage, unlike a person it should be insulated from requirements for compensation.

In other words, to be successful in an uber-capitalist system, a business may need to operate with OPM and OPP - Other Peoples Money and Other Peoples Pain.

The man is a douche bag. It is, however, understandable how he came to be minority leader of the committee and might become the chairman if Republicans take back the House of Representatives.

Formally known as the Macondo prospect, the damaged well is located on Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico in a water depth of 5,000 feet.
BP serves as the operator, holding a 65 percent interest in the leasehold prospect and Anadarko holds 25 percent. The remaining 10 percent is owned by MOEX Offshore 2007, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan's Mitsui Oil Exploration Ltd.
On April 20, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig leased by BP exploded and caught fire when the test well had been completed, but not capped. The rig sank on April 22, leaving the damaged wellhead spilling crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate now estimated as at least 35,000 barrels per day. Eleven crewmembers died in the incident and 17 others were injured.

The oil has fouled coastlines in four states - Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida, and has caused the fisheries closure of about one-third of the gulf.

[Griff]

Interesting thoughts Rich. There is a potential conflict here, anyone who has read their Ayn Rand is going to be a little uncomfortable but there is no indication that due process won't be observed. Exxon screwed the pooch, BP cannot be allowed similar shenanigans. I liked your two principles, the second one was disposed of during the Bush administration and gives me pause this morning as a gas company helicopter carries its load overhead. Corporations seem to have human rights without human responsibilities, that makes me a little nervous.

[glatt]

As much as I disagree with him, I actually respect Joe Barton for making that statement. Conservatives have long abhorred government meddling in business practices, and he's being consistent on that point at a time when it's wildly unpopular to say such a thing.

The rest of the two-faced conservatives who were saying "drill baby drill" just a short while ago and are now condemning BP do not have my respect.

[jinx]

But wasn't it the regulations against (safer?) drilling in shallower waters and places like ANWR that put BP out there drilling deep in the gulf in the first place?
I mean, enacting regulations in an attempt to be more environmentally conscious did kind of backfire here to some degree...

[TheMercenary]

Bottom line, it is all political grandstanding on both sides. I still think they all suck. I fully understand his take on it but I can't really agree on the substance of it. I don't think Obama shook down BP, but I think BP has stepped up to the plate like Exxon never did. Damage control on their part.

[squirell nutkin]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Bottom line, it is all political grandstanding on both sides. I still think they all suck. I fully understand his take on it but I can't really agree on the substance of it. I don't think Obama shook down BP, but I think BP has stepped up to the plate like Exxon never did. Damage control on their part.

Agreed, but I wonder how much of the "stepping up to the plate" was sleight of hand so we wouldn't scrutinize the severity of the spill, allowing them time to try to salvage as much oil as they could.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by jinx

But wasn't it the regulations against (safer?) drilling in shallower waters and places like ANWR that put BP out there drilling deep in the gulf in the first place?
I mean, enacting regulations in an attempt to be more environmentally conscious did kind of backfire here to some degree...

There was a very good response to that in the Inquirer editorials.

Bottom line. BP and everyone else is there because:

1) We are running out of oil in shallower water. Even opening ANWR would not equal these reserves. There is profit to be made.

2) The oil companies convinced the Bush administration that deep water drilling could be done safely due to improvements in equipment. This was a lie.

As for the cause of the accident, it still has to be determined, but anecdotal evidence suggests severe shortcuts in safety to meet a deadline. When even Haliburton is warning you to slow down, you know you're on the edge. From what I hear, they saved $500,000 in equipment costs and $12-20 million in lost time by cutting corners.

This will shape up to be one of the worst man made economic disasters in US history. Another one was the Great Northeast Blackout of 2003. Approximately 55 million people out of power for 2 days.

So far, neither of these disasters were terrorist events. Both were traced to specific corporations. The blackout was caused at least in part by FirstEnergy's failure to cut back trees, plant maintenance failures, and procedural failures.

Ironically, 11 deaths are claimed for both disasters.

The blackout contributed to at least eleven fatalities,

No terrorists - just executives with suits, briefcases, and Powerpoint presentations on 'cost cutting'.

This is why Barton is an asshat. Government regulators will never be able to keep up with every decision. They do not need to. With business it is always about managing risk. If I cut here, what's the worst that could happen and how much could it cost me? Exxon and FirstEnergy got off light, and this may have sent the wrong message.

We want entrepreneurs and businesses to take risk, as long as the risk they take is to themselves. We do not want businesses taking risks with the livelihoods of tens of millions of people. The message needs to be "We can only regulate so much. Make whatever decisions you can legally make, but be advised that you will be held responsible for damages."

When in doubt, remember the Ford Pinto memo.

Expected Costs of producing the Pinto with fuel tank modifications:

• Expected unit sales: 11 million vehicles (includes utility vehicles built on same chassis)
• Modification costs per unit: $11.00
• Total Cost: $121 million
  [= 11,000,000 vehicles x $11.00 per unit]

Expected Costs of producing the Pinto without fuel tank modifications:

• Expected accident results (assuming 2100 accidents):
  180 burn deaths
  180 serious burn injuries
  2100 burned out vehicles
• Unit costs of accident results (assuming out of court settlements):
  $200,000 per burn death*
  $67,000 per serious injury
  $700 per burned out vehicle
• Total Costs: $49.53 million
  [= (180 deaths x $200k) + (180 injuries x $67k) + (2100 vehicles x $700 per vehicle)]

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by glatt

As much as I disagree with him, I actually respect Joe Barton for making that statement. Conservatives have long abhorred government meddling in business practices, and he's being consistent on that point at a time when it's wildly unpopular to say such a thing.

