Quote :

"I suppose if I were a stock holder of the insurance company I would be angry, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be angry about here as an every day citizen. They had insurance on the rig, apparently a stated value policy, the rig was destroyed, the insurance paid out. The fact that people died is indeed tragic, but that doesn't change the conditions of the insurance contract. And while the rig itself may have only been worth X dollars, it probably will cost much more than X dollars to replace the rig and lost revenue from the rig, hence why the policy was probably for more than actual value of the rig."

Or, put another way, 11 people died and they're making a substantial profit from the loss. Or, put another way, they're getting rewarded for this tragedy while oil is still flowing into the gulf unabated.

Using your logic, the company should hope that all of their rigs similarly blow up, so they can reap huge insurance payments.

5/19/2010 3:18:48 PM

Again, should the insurance company not honor their contract just because someone died? This appears to be what you are suggesting.

As for hoping the rest of the rigs go, somehow I doubt that's in the best interests of the company. Per your article, they has $270M "profit" from the insurance pay out. Per their financial statements they have a net income of $677M this past quarter, and that's down ~$300M from the quarter previous. They are now without a profit producing rig for as long as it will take them to find a new site (or clean up the old one), get a new rig built and get it into production. I'm fairly positive they will be out the $270M "profit" before they get a new rig up a running to replace this one. Never mind that if more of their rigs fail or are destroyed, their reputation will suffer and there will be less demand for their rigs over those of their competitors.

5/19/2010 10:39:05 PM

It's just shitty.

Like how Wal-mart takes out insurance policies on their employees and makes millions of dollars in profit off their deaths, money which the family sees none of.

5/20/2010 8:34:24 AM

Can we just change the name of The Soap Box to Logical Fallacy Central?

5/20/2010 9:03:25 AM

^^ Except it's nothing like that.

Are we really saying we don't expect companies to have insurance on multi-million dollar rigs which are the very core of the company's business? Or that the insurance company shouldn't pay out as per the terms of their contract?

5/20/2010 9:28:46 AM

Just so we're clear, this was an outright profit, not merely just the payout covering the cost of the rig. I agree that there was a contractual obligation to pay out because of the property destruction. But making an ADDITIONAL $270 million beyond the stated property value is obscene. Insurance companies frequently cite reasons not to pay out additional costs, so it's not unreasonable for this one to have said "no." $270 million is worth a court battle, if it came to that.

5/20/2010 9:43:59 AM

Transocean: "Heh, sorry about your husband's death due to our slack safety policies, ma'am. Oh, you didn't have a life-insurance policy? Oops. Better get a full-time job to support those kids!"

*drives away in gold-played Ferrari while money flies out of the trunk*

5/20/2010 9:48:19 AM

again,

Quote :

"lets talk about their "profit" after all the fines are levied and lawsuits settled. they will likely need every penny of that if not more."

just like you cant buy insurance after an accident (well now you can in health care, but thats another thread ) an insurance company cannot arbitrarily change the terms of a payout. likely there is a clause for a disaster and that extra money is to try and cover the other costs.

anyone have an opinion on the tactical nuke idea to close the well?

5/20/2010 9:50:38 AM

BP has to get a 25 killstreak to call in a tactical nuke, and they've only got 11 so far.

5/20/2010 11:57:16 AM

Quote :

"Just so we're clear, this was an outright profit, not merely just the payout covering the cost of the rig. I agree that there was a contractual obligation to pay out because of the property destruction. But making an ADDITIONAL $270 million beyond the stated property value is obscene. Insurance companies frequently cite reasons not to pay out additional costs, so it's not unreasonable for this one to have said "no." $270 million is worth a court battle, if it came to that."

I get the feeling you really have no idea how stated/agreed value insurance works do you? The company and the insurance company get together and come to an agreement on a dollar amount figure to be paid out in the event of a total loss, regardless of the actual cash value of the property lost. So sometime in the past, Transocean and their insurer got together and decided that they were going to insure each of these rigs against total loss for a flat value of say $500M. Now clearly the insurance company saw value in issuing such a policy, otherwise as you point out, they would have said no. So unless you believe that the insurance company was defrauded in this deal, there's really nothing to be complaining about.

Quote :

"Transocean: "Heh, sorry about your husband's death due to our slack safety policies, ma'am. Oh, you didn't have a life-insurance policy? Oops. Better get a full-time job to support those kids!" "

Was Transocean responsible for the safety of rig operations, or was BP who was leasing the rig? That is, was the failure due to Transocean's negligence in building the rig (and perhaps maintaining depending on their lease contract) or was it BP's responsibility to maintain and comply with the safety regulations since they were the operators?

Unless Transocean themselves were responsible, this is really no different than if you let your friend borrow your car and he drunkenly flies through an intersection and kills a family of 4 and their dog. Are you somehow evil for collecting on your insurance policy for the car just because you were the owner?

