The question in the title of this post is of course facetious and sarcastic. But as time goes on and more information accumulates, it appears to me that most independent and intelligent observers of what has transpired in the Gulf of Mexico – since the catastrophic accident that
claimed 11 human lives and uncounted numbers of animal lives, resulted in by far the
biggest oil spill in U.S. history (and still counting),
destroyed the Gulf fishing industry, and continues to cause disastrous and as yet undefined damage to the gulf of Mexico – would have to come to the conclusion that yes, BP does own the Gulf of Mexico.
That is a terrible conclusion to come to because – excuse my ideological sentiments – our planet was not made for the fun and profit of the few at the expense of the rest of humanity, not to mention its own destruction along with untold numbers of its creatures. But though they have no
moral right to own it, their actions over the past few months make it appear as if they do own it, and our government doesn’t seem to be doing much to counter that impression. So the American people should consider some powerful reasons why BP shouldn’t be trusted in their current role, and they ought to be asking some very pointed questions of our government about BP’s continued role in this matter:
NUMEROUS REASONS WHY BP SHOULDN’T BE TRUSTEDBP has a long history of dishonesty and putting profits above people and the security of our environment:
Past behaviorA recent history of numerous preventable disastersA
ProPublica report describes BP's involvement in some of the biggest oil and gas disasters in recent years due to their negligence, including: an explosion at BP's Texas oil refinery that killed 15 workers and injured 170; and, 267,000 gallons of oil spread onto the Alaskan tundra due to a hole in the company's pipeline, after BP ignored a warning.
Fighting off safety regulationsFrom an article titled “
Big Oil Fought Off New Safety Rules Before Rig Explosion”:
BP and TransOcean have aggressively opposed new safety regulations proposed last year by a federal agency that oversees offshore drilling – which were prompted by a study that found many accidents in the industry.
There were 41 deaths and 302 injuries out of 1,443 incidents from 2001 to 2007, according to the study conducted by the Minerals and Management Service of the Interior Department. In addition, the agency issued 150 reports over incidents of non-compliant production and drilling operations and determined there was "no discernible improvement by industry over the past 7 years."
As a result, the agency proposed taking a more proactive stance…The industry has launched a coordinated campaign to attack those regulations, with
over 100 letters objecting to the regulations.
BP’s long record of fines shows that they would rather pay fines for the damage they cause than take steps to prevent the damage. They have paid
$485 million in fines in the U.S. alone in the past 5 years, including:
$87.43 million to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 2009 – the largest fine in OSHA's history – for the above noted Texas refinery explosion;
$3 million to OSHA for 42 safety violations at an Ohio refinery; and
$20 million to the Department of Justice for a spill in the Alaska Prudhoe Bay.
Benefitting from a regime of terrorIn order to secure and protect a 450 mile pipeline in Colombia, a thousand farmers and their families were pushed off their farms and forced to live lives of destitution. As a result of accusations to that effect, in 2006 BP was pressured into making a
multimillion pound payout to the Colombian farmers.
Overemphasizing their devotion to green technologyDespite their green sunflower logo and their rebranding themselves as “beyond petroleum”, BP’s investment in green technology has been minimal compared to its continued devotion to oil.
For example:
In the first quarter of 2010, they made
$73 billion in revenue, $72.3 billion… from the exploration, production, refining and marketing of oil and natural gas. Only $700 million (less than 1% of the total) came from solar and wind energy.
BP filed a
52 page plan with Minerals Management Service regarding their Deep Horizon well, filled with
information that proved to be false:
Before BP had authorization to drill for oil they filed their plan with the Minerals Management Service. The plan explained that the Deepwater Horizon well would have a minimal environmental impact. The report expressed that it was very unlikely and virtually impossible that an accident would occur from activities that the Deepwater Horizon Well would perform. In addition the report stated that if something were to happen that due to their response capabilities, no significant impacts would be expected. The report, as everyone now knows, was extremely inaccurate.
Showing concern for their victims while trying to avoid liabilityWhile claiming that they planned to compensate the victims of their negligence, BP proceeded to offer them settlements of a mere $5,000 in return for signing away their right to sue. They have since given up this idea after they were
severely criticized for it.
BP’s secret and phony public relations campaignBP has spent at least $70 million on a
phony PR campaign to restore its sinking public image. The ads run something like this:
“The beaches are clean! The seafood is fresh! And the national parks are open!” gushes a pleasant female voice, as the television commercial displays a sunbather, a trawler and huge pile of yumm… “Government agencies and local municipalities are working around the clock to protect the region’s economy and ecology. And we’ll continue working as long as it takes…,” the announcer continues…
But in order to give the message credibility, BP has had to erase their fingerprints from the ads. They pay others to provide the message because they recognize that few people would put much stock in it if they knew that it was written and paid for by BP.