The rest of the two-faced conservatives who were saying "drill baby drill" just a short while ago and are now condemning BP do not have my respect.

He's already retracted his apology.

Originally Posted by AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Who's sorry now? Rep. Joe Barton, that's who.

The Texas Republican, the House's top recipient of oil industry campaign contributions since 1990, apologized Thursday for apologizing to the chief of the British company that befouled the Gulf of Mexico with a massive oil spill.

His double mea culpa plus a retraction, executed under pressure from fuming GOP leaders, succeeded in shifting attention from the tragedy, BP's many missteps and the stoic British oil chief at the witness table, to his own party's close connection to the oil industry.

Barton started the ruckus at midmorning when he took aim at the $20 billion relief fund for victims of the spill sought by the White House and agreed to by BP.

"I apologize," Barton said to BP CEO Tony Hayward, who was sitting at a witness table for another of Congress' ritual floggings of wayward corporate heads.

"I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is - again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown," Barton said. "So I apologize."

Incensed at the gift Barton had given Democrats, Republicans came close to stripping Barton of his post as chairman-in-waiting of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. GOP leaders summoned Barton to the Capitol and demanded he apologize in specific terms. The leaders threatened to launch a process to strip Barton of his seniority on the powerful panel, a particularly painful threat to any long-term lawmaker, according to two knowledgeable Republican officials who demanded anonymity so they could speak freely about private meetings.

LINK

Yeah, consistency in douche-baggery political sleezy hypocrisy.

[Shawnee123]

Rats and sinking ships.

I was sure there was still some good cheese on board. My PR people tell me there is no more good cheese. See you!

[HungLikeJesus]

I guess that's where Chuck Palahniuk got this:

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.

[richlevy]

Incensed at the gift Barton had given Democrats, Republicans came close to stripping Barton of his post as chairman-in-waiting of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. GOP leaders summoned Barton to the Capitol and demanded he apologize in specific terms. The leaders threatened to launch a process to strip Barton of his seniority on the powerful panel, a particularly painful threat to any long-term lawmaker, according to two knowledgeable Republican officials who demanded anonymity so they could speak freely about private meetings.

They should have stripped him of it no matter what. The thought that this oily ass-kisser could be the Congress's guy in charge of energy policy is ludicrous.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by squirell nutkin

Agreed, but I wonder how much of the "stepping up to the plate" was sleight of hand so we wouldn't scrutinize the severity of the spill, allowing them time to try to salvage as much oil as they could.

I am not sure it matters so much as it does they are held accountable for the damage.

My question is will the government, in the end, really hold them accountable, or is this just political grandstanding by the Administration to try to appear strong while really giving them a pass, as long as we can make a side deal on cheap oil from BP in the future? Time will tell.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am not sure it matters so much as it does they are held accountable for the damage.

My question is will the government, in the end, really hold them accountable, or is this just political grandstanding by the Administration to try to appear strong while really giving them a pass, as long as we can make a side deal on cheap oil from BP in the future?

From Wikipedia:

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced on July 17, 2007 that he had filed suit against the Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company to force cleanup of the oil spill at Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and to restore Newtown Creek.

A study of the spill released by the US Environmental Protection Agency in September 2007 reported that the spill consists of approximately 17 to 30 million gallons of petroleum products from the mid 1800's to the mid 1900's. ... By comparison, the Exxon Valdez oil spill was approximately 11 million gallons. The study reported that in the early 1900s Standard Oil of New York operated a major refinery in the area where the spill is located. ... Standard Oil of New York later became Mobil

The history of oil companies being responsible is pathetic. Obama is the first time that the offensive party had to put up the money in an escrow account.

But let's be honest. BP claims to have paid $100million in claims. Does anyone think damage over two months to businesses including fishing, hotels, businesses that only make money in the summer, retail, restaurants, food processing, oil industry support, etc is only $100 million?

$20billion is only a partial payment. But then no company that creates disasters this large pay the real costs. Which is why some industries require serious oversight especially when their history is routinely to ignore these consequences. BP even spends $millions apologizing in TV and radio commercials. Money wasted. No honest person should find that misguided effort acceptable.

BP should not survive due to corrupt management. If there is any justice, BP’s stockholders should suffer as GM's stockholders did. For not holding management feet to fire. For condoning the reasons for this and previous disasters.

Question is who will own which pieces of BP. And how cheap will the fire sale be.

BP was run by an MBA whose previous job was running Ericsson - a cell phone company. Therefore disaster was all but inevitable. He was doing to BP what Fiorina was doing to HP. What Akers did to IBM. What Nardelli did to Home Depot and Chrysler. What AT&T did to NCR - and then itself. What the most corrupt did to seven Challenger astronauts. These were not accidents.

Even 100 years ago, nobody could get Mobil to clean up America's worst oil spill. Why should this event be any different? Because a responsible someone for the first time forced them to create an escrow account.

And still some wacko extremist politician said that was not fair. A political agenda is always more important than America.

[kerosene]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

I guess that's where Chuck Palahniuk got this:

Actually, this scene keeps rolling in my head.

[TheMercenary]

This was interesting. I think the judge should have recused himself, but I would still support his decision and think it was the right decision.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...il-investments