5/20/2010 12:02:36 PM

Who knows, both of those motherfuckers are tossing blame around faster than you can say "congressional hearing."

5/20/2010 12:03:30 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6496749n&tag=related;photovideo

Wow. News team threatened with arrest trying to film oil on beaches. "This is BP rules, not ours..."

I think I'd take that arrest and do my best to bring it to the nation's attention afterward.

5/20/2010 12:13:21 PM

Quote :

"I think I'd take that arrest and do my best to bring it to the nation's attention afterward."

The Patriot Act also condones breaking the law to expose other law breakers.

5/20/2010 12:29:01 PM

Quote :

"BP has to get a 25 killstreak to call in a tactical nuke, and they've only got 11 so far."

not if you count marine life.

5/20/2010 1:19:58 PM

http://twitter.com/BPGlobalPR

5/24/2010 8:00:27 PM

Quote :

"anyone have an opinion on the tactical nuke idea to close the well?"

what the fuck do you think a nuke will do to help the situation?



did anyone see Sarah Palin bitching about Obama being cozy w/ the oil companies? I was all "really? really... really?"

5/24/2010 8:46:27 PM

Environmentalists are obviously to blame for this by pushing to tighter regulations and forcing companies to drill further out in more volatile conditions. Had this happened in shallower water it would have been easier to control and minimize.

~ El Rushmo

5/24/2010 11:25:49 PM

this may be a really stupid question, but why can't we light that shit on fire when the slick reaches the surface?

5/25/2010 11:55:14 AM

A lot of it doesn't reach the surface and stays suspended in amorphous blobs all around the ocean.

5/25/2010 11:57:48 AM

Quote :

"what the fuck do you think a nuke will do to help the situation?"

to seal off the 'tap' of the well, displacing tons of rock, etc...and shutting off the flow.

http://oil-price.net/en/articles/nukes-to-stop-the-oil-gusher.php

5/25/2010 12:05:24 PM

^^^
Air pollution levels may also be of concern.

5/25/2010 3:37:30 PM

^^^true.

^not nearly as bad as having the oil in the water.

5/25/2010 3:45:23 PM

Quote :

"this may be a really stupid question, but why can't we light that shit on fire when the slick reaches the surface?"

They have done some controlled burns. This is heavy crude which does not all float to the surface or burn easily though. If it were light crude they could possibly burn 70% or more of it. Not with this stuff.

5/25/2010 4:28:25 PM

Quote :

"to seal off the 'tap' of the well, displacing tons of rock, etc...and shutting off the flow. "

or it could blow an even bigger hole in the bottom of the ocean, making it even hard to close the well...

5/25/2010 8:46:52 PM

thats not really how it works. the oil is well below the crust. its been done several times in similar situations by the Russians.

I am not saying it is a perfect solution, I am only asking others' opinions who are maybe a little more well versed because I have heard it brought up as a viable option.

5/26/2010 8:31:50 AM

i mean, I guess it could bury the thing in debris. but it could also clear out the blockage and remove debris, making the oil flow faster. just seems silly and a little too "sci-fi military solution" for my tastes.

5/26/2010 6:52:00 PM

Can someone tell me why this wouldn't work:

clearly they can stick a pipe in the hole to divert some oil to a tanker, why couldn't they wrap that pipe with some sort of inflatable bag, then when they stuck it in the leak, inflate the bag with fluid, that would funnel all the oil up their pipe and onto the tanker. Is the pressure just too much?

5/26/2010 7:54:37 PM

Try this... Go to your house, turn on the hose, now stand at the other end of the house and using a stick thread a host onto the spigot. Nothing to it.

5/26/2010 9:28:48 PM

One for the evening...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Plugging-the-Gulf-oil-leak-with-the-works-of-Ayn-Rand/125031037519289

5/30/2010 1:11:07 AM

Documents Show Early Worries About Safety of Rig
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/us/30rig.html

Quote :

"The problems involved the well casing and the blowout preventer, which are considered critical pieces in the chain of events that led to the disaster on the rig. The documents show that in March, after several weeks of problems on the rig, BP was struggling with a loss of “well control.” And as far back as 11 months ago, it was concerned about the well casing and the blowout preventer. "

Quote :

"The company went ahead with the casing, but only after getting special permission from BP colleagues because it violated the company’s safety policies and design standards. The internal reports do not explain why the company allowed for an exception. BP documents released last week to The Times revealed that company officials knew the casing was the riskier of two options. "

Quote :

"In April of this year, BP engineers concluded that the casing was “unlikely to be a successful cement job,” according to a document, referring to how the casing would be sealed to prevent gases from escaping up the well. The document also says that the plan for casing the well is “unable to fulfill M.M.S. regulations,” referring to the Minerals Management Service. A second version of the same document says “It is possible to obtain a successful cement job” and “It is possible to fulfill M.M.S. regulations.” Andrew Gowers, a BP spokesman, said the second document was produced after further testing had been done. "

Quote :

"After informing regulators of their struggles, company officials asked for permission to delay their federally mandated test of the blowout preventer, which is supposed to occur every two weeks, until the problems were resolved, BP documents say. At first, the minerals agency declined. “Sorry, we cannot grant a departure on the B.O.P. test further than when you get the well under control,” wrote Frank Patton, a minerals agency official. But BP officials pressed harder, citing “major concerns” about doing the test the next day. And by 10:58 p.m., David Trocquet, another M.M.S. official, acquiesced. "

BP let this happen, and the MMS enabled it.

