Home› A Moving Train

BP-Amco gets fined

KFrost2008KFrost2008 Posts: 36
edited October 2007 in A Moving Train
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7062669.stm

This is an extra little chuckle to all of you other Lollapaloozers
I can kill because in God I trust.

06/24/06-Cincinnati, OH-US Bank Arena
08/05/07-Chicago, IL-Grant Park(Lollapalooza)
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Local CrewLocal Crew Posts: 745
    ed was right. that is a shit ton of money, i hope it makes a dent in their company.
    Walk Tall, Kick Ass, Learn to Speak Arabic, Love Music, and Never Forget You Come From a Long Line of Truth Seekers, Lovers, and Warriors. HST

    CHILLIN LIKE BOB DYLAN!!!
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    thats really cool. good job ed!!
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    This is what happens, when you neglect safety and try to nickle and dime your way through industry. Not that current environmental laws do anything to encourage safe business practices or reinvestment in newer more environmentally safe practices but hey, that's a different war altoegther.

    Spending money on infrastructure and doing the job properly and safely...WILL ALWAYS pay off in the long run.

    BP will become a better company out of this in the long run.

    FYI the shutdown at Texas City was one reason for the gas price increase following Katrina, this went down shortly before that time.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • YoyoyoYoyoyo Posts: 310
    Just another bill to pay, a small portion of their 7 billion dollar quarterly profits of the same time...?
    No need to be void, or save up on life

    You got to spend it all
  • SundaySilenceSundaySilence Posts: 536
    Mestophar wrote:
    Just another bill to pay, a small portion of their 7 billion dollar quarterly profits of the same time...?

    Right, it was a risk-benefit decision to do what they did, and they may still have come out ahead. Also the article seems to indicate as a result of the fines the government will stop their probe regarding price manipulation.
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    SundaySilence wrote:
    Right, it was a risk-benefit decision to do what they did, and they may still have come out ahead. Also the article seems to indicate as a result of the fines the government will stop their probe regarding price manipulation.


    no, actually, this was gross negligence not any kind of cost benifit analysis. You guys are still looking at gross not net profits. This fine is huge and unprecedented, not to mention the amount of restrictions and audits they will now be almost certainly subjected to by the DOJ. This is no slap on the wrist. It's not going to shut down BP but it's a hefty penalty no way around it.

    The technology these guys were using was so far out of date it's incomprehensible at Texas City. It was actually embarassingly so. History Channel did a great piece on it actually.

    In alaska they were again negligent in thier corrosion practices.

    This stuff cannot happen in such a sensitive dangerous work environment.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    Thats probably pocket change to them, they wouldn't disobey the rules if they couldn't pay the fines.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/05/blast/5116595.html
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    spiral out wrote:
    Thats probably pocket change to them, they wouldn't disobey the rules if they couldn't pay the fines.

    this isnt pocket change. they can easily afford a few fines like this but not continuously. and if they dont fix what they got fined for, the fines will (hopefully) go up.

    this fine serves a purpose.
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    jlew24asu wrote:
    this isnt pocket change. they can easily afford a few fines like this but not continuously. and if they dont fix what they got fined for, the fines will (hopefully) go up.

    this fine serves a purpose.

    Yes it serves a purpose but it's not enough to stop big companies from doing the wrong thing or they wouldn't continually do them.

    They usually way up the cost of fixing a problem or doing it right in the first place to the cost of the fine or the payouts to the people. Which ever is cheaper is the one they will use.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
  • SundaySilenceSundaySilence Posts: 536
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    no, actually, this was gross negligence not any kind of cost benifit analysis. You guys are still looking at gross not net profits. This fine is huge and unprecedented, not to mention the amount of restrictions and audits they will now be almost certainly subjected to by the DOJ. This is no slap on the wrist. It's not going to shut down BP but it's a hefty penalty no way around it.

    The technology these guys were using was so far out of date it's incomprehensible at Texas City. It was actually embarassingly so. History Channel did a great piece on it actually.

    In alaska they were again negligent in thier corrosion practices.

    This stuff cannot happen in such a sensitive dangerous work environment.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/05/blast/5116595.html

    "In an e-mail presented as evidence, a BP engineer recommended against the expense because flares were not mandated by the government and he estimated there was only an 80 percent chance the law would require flares within the next five years. Emails presented at the trial showed other officials supported the decision not to spend the money...

    During the afternoon session, Coon presented documents to bolster his argument that BP officials had what one document described as a "checkbook mentality," ignoring repeated warnings about shortfalls at the refinery for the sake of saving money...

    He blamed the deteriorating condition first on a lack of spending by Amoco, before that company was acquired by BP, and then on BP's 1999 order to cut budgets across the company by 25 percent.

    An October 2002 BP document presented as evidence said Texas City had the second highest number of hydrocarbon leaks of all BP refineries and was overdue on more than 1,000 inspections. The document said $297 million was needed to fix the infrastructure."

    BP reported net profit of $7.38 billion for the second quarter this year. Big Oil received $6 billion in federal subsidies last year.

    From your article it doesn't seem to be gross negligence, they knew about the problem and made internal business decisions not to fix them based on cost, and on government regulations (and they are always willing to invest in lobbying against regulations, it must have better returns) A less consolidated company couldn't play this game, these events would kill the business. Big oil can roll the dice knowing they will come out ahead in the long run, and most short runs.

    But the bulk of the fine is for market manipulation in the propane market. I posted about this over a year ago.

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=3810651&postcount=76

    Part of the deal involves the feds stopping their investigation. There are ongoing investigations into manipulation of the crude oil market and gasoline futures markets. In 2003 BP paid settlements of $2.5 million and $3 million over allegations of improper crude oil trading and enery market manipulation. Shell oil also has repeatedly paid off similar settlements for similar allegations.

    Seven years ago senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) pushed through deregulation at the request of Enron. His wife was on the board of Enron at the time. It allows energy traders to conduct business in over the counter markets outside of federal jurisdiction and without oversight or records.

    http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=283456

    This loophole remains open and exploitable by big oil which has recent history of these exploits and a recent history of paying settlements to end allegations. And a recent history of lying testimony to US congress. And a recent history of lying to and underpaying the government for use of federal land. And a recent history of undermining mankind's understanding of life threatening risks in the world. for profit
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    oh absolutely, the lobbying annoys the crap out of me as does the knowing about the ridiculous safety issue and deliberately trying to get around it, the flare is not a newfangled technology blowdown drums are hellaciously out of date. It's completely ignoring an issue to save 120 grand and that is not good enough.

    With the money they are making it's incomprehensible they have such shady business practices. Horrible leadership at the top, but then I guess the stockholders are happy.

    I don't at all begrudge making a profit, because that's what people live and invest with I just can't stand ridiculously unsafe buisness, complete disregard for safety, and defrauding the public.


    The checks and balances we are supposed to have do not exist anymore. It's just one more reason I want strong term limits in government and tiny salaries... It's not supposed to be a career, it's supposed to be a public service.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Sign In or Register to comment.