QUESTIONS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ASKINGThere are many more reasons for not trusting BP than those discussed above. Some of the most important of these reasons are part and parcel to a discussion of the questions we should be asking our government:
What right does BP have to deny any American access to information regarding the current crisis? BP has repeatedly denied reporters access to information that could shed light on the current catastrophe, often going to the extent of refusing to let scenes be photographed. At least once they
forcefully detained a reporter who had taken photographs of the carnage. Both BP and U.S. government officials have claimed that “instances of denying news media access have been anomalies”. But as Jeremy Peters
made clear in a
New York Times article, the efforts to deny access appear to be pervasive and systematic and even to apply to scientists and the requests of U.S. Senators:
Anomalies or not, reporters and photographers continue to be blocked from covering aspects of the spill.
Last week, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, tried to bring a small group of journalists with him on a trip he was taking through the gulf on a Coast Guard vessel. Mr. Nelson’s office said the Coast Guard agreed to accommodate the reporters and camera operators. But at about 10 p.m. on the evening before the trip, someone from the Department of Homeland Security’s legislative affairs office called the senator’s office to tell them that no journalists would be allowed.
“They said it was the Department of Homeland Security’s response-wide policy not to allow elected officials and media on the same ‘federal asset,’ ” said Bryan Gulley, a spokesman for the senator. “No further elaboration” was given, Mr. Gulley added…”
Scientists, too, have complained about the trickle of information that has emerged from BP and government sources. Three weeks passed, for instance, from the time the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20 and the first images of oil gushing from an underwater pipe were released by BP.
Perhaps it’s understandable that BP would want to avoid adverse publicity even to the extent of lying about what happened. But what conceivable right do they have to deny others access to information and even use force to do so? And under what exception to our freedom of the press clause of our First Amendment does our government undertake to assist BP in their efforts to deny access to news that is intimately related to the health of our planet?
Why is BP allowed to continue to use toxic dispersants?Initially the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed that it had no authority to tell BP what dispersants it could use in its efforts to clean up the oil spill. Then on May 20th they
reversed course, telling BP that it had three days to stop using a dispersant that EPA data suggested was
unnecessarily toxic. The
EPA has also noted that “the long term effects on aquatic life are unknown”.
In fact, many or most scientists believe that dispersants shouldn’t be used at all, since the dispersants may be just as or more toxic to marine life as the oil itself. It seems to many that BP’s use of dispersants is more for public relations purposes – they prevent visible slicks of oil from washing up on shore – than for limiting the damage to marine life. Regarding a
statement by Samantha Joye, professor of marine sciences at the University of Georgia:
The hazardous effects of the plume are two-fold. Joye said the oil itself can prove toxic to fish swimming in the sea, while vast amounts of oxygen are also being sucked from the water by microbes that eat oil. Dispersants used to fight the oil are also food for the microbes, speeding up the oxygen depletion.
And
According to Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills:
There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil. It’s a trade-off of trying to minimize the damage coming to shore, but in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.
And equally disconcerting is the fact that “The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws”.
In response to EPA’s order,
BP said “NO” to EPA on switching dispersants. And indeed
BP did flout EPA’s order:
Officials and scientists from the E.P.A. and the oil company met Sunday night and were apparently unable to reach a compromise before the deadline passed… “We are continuing to use Corexit while we look at other alternatives,” Mark Salt, a spokesman for the oil company, said by telephone from Texas on Monday.
So why haven’t we heard that our government is taking action against BP for defying an EPA order that involves an apparent effort by the EPA to prevent BP from further poisoning our public waters? Does our federal government believe that it has no authority to regulate the pollution of our environment by private corporations, even in the face of a major crisis, as suggested by Congressman Barton when
he apologized to BP? What right does BP have to keep the makeup of chemicals that they spew into our oceans secret?
What right does BP have to deny worker protection in efforts to clean up the damage they did? In apparent efforts to improve their image at the expense of their workers, BP has disallowed cleanup workers from using protective equipment to prevent toxic exposures. From an article titled “
Human rights group: BP discouraging crews from using respirators”:
RFK Center President Kerry Kennedy traveled to the Gulf Coast to talk to cleanup workers and found that BP was trying to repress the use of safety equipment. "In all three states that I've visited, fishermen said when they went out to work on the cleanup, that if they tried to bring respirators they were told it was unnecessary equipment and would only spread hysteria," Kennedy told Fox News Friday. "When I went out with eleven people, we had respirators on and within half an hour, all of our eyes were burning and our throats were closing and we all had headaches," she explained.
