March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« It's complicated | Main | Risk assessment »

Jun 15, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

justcorbly

I enjoyed learning that all their contigency plans for handling a spill are pretty much the same, down to their commitments to preserve the famous Gulf of Mexico walrus.

Anyone else think they all farmed the writing of that plan out to the same business?

Now, if we all just give the market time to work its magic, there likely won't be more than four or five more big spills before one of those companies gets it right and puts the others out of business: One oil company, under God, indivisible, with lead-free and 10W-30 for all.

Ishmael

I was talking with an oil business insider over the weekend and he said it was pretty common knowledge in the industry that BP cut corners and violated safety rules. However, they are not in the business of policing each other.
This spill proves that they are all in this together so to speak.

Jim Caserta

If the feds were really interested in regulating, then there would be a whole lot of policing each other. Consider what big oil companies might do in foreign countries, or might have done in the US 100 years ago. Would reporting a competitor to a regulator really be outside the realm of possibility?

Good for Tillerson. He's countering the prevailing opinion that these are just unforeseeable events. They are only unforeseeable IF you take the proper precautions. Planning & not cutting corners can dramatically reduce problems. I'm sure they understand what they're doing. By saying these thing 'should not occur', if one happens on your rig, the same standard will be applied to you.

The comments to this entry are closed.