It's not going to work, BP

[Cavemonster]

How 'bout "The big wigs ****ed up. Now it's up to us local folks to fix it"?

Ah, so those big wigs have been sacked?

 

[rwguinn]

Ah, so those big wigs have been sacked?

Well, the CEO, as well as the engineer/rep who was on the platform at the time, have been relieved of their duties...
Do you advocate cutting off your nose to spite your face, or is just people who actually do things, and thus occasionally make mistakes, that you hate?

 

[Furcifer]

Ah, so those big wigs have been sacked?

No, on the contrary, the CEO basically said everyone was following BP's company policy of skimping on safety and environmental measures until they are caught and fined or something blows up.

 

[Ferguson]

This is likely the ad in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwfoOjnWdhQ&feature=related

 

[Cavemonster]

Well, the CEO, as well as the engineer/rep who was on the platform at the time, have been relieved of their duties...
Do you advocate cutting off your nose to spite your face, or is just people who actually do things, and thus occasionally make mistakes, that you hate?

Tony Hayward has not been relieved of his duties. He's not the point man for the cleanup capping effort, but Bob Dudley reports to him.

I think there is serious problem with characterizing the problem here as "occasionally mak(ing) mistakes". The risks were well known, investments in safety, prevention and preparedness were calculated. Regulation were very likely deliberately broken for the sake of profit. BP oil refineries were responsible for 97% of the wilful safety violations between 2007-2010.




These people didn't accidentally leave the gas on or have a fender bender when not paying attention. They're on record throwing the safety of their own employees to the wolves, repeatedly. They wilfully and with full knowledge, gambled with the lives and livelihoods and environment that was not theirs to gamble with. This is not a momentary lapse of judgement.

 

[Cavemonster]

Well, $10 billion (and counting) and a bit of negative publicity is probably fairly good motivation.

They paid out nearly 1.5 billion just 5 years ago after a refinery explosion in Texas. Didn't phase them one bit. They continued the cost cutting and regulation breaking.

 

[Checkmite]

This is the exact sort of psychology that leads people to charge opponents of the Wars with "hating the troops."

What's obnoxious about choosing a local worker to deliver the message is that it wasn't the workers that *** up in the first place. It was policy decisions at the top. THey tried having their goofy English and Swedish spokespeople have a go at it, and they embarrassed themselves. So now they're trying to immunize themselves from criticism by hiding behind the workers who 1) are trying to earn an honest living and 2) will really do everything they can to fix this disaster.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

What a bunch of sanctimonious tripe. People like you refused to listen or belittled their earlier attempts at apologies from those very same "policy decision-makers at the top" as insincere. Who the hell in the company is left except the lower-level people? If those people, as you say "will really do everything they can to fix this disaster", why can't they be allowed to say so publicly on BP's dime? Do you think the "southern-accent-guy" in the commercial was lying about anything he said? If not, then get off your high-horse. At this point it sounds more like you're just looking for more reasons to be "outraged" at BP; I have a feeling you'd be up in arms like this over ANY PSA they made. Perhaps you'd like it better if they never said anything at all about what's going on?

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, I'd really like your take on my point above, that BP as a company is using the honest feelings of employees like you as a shield to deflect anger directed at the upper management who caused this crisis. That's what's repugnant to me.

Really, this crisis was, in all liklihood, caused by some poor decisions at a fairly low level. We drill hundreds of wells each year. Each well project has hundreds of people working on it. About all you can really blame upper management for is the general directive to control costs. At no time did management ever say or hint that we should do risky stuff in order to control costs. Just the opposite. But there is no possible way upper management can be in on every decision made. There are dozens made every day on every well.

Now like Tony, I'm not going to speculate on the actual cause of this until the final reports are in, but I can tell you two things that are almost certainly true. One, it was not one particular decision or part failure or contractor failure that caused this. It was many things. Two, decisions were made in committee by drilling engineers with input from other employees and contractors, but without input from upper management. It would be foolish for them to do so, because they are not specialists.

I know BP has has a string of accidents in the last few years. I cannot give you an answer on why this has happened, but it is not because BP values money more than safety. That is my honest opinion.

As someone else stated, it's similar to the tactic of twisting anti-war sentiment up with anti-troop sentiment.

