Stuff I've learned from the NPR BP blowout press coverage

[SeattleUte]

We should be shocked that an explosion occurred whilst BP was pumping crude oil out of the ocean's floor 5,000 feet below sea level and now BP is having a hard time capping it.

BP has a profit motive. That is despicable.

At some point BP will require due process before playing claims, refuse to pay whatever is demanded, and that is despicable.

It's despicable that BP wants documentary evidence of past income to support huge profit loss claims by fishermen.

Commercial fishermen are strong supporters of conservation and the enviornment. They get positively choked up when talking about snowy egrets.

One thing I have not been able to learn from the NPR coverage, is why we were allowing BP to pump all this oil in such a dangerous place in the first place. Why any of us, least of all Texas who are bearing the brunt of this disaster, should have wanted or approved of that. I've not heard a word about that.

[Katy Lied]

Im just curious to see what the courts will decide upon is a fair compensation to the fishermen.

Say the oil spill reduces their catch 50%. So they still harvest 50%. But now with limited supply, the fish they do catch has soaring prices. So the 50% that they do catch fetches twice as much at market, so that their 50% brings them in 90% of the income that they got last year, with only 60% of the cost.

Most successful regulation (in the sense that it gets passed) of this type regulates by restricting quantity output. And the regulation is requested by the regulating industry to achieve just these windfall quota profits. The oil spill has, in effect, done the same thing for the fishing industry--restricted quantity output.

[SeattleUte]

In Alaska, in many cases the fishermen were paid better by Exxon than they had every been before, to assist in the cleanup, etc., which wiped out their damages claims.

[SeattleUte]

Im just curious to see what the courts will decide upon is a fair compensation to the fishermen.

Say the oil spill reduces their catch 50%. So they still harvest 50%. But now with limited supply, the fish they do catch has soaring prices. So the 50% that they do catch fetches twice as much at market, so that their 50% brings them in 90% of the income that they got last year, with only 60% of the cost.

Most successful regulation (in the sense that it gets passed) of this type regulates by restricting quantity output. And the regulation is requested by the regulating industry to achieve just these windfall quota profits. The oil spill has, in effect, done the same thing for the fishing industry--restricted quantity output.

All these things will be considered. If the price of fish rises, that will be considered. The money they earn becasue of the spill--e.g., helping BP--will also be consdiered.

[UtahDan]

Im just curious to see what the courts will decide upon is a fair compensation to the fishermen.

Say the oil spill reduces their catch 50%. So they still harvest 50%. But now with limited supply, the fish they do catch has soaring prices. So the 50% that they do catch fetches twice as much at market, so that their 50% brings them in 90% of the income that they got last year, with only 60% of the cost.

Most successful regulation (in the sense that it gets passed) of this type regulates by restricting quantity output. And the regulation is requested by the regulating industry to achieve just these windfall quota profits. The oil spill has, in effect, done the same thing for the fishing industry--restricted quantity output.

The burden will be on the fisherman to show that the damages they claim reflect the actual loss of anticipated profits with reasonable certainty. In other words, if bringing 100 fish to market cost you $10 last year and you sold them for $20, but in the year you are seeking damages for you were only able to bring 50 fish to market at a cost of $5, but you sold the 50 fish for $25, you don't have a damage.

It would certainly be interesting if that turned out to be the case. It could even end up increasing profits. That is why these things are measured in dollars and not in output.

[RobinFinderson]

BP has a profit motive. That is despicable.

It isn't despicable, but it does call into question whether or not they are attempting the best possible solutions to the problem. Would it surprise anyone to eventually find out that BP's solutions to the problem were all based on the premise that the well could eventually be salvaged? What if we eventually find out that a destructive approach could have plugged the leak quickly, but that BP is only attempting approaches that will eventually allow them to salvage the huge investment in drilling at that spot?

A profit motive isn't despicable, but it underlies every choice that is made. Consider the chemical dispersants that BP is dumping into the Gulf at unprecedented levels... is there a sound environmental reason to do this, or is it primarily a PR move? Is spill control being directed first to preserve delicate ecosystems or tourist destinations? When balancing the PR situation, there is a serious risk that choices will protecting profit rather than the environment. That is a problem.

[SeattleUte]

It isn't despicable, but it does call into question whether or not they are attempting the best possible solutions to the problem. Would it surprise anyone to eventually find out that BP's solutions to the problem were all based on the premise that the well could eventually be salvaged? What if we eventually find out that a destructive approach could have plugged the leak quickly, but that BP is only attempting approaches that will eventually allow them to salvage the huge investment in drilling at that spot?

A profit motive isn't despicable, but it underlies every choice that is made. Consider the chemical dispersants that BP is dumping into the Gulf at unprecedented levels... is there a sound environmental reason to do this, or is it primarily a PR move? Is spill control being directed first to preserve delicate ecosystems or tourist destinations? When balancing the PR situation, there is a serious risk that choices will protecting profit rather than the environment. That is a problem.