5/30/2010 4:45:36 PM

yep. and whose administration allowed them not to have to do an environmental impact study? oh, fuck, Obama's! and when did that happen? oh fuck, about 10 days before the explosion. fuck

but really, business colluding with government? that would NEVER happen.

5/30/2010 4:50:44 PM

In fairness, MMS has been fucked up long before Obama ever came in to town. Firing the director was a start, but there needs to be a LOT more housecleaning here.

5/30/2010 4:52:57 PM

This thread has come a long ways from pointing out what a douchebag Limbaugh is.

5/30/2010 4:57:48 PM

Probably because Limbaugh realized how fucking stupid it'd be to keep talking about it right now. He can make all the wingnut comments he wants about things that don't matter. This one's going to be with us for years.

5/30/2010 5:00:04 PM

Quote :

"but really, business colluding with government? that would NEVER happen. "

Which is exactly why we should do away with government... then things would surely never go wrong...

5/30/2010 5:02:13 PM

That's not the conclusion you're supposed to draw. We should hold government accountable when it does collude with corporations, rather than pretend that it's not taking place because "your side" is currently in the majority.

5/30/2010 5:09:09 PM

we should also do away with business, by your logic, moron

5/30/2010 5:28:32 PM

Businesses that allow ecological disasters like this to take place probably deserve to be killed off.

5/30/2010 5:32:44 PM

I agree. too bad they collude with an overly powerful federal gov't to limit their liability in such events

5/30/2010 5:47:06 PM

5/30/2010 11:09:32 PM

Quote :

"Businesses that allow ecological disasters like this to take place probably deserve to be killed off."

Quote :

"I agree. too bad they collude with an overly powerful federal gov't to limit their liability in such events"

Agreed.




etc...

5/31/2010 10:19:13 AM

Oh, and just so we're clear... the cleanup workers that are getting sick? Yeah, that's just "food poisoning."

BP CEO Attributes Oil Spill Cleanup Workers’ Illness To Food Poisoning
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bp-ceo-attributes-oil-spill-cleanup-workers-illness-to-food-poisoning/

From BP's CEO Tony Hayward:

Quote :

"“I’m sure they were genuinely ill, but whether it had anything to do with dispersants and oil, whether it was food poisoning, or some other reason for them being ill. You know, there’s a– food poisoning is a really big issue when you’ve got a concentration of this many people in ten pre-cabs, ten pre-accommodations. It’s something we have to be very, very mindful of. It’s one of the big issues of keeping the army operating. Armies march on their stomachs.”"

Someone at BP needs to get that man the hell away from cameras and reporters. He's actively making things worse for his company.

5/31/2010 7:04:43 PM

Quote :

"I am a gigantic douche. Watch me chop off that oil well like "The Karate Kid.""

6/2/2010 10:34:04 PM

And now the chuckleheads at Fox News are weighing in...

Fox and Friends Criticize DOJ Investigation Into BP & Gulf Oil Spill
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-and-friends-criticize-doj-investigation-into-bp-gulf-oil-spill/

Quote :

"Hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade reported on the $20 Billion dip in market cap as a result of the DOJ investigation and openly wondered how smart it was for Attorney General Eric Holder to make an announcement that lead to the dip in the Dow index. Doocy exasperatedly wonders how BP is going to get that $20 Billion back if they are faced with all these lawsuits. "

I have an idea. How about Steve Doocy shuts the fuck up. That man has no business on television.

6/3/2010 11:15:58 PM

You know in There Will be Blood they fixed that burning derrick with an explosion.

6/3/2010 11:35:53 PM

Some people are seriously advocating using a nuclear weapon on it now.

6/3/2010 11:44:55 PM

What's worse than an oil spill? A radioactive oil spill.

6/4/2010 2:29:18 AM

A map predicting just how far north and how into the Atlantic the oil spill could reach.

6/4/2010 8:49:19 AM

Quote :

"Wow. News team threatened with arrest trying to film oil on beaches. "This is BP rules, not ours..." "

6/4/2010 9:02:34 AM

Hearing that I'd be even more inclined to film there. Let them arrest me. BP could reeeeeally use that attention as well.

6/4/2010 9:24:31 AM