I have no intent to exonerate BP or to forgive the results of the Gulf disaster, and, of course, BP is responsible for clean up. But I”d like to suggest that we, the people of the U.S. should share some of the blame. What has happened is the result of the kind of free- wheeling business and minimum regulatory framework that we have fostered for decades.
Whether it is manufacturing, banking, oil production, mining, etc., we have developed a business culture that is based on profit as a motivation. Not at all bad as long as people responsible behave honestly and honorably. If the cost of what you sell is more than you can sell it for, you are called “bankrupt.” So the whole culture is based on reducing the costs of production. If you can cut one thin dime of cost from each of your one million autos, you save the company a hundred thousand dollars?and may even get a bonus! Every decision is risk bearing, and if you are constantly conservative (i.e., safer), you probably go out of business.
Company profits are the results of the education, experience, and expertise of their employees and the decisions they make. Usually the combination of these is to provide ground rules of what can be done without extreme risk. Let”s face it, people simply do not choose to make bad decisions, but sometimes “situations” change what “looks good/safe.” Surely, part of the problem is the employees themselves. Everyone who has business experience knows the motivation of being behind schedule, of trying to save that extra dollar, and of keeping your reputation (being right) out of trouble. Like the old pitcher”s, Satchel Page”s remark, “Don”t look behind you, someone might be catching up!” Almost all of the time, things work out and happen one at a time. BP”s problem was that they tended to build on each other and in combination far exceeded any one risk that might have been dealt with easily.
Whether right or wrong, I feel the BP employees probably did as most of us would have done under the circumstances. Behind schedule, over cost, reputations to save/salvage, you do what you can within the bounds that are appropriate, whether based on experience or on whatever regulations exist to get the job done and save expense. BP”s personnel allegedly made some decisions that turned out to be more risky that supposed. Only one BOP was used ? and that apparently not kept in operation. Thinner gage casing (less expensive) was determined “OK.” Delivery of the parts that are designed to keep the delivery pipe centered in the casing were held up and the decision was that there were enough to get the job done ? so a lot of the tube was not centered and interfered with the drilling mud and cement placement. Lower density “mud” was used than might have been, again, less cost, and then some sea water was used to hold the pressure in check. Lower density cement (more porous and less costly) was used, perhaps in recognition of the badly centered delivery pipe. Apparently the cement did not do its job and permitted gas to rise to the surface where, for whatever reason it was overlooked ? and exploded. And then, the emphasis on fire fighting apparently had a great influence on the failure and capsizing of the rig itself. Perhaps just letting the gas flare might have helped a lot until things were sorted out. When the rig sank, it took the existing casing and pipe down with it and these were not designed to bend let alone without breaking. I suspect that the failure ? theoretically they are “tested” every few days ? and the combination of the bad centering and cementing were the things that pushed the situation over the edge. And, once again, Murphy is proven correct.
But someone/something has to be held responsible, and efforts have to be made to minimize costs. And people do their best to stay clean ? “it was the other guy”s fault.” When penalties are based on flow volume, I can understand why BP probably chose to under estimate the volume ? at least until proven wrong. Saves money. The series of tries at stopping flow probably were based on cost. If we can stop it with x dollars it is better than at xxx dollars. Given reputations, and the stigma of being wrong, we should expect stonewalling. And, less you think it is only oil, think Toyota, banking and coal- mining. Wrong is not where you want to be.
But, we the people should know and understand what drives business. We created the culture and we should expect bad things to happen from time-to-time. It is called risk-management and we all do it. The more risk we accept, the less expensive risk- management is. Best example I know of is automobile insurance. Usually it isn”t that easy and any effort to exert more controls adds to the expense and, usually, an increase in the size of government. Whether one agrees or not, it is something the citizens of the U.S. have to consider. Trying to be safer is very costly both in money and in the rights we feel inherently belong to us.
Guthrie “Guff” Worth is a retired resident of Lakeport.