I don't know what the truth is about this except this: I don't accept anything the reporters are saying now. NOTHING. Some of what they are saying may be true, but I'm a 100% skeptic. I assume everything they write is crap. The big problem in that regard is THEIR profit motive. All they care about is pandering to the lowest common denominator and digging up what they can that is salacious.

I know this from being involved as a lawyer in these types of disasters repeatedly. And trust me, anything that comes out supporting that BP was meeting the standard of care or doing the best possible job under difficult circumstances of unprecedented scale will be ignored--unless they can figure out a way to turn it into revenue. The problem isn't even "liberal media" so much as the reporters' profit motive and so many news consumers' shallowness and stupidity. Somewhat paradoxically, at least in the short term I only trust the juries.

Today NPR had a guy (non-lawyer) on who was involved in leading a consortium of fishermen making claims against Exxon 20 years ago after the Valdez wreck. All he had to say was that these oil companies always wind up paying less than is demanded. They do this because they care about profits. He was not being sage or ironic. He was outraged, and his outrage fit the theme of the NPR coverage.

(This was quickly followed up by an outraged reporter furious on behalf of furious Okanawans that the US won't remove its naval base from Okanawa, Japan. I wonder how they would like to see a thousand ships sent by a China-North Korean axis on the blue horizon. I'm not indifferent to their frustration, but they are taking a lot for granted; how soon they forget what most the world is and has been like and whom they have to thank for their security that has made possible their prosperity.)

[Katy Lied]

(This was quickly followed up by an outraged reporter furious on behalf of furious Okanawans that the US won't remove its naval base from Okanawa, Japan. I wonder how they would like to see a thousand ships sent by a China-North Korean axis on the blue horizon. I'm not indifferent to their frustration, but they are taking a lot for granted; how soon they forget what most the world is and has been like and whom they have to thank for their security that has made possible their prosperity.)

I've been wondering lately if there is a correlation between the rise of Muslim extremism and Muslim camps in the Philippines and the withdrawal of US soldiers on the closed US base there.

[Pheidippides]

I don't know what the truth is about this except this: I don't accept anything the reporters are saying now. NOTHING. Some of what they are saying may be true, but I'm a 100% skeptic. I assume everything they write is crap. The big problem in that regard is THEIR profit motive. All they care about is pandering to the lowest common denominator and digging up what they can that is salacious.

I know this from being involved as a lawyer in these types of disasters repeatedly. And trust me, anything that comes out supporting that BP was meeting the standard of care or doing the best possible job under difficult circumstances of unprecedented scale will be ignored--unless they can figure out a way to turn it into revenue. The problem isn't even "liberal media" so much as the reporters' profit motive and so many news consumers' shallowness and stupidity. Somewhat paradoxically, at least in the short term I only trust the juries.

BP's problem is that they don't have a great safety record as it is - and the preliminary report indicates that BP was not following Prudent Industry Practice on this well, which was a proximate cause. Good for the rest of the industry, maybe, bad for BP. It's only an indication of course, and I'm not enough of an expert in the actual nuts and bolts of drilling to give an opinion on it.

The media generally has got all of their facts screwed up, though. No doubt this is a horrible deal, but in any given article about it there are more than a few factual errors. Not trying to point a figure so much as to say that it's apparent the media doesn't understand a lot of this stuff.

[UtahDan]

BP's problem is that they don't have a great safety record as it is - and the preliminary report indicates that BP was not following Prudent Industry Practice on this well, which was a proximate cause. Good for the rest of the industry, maybe, bad for BP. It's only an indication of course, and I'm not enough of an expert in the actual nuts and bolts of drilling to give an opinion on it.

The media generally has got all of their facts screwed up, though. No doubt this is a horrible deal, but in any given article about it there are more than a few factual errors. Not trying to point a figure so much as to say that it's apparent the media doesn't understand a lot of this stuff.

We have all had this experience. You read a story in the paper on a topic you understand well and it is immediately apparent that much of it is wrong. I know this happens all the time on legal news, even with the big outlets. I figure this means that if you are talking about anything that requires any expertise at all to understand they are probably getting it wrong.

[Uncle Ted]

BP's problem is that they don't have a great safety record as it is - and the preliminary report indicates that BP was not following Prudent Industry Practice on this well, which was a proximate cause. Good for the rest of the industry, maybe, bad for BP. It's only an indication of course, and I'm not enough of an expert in the actual nuts and bolts of drilling to give an opinion on it.

It seems that government let BP, et. el. get away with not having a great safety record. Is this not the case?

It seems to me they should have been shutting BP (and most likely others) down for safety violations instead of announcing more permits for offshore drilling.

