www.worth1000.com
BP denied it had ignored corrosion problems at its stricken Alaskan pipeline for years as it battled to fix operations at America’s biggest oil field.
The Financial Times reported that an advocate for BP workers in Alaska, Chuck Hamel, had notified a top company official of widespread corrosion at the field over two years ago.
Hamel said he wrote to Walter Massey, the chairman of the environment committee of BP’s non-executive board of directors, in May 2004 laying out concerns about safety relayed over the previous four years by BP workers.
BP responded by sending lawyers to Alaska “with questions that seemed aimed more at identifying whistleblowers than uncovering corrosion”.
BP had a net profit of $12.9 billion in the first half of 2006. Don’t you think they could have spared a few bucks to replace corroded pipes? It’s not like it was a real surprise.
We covered this previously HERE.
All I know is that if the government made a mistake of a similar magnitude conservatoids would jump all over it as an example of government inefficiency and ineptitude.They would then extoll the wonders of the free-market system and the private sector.
Of course when private sector screws up like this they want to make excuses.They didn’t have enough money, boo hoo hoo!!! If they want to be in the oil business it’s their problem to come up with the money. An example of either PRIVATE SECTOR incompetence or simply not giving a rip. After all, if they screw up they don’t pay for it we do. Wow!!! I want to get in that business the more I screw up the more money I make.
TIME…
To take a DAY off,
“it costs to much to go to work day”:
Maybe 2-3…..
I have work in utility construction for 30 years and I can tell you defered maintnence is the norm. Like most businesses quarterly profits rule.
James, you need to settle on a single point of view. You first talk about how they didn’t have the means or ability to fix the problem and now you state it’s an issue of greed or justified by capitalistic policies in this post.
Those aren’t contrary points. Pre-’98 they didn’t have the means. As a matter of fact, Alaska’s economy was depressed through most of the 90′s: Oil costs weren’t rising, military spending was down, pork spending hadn’t jumped (yet). Post-’98 it was all about BP making profit, and as long as Alaska got its cut maintence could wait… it had to wait.
I’m not saying this is good or bad: The only truly bad part of this is the timing in relation to world events. We do want Alaska to make money, right?
Hell, the environmentalists don’t even care: It’s easy to clean oil off of tundra.
What are you…the devils advocate?
No, I’m someone who lived in Alaska and understands how this works. I’m also someone who understands the financial aspects of the situation, and doesn’t see the issues as pending doom ($5.00 gas).
People need to understand all of the facts before forming an opinion… even on a blog.
ALASKA Gov, is PISSED…
They are looking into the Maintenance that should have been done in the past…
Still wont stop gas prices going up..
I worked for BP for a number of years and year after year they pushed every business unit to constantly cut operating costs. It was only a matter of time before their lack of investment in the “harvest” mode properties would create a problem like this. I think that it is time for Lord Brown to step down and let some foward thinking management take over.
Today I work across the table from BP and they are one of the most difficult partners to work with and I am not the only one who holds this opinion. They appear to base all their decisions on holding or reducing op costs and avoiding any impact to current year cashflow. Even if there is an obvious long term benefit they will oppose positive proposals. I think that this behavior is driven by managment incentives and not shareholder value.
I am just glad I dumped my BP stock 5 years ago.