And as some others have pointed out, we are trying to communicate. In spite of the fact that people are going to complain if a snotty Englisman speaks and they are going to complain if an sub-fluent English speaker subustutes "small people" for "the little guy", and they are going to complain if someone from the affected areas speaks with a southern accent, BP has never stopped communicating. They have not stonewalled. I can promise you that there has been no order from managemnt to "refrain from speaking to the press" and they have urged us to make sure we do not delete any significant documents.

The simple fact is that nothing we do is going to keep people from being infuriated. Everything we do will be criticized. We know that. We expect it. Still, we are working, as best we can, to win back trust. It won't come easy and it won't come soon, but we're not running and hiding. I'm not sure what more you want us to do.

Actually, I do know. Some people want us to go out of business. Nothing else will do for them. You really can't do anything for people like that.

 

[TraneWreck]

What a bunch of sanctimonious tripe. People like you refused to listen or belittled their earlier attempts at apologies from those very same "policy decision-makers at the top" as insincere. Who the hell in the company is left except the lower-level people? If those people, as you say "will really do everything they can to fix this disaster", why can't they be allowed to say so publicly on BP's dime? Do you think the "southern-accent-guy" in the commercial was lying about anything he said? If not, then get off your high-horse. At this point it sounds more like you're just looking for more reasons to be "outraged" at BP; I have a feeling you'd be up in arms like this over ANY PSA they made. Perhaps you'd like it better if they never said anything at all about what's going on?

Haha, what? What is my "high horse?" Being able to recognize a PR campaign? Yes, I continue to belittle their PR campaign because it's meaningless. I'm concerned with what actions they're taking. Blatantly lying about the amount of oil leaking is a bigger deal than an on-camera mea culpa.

Here's what I'd like to see from BP: "We are now drilling anticipatory relief wells on all of our deepwater rigs so nothing like this happens again."

Do you have any assurance that the shortcuts and lax oversight that led to this disaster aren't going on in other rigs? In every other rig?

This disaster occurred because of systematic abuse, neglect, and failure. BP lobbied to eliminate regulations, they bribed the regulators (and the regulators gladly accepted the bribes--many dirty hands here), and then when the disaster occurred they did everything they could to lie about the amount of oil spilling to reduce their liability.

Now there's a commercial with a worker dedicating himself to the clean up. This is an attempt by BP to use their workers as a smokescreen for their deviant, horrible corporate culture.

And we haven't even gotten into their role concerning the release of the Libyan terrorist.

I still don't understand the sanctimony here. When bad wars are fought, the troops are used to deflect criticism. When bad corporate culture is revealed, dedicated workers are used to deflect criticism. How is that "Feigned piety or righteousness; hypocritical devoutness or high-mindedness?" Where is the hypocrisy?

 

[Furcifer]

Here's what I'd like to see from BP: "We are now drilling anticipatory relief wells on all of our deepwater rigs so nothing like this happens again."

You want a company with BP's track record drilling MORE holes in the ocean floor

 

[TraneWreck]

I know BP has has a string of accidents in the last few years. I cannot give you an answer on why this has happened, but it is not because BP values money more than safety. That is my honest opinion.

Just as a though experiment, assuming for the sake of argument that BP really was taking shortcuts, misleading the public, expending millions of dollars lobbying for deregulation, a generally advancing profit over safety, what would have happened differently?

Would they have 1200 OSHA violations instead of 760? Would they still be lying about the amount of oil leaking out of the well? How would the Libyan situation have been handled? What would be different if they did value money more than safety?

The simple fact is that nothing we do is going to keep people from being infuriated. Everything we do will be criticized. We know that. We expect it. Still, we are working, as best we can, to win back trust. It won't come easy and it won't come soon, but we're not running and hiding. I'm not sure what more you want us to do.

If there was something BP could say to restore trust, then this wouldn't be a disaster. Words, regardless of the accent delivering them, won't change anything. Let's just observe the process. So far BP has only done well if Exxon is the model. Let's see if they stall payments in the courts for a decade, like Exxon, or if they actually pay for the damage they've caused.

That's the test.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If they did a commercial where Tricky was explaining that he would be there in the Gulf until the mess is cleaned up, would you be feeling all patronized?

Nah if they used Tricky we'd know they were playing for the sympathy vote....

 

[ponderingturtle]

Tricky, I'd really like your take on my point above, that BP as a company is using the honest feelings of employees like you as a shield to deflect anger directed at the upper management who caused this crisis. That's what's repugnant to me.