[il Padrino Ute]

We have all had this experience. You read a story in the paper on a topic you understand well and it is immediately apparent that much of it is wrong. I know this happens all the time on legal news, even with the big outlets. I figure this means that if you are talking about anything that requires any expertise at all to understand they are probably getting it wrong.

This is why journalism is dead. It seems the last couple of decades that so-called journalists are writing their opinions of whatever event is going on and passing it off as fact. If they were required to actually do the job of a journalist - investigate, interview, etc., I wonder how many would still have job.

[SeattleUte]

It seems that government let BP, et. el. get away with not having a great safety record. Is this not the case?

It seems to me they should have been shutting BP (and most likely others) down for safety violations instead of announcing more permits for offshore drilling.

I've been in this position before. Highly regulated industry; the federal agency in question is all over accident scene not long before the accident, saying all's okay. It won't save BP paying billions of dollars in damages, but should elminate any possiblity of criminal prosecutions, or even accusations that BP was in any way cutting corners and getting away with what it could. The regulators who were inspecting BP's facility will be its best witnesses.

One of the travesties of the coverage of the mine disaster in West Virginia is the way the press has criticized the owners of the mine for negotiating with regulators and challenging citations. Are they really so naive about how things work in this country? And these reporters probably complain about their electric bills too.

I also understand that Congress is going to have lunch with minors today who will anonymously and off the record talk about their employers' safety records. Nothing like due process!

Basically, I think we're all complicit in these accidents. If you drive a car, use plastic, your house has electricity, you're not innocent. Moreover, stop acting so shocked. If you tunnel for miles into the earth, or drill for oil for miles beneath the earth's surface, shit happens. It might be because somebody screwed up, but at the level of BP, and with the intense regulation, it might just happen.

[Pheidippides]

It seems that government let BP, et. el. get away with not having a great safety record. Is this not the case?

It seems to me they should have been shutting BP (and most likely others) down for safety violations instead of announcing more permits for offshore drilling.

BP's bad safety record is not limited to offshore issues and so falls under different government agencies. The biggest deal they had before this didn't have anything to do with offshore oil drilling. Also, you should be aware that the $75 MM liability "cap" is a very misleading issue. It's only a cap on third party claims, for which there is already a fund set up (a fund, btw, that is funded by a $.08 tax on every barrel of oil, imported or no, that is refined in the US). People are really getting that confused.

As far as the gov't letting BP "get away" with it, I think that's a grossly broad statement (which isn't to say that the MMS isn't a joke, because it is, at least to the extent I've dealt with it). Based on what I have seen, I think BP cut a few corners they shouldn't have. I am not sure the entire industry is not doing the same here and there.

Here, though, is your real problem: the gross oil domestic oil production of the US has declined every year since the mid 70s. Every year, with two exceptions. The first exception was a brief uptick due to some developments in Prudhoe Bay back in the 80s, I believe. The second uptick is right now, due just about entirely to deepwater drilling. As it is, we import 70% of our oil. You shut down the deepwater drilling and it's 80%. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And you're going bear the cost one way or another in the end, whether through increased taxes or through increased prices at the pump.

My kingdom for a guy with the next great energy thing. Cold fusion and a good battery pack will do.

[SeattleUte]

BP's bad safety record is not limited to offshore issues and so falls under different government agencies. The biggest deal they had before this didn't have anything to do with offshore oil drilling. Also, you should be aware that the $75 MM liability "cap" is a very misleading issue. It's only a cap on third party claims, for which there is already a fund set up (a fund, btw, that is funded by a $.08 tax on every barrel of oil, imported or no, that is refined in the US). People are really getting that confused.

As far as the gov't letting BP "get away" with it, I think that's a grossly broad statement (which isn't to say that the MMS isn't a joke, because it is, at least to the extent I've dealt with it). Based on what I have seen, I think BP cut a few corners they shouldn't have. I am not sure the entire industry is not doing the same here and there.

Here, though, is your real problem: the gross oil domestic oil production of the US has declined every year since the mid 70s. Every year, with two exceptions. The first exception was a brief uptick due to some developments in Prudhoe Bay back in the 80s, I believe. The second uptick is right now, due just about entirely to deepwater drilling. As it is, we import 70% of our oil. You shut down the deepwater drilling and it's 80%. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. And you're going bear the cost one way or another in the end, whether through increased taxes or through increased prices at the pump.

My kingdom for a guy with the next great energy thing. Cold fusion and a good battery pack will do.

All good points. If the government approves, by definition you aren't "getting away" with anything.

Somebody should point out that, the current economic disaster, which has caused and is causing and will continue for many years to cause untold human misery, and reduce or eliminate funding for conservation, the environment, schools, the arts, what have you, was catalyzed by the spiraling energy prices that immediately preceded it. Anymore, our economic fortunes are tied directly to energy availabilty and price.

So everyone should stop pretending like BP is the same as Al Qada.