Joe Barton's Apology to BP

[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)]