They're making arguments that boycotting the company will only hurt employees, but what option does that leave us with? The weapon that the general public has in a capitalist society to enforce it's will is to vote with our dollars. By this logic, we can never decide to stop patronizing any large business no matter how horrible the externalities they create are, because every large company has employees who genuinely care and need their jobs.

As someone else stated, it's similar to the tactic of twisting anti-war sentiment up with anti-troop sentiment.

The problem is that if they can't sell gas at their stations they can just sell it on the open market. And it is not like they own the stations.

 

[Locknar]

I've had to edit several posts wrt Rule 10; let's watch the language folks...

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[quarky]

Here's an idea for future spills:

A huge cruise liner ship is built; designed to gather surface slicks; separate the water, and run from the gathered oil.
The ship holds hundreds of paying tourists, that go along for the ride, in luxury.
The cleaning up pays for itself; the touristas have a good time, and feel like they're even helping.

There would be a special area on board wherein various birds and turtles and such were cleaned. The tourists could help with the task, if they wanted.

This ship needs to be built a.s.a.p.

 

[Checkmite]

Haha, what? What is my "high horse?" Being able to recognize a PR campaign?

No; just for being so outraged about it when it's really a non-issue. Most reasonable people, I believe, would allow that some kind of PR announcement is warranted or at least permissible given the circumstances. You, however, seem to think of it as evidence of how truly diabolical BP is. Your posts come off as if your finger is this close to the Caps Lock key.

 

[Tricky]

Here's an idea for future spills:

A huge cruise liner ship is built; designed to gather surface slicks; separate the water, and run from the gathered oil.
The ship holds hundreds of paying tourists, that go along for the ride, in luxury.
The cleaning up pays for itself; the touristas have a good time, and feel like they're even helping.

There would be a special area on board wherein various birds and turtles and such were cleaned. The tourists could help with the task, if they wanted.

This ship needs to be built a.s.a.p.

What do you do with the ship in the many years between spills?

 

[TraneWreck]

No; just for being so outraged about it when it's really a non-issue. Most reasonable people, I believe, would allow that some kind of PR announcement is warranted or at least permissible given the circumstances. You, however, seem to think of it as evidence of how truly diabolical BP is. Your posts come off as if your finger is this close to the Caps Lock key.

Ah, I see. So the entire basis of your post was some sort of emotional projection. Notice what I wrote:

I feel the same level of eye-rolling annoyance (notice it's not "rage" or "anger") at the BP commercial...]

Yeah, that's "outrage." I would be less critical of BP if they had been honest about the spill from the beginning. Recall that they claimed 1,000 barrels were leaking a day and restricted access to their video feed. Once scientists were able to examine the video, weeks after the accident, they put the number much higher.

Here, a month after the accident, BP is still claiming only 5,000 barrels are escaping. Notice that with the caps, flow prediction is much better, and the scientists in this article are very right:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525

That's why I view the PR campaign cynically. Either BP is comically inept, which I doubt, or they were lying about the flow rate to reduce their liability. The EPA assesses fines based on the size of the spill. You do the math.

And yes, my fingers are very close to the cap key, my pinky is less than an inch away. It's just how my keyboard is built...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ah, I see. So the entire basis of your post was some sort of emotional projection. Notice what I wrote:



Yeah, that's "outrage." I would be less critical of BP if they had been honest about the spill from the beginning. Recall that they claimed 1,000 barrels were leaking a day and restricted access to their video feed. Once scientists were able to examine the video, weeks after the accident, they put the number much higher.

And they still restricted access to their HD video feed, producing a lower quality video for the scientists to examine.

 

[Checkmite]

Yeah, that's "outrage." I would be less critical of BP if they had been honest about the spill from the beginning. Recall that they claimed 1,000 barrels were leaking a day and restricted access to their video feed. Once scientists were able to examine the video, weeks after the accident, they put the number much higher.

Here, a month after the accident, BP is still claiming only 5,000 barrels are escaping. Notice that with the caps, flow prediction is much better, and the scientists in this article are very right:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525

That's why I view the PR campaign cynically. Either BP is comically inept, which I doubt, or they were lying about the flow rate to reduce their liability. The EPA assesses fines based on the size of the spill. You do the math.

Quit with the obfuscation. Nothing in this thread has been about the PR "campaign"; all your ire has been directed specifically at this one commercial, which you seemed to claim was patronizing based on nothing more substantial than that the guy talking in it is a native of the Gulf region. All this talk about BP's initial public releases about the amount of oil or whatnot have nothing to do with this commercial being evidence of BP's villainism.