Even for those who are ideologically opposed to worker safety laws, it should be kept in mind that BP’s efforts to clean up the damage they wrought is their
responsibility, not something they are merely undertaking voluntarily because of their concern for all those who continue to suffer from their actions. As such, they have the
responsibility of putting the safety of their workers ahead of their public relations concerns. And our government has the
responsibility of mandating adequate efforts to protect worker safety in the process. So what has our government done about this responsibility?
What right does BP have to take full charge of the effort to stop the oil flow? Stopping the oil flow should be the number one priority in resolving this crisis. Though BP has estimated that only 5,000 barrels of oil per day are gushing into the Gulf, independent scientists have estimated much higher rates, on the order of
5 to 16 times the BP/U.S. government estimates. If those estimates are correct, that means that about 2,000 barrels of oil
per hour have continued to gush into the Gulf for nearly three months by now. Nobody knows how much additional irreparable damage to the Gulf and all the life that depends upon it occurs with every day that the gush goes unplugged.
While BP certainly has a
responsibility to assist in the effort to plug the oil gush that they created, being
in charge of it is an entirely different matter. It has repeatedly been
pointed out that BP being in charge of this effort represents a serious conflict of interest, since BP may (and probably does) have a number of reasons for wanting the gush to continue until they complete and put into operation their relief well.
Indeed, there are many who believe that BP’s many efforts to date to plug the gush have been misconceived at best and criminal at worst. Some have
suggested better methods:
There is a way to seal the wellhead with known Marine Pile Driving Technology. By lowering a larger pipe over the preventer and wellhead they can be sealed to the ocean floor.
I defy any “expert” in Heavy Marine Construction to explain to me why this will not work. It will take 83 sections of welded 60’ pipe and 80 valves to get to 5,000 feet in depth and as the pipe is hammered into the sea floor it will seal the preventer, wellhead and the end of the open riser and the oil will be contained permanently inside the pipe. The pipe and wellhead can then be permanently sealed from the surface and the pipe can be cut off far below the water surface. This can be accomplished in a few days.
I do not have the slightest technical expertise with which to evaluate proposals such as this. But why has the corporation that caused the damage and apparently stands to benefit from its numerous obstructionist policies been allowed, despite
repeated failures, to be
in charge of this effort? I half-heartedly
defended the Obama administration on this score nearly two months ago, on the basis that maybe they were in fact seriously consulting with independent scientists on this matter. But that possibility becomes more and more difficult to believe as each of BP’s efforts to plug the gush results in failure, and as they continue to deny the American public,
as well as concerned scientists, access to information on the crisis – and yet we hear of little or no meaningful input from independent scientists. So why doesn’t our government, as demanded by Lawrence Baker, create a:
STOP THE OIL FLOW TASK FORCE today that is independent of BP command to permanently stop the flow of oil tomorrow. This independent task force of FBI, Corps of Army Engineers, scientist and private marine construction contractors would begin taking positive action to permanently stop the oil flow.
PUTTING THIS IN PERSPECTIVEIn a sane world, the American people would be asking these questions and demanding answers. Yet, like the frog who gets gradually boiled in water, the American public seems to have become so accustomed to corporate rule in their country that questions like these rarely get asked. Barry Lynn, in his new book, “
Cornered – The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction”, asks the question in Chapter 1, “How did such a well-educated and vigilant people allow the few among us to re-impose so many monopolies upon us?” His answer:
The simplest answer is that beginning in the late 1970s… the interests that favor monopoly in the United States managed not merely to greatly solidify control over the Republican Party but also, for the first time since Grover Cleveland sat in the White House in the late 19th century, to take control of the Democratic Party…
When Reagan’s “regulators” made clear that they no longer intended to enforce our antimonopoly laws, the man who took the lead in opposing the putsch was Democratic senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio….
“Vigorous antitrust enforcement is an essential underpinning to the free enterprise private economy,” Metzenbaum wrote… Monopolists would destroy small businesses and repress U.S. workers. They would retard and pervert innovation, undermine the security of the nation, and corrupt the political system…
Lynn goes on to describe how matters became even worse under Clinton. He continues:
Perhaps most disturbing was
their decision, after promising to do the opposite, to allow the consolidation of U.S. media companies that had begun under Reagan to continue in a process that cut the number of big firms from more than fifty to six…
He concludes:
The simplest and most obvious reason that we the American people did not notice the political revolution that is monopolization – which resulted in such a vast shift of power away from us and into the hands of a few – is that for a full generation there has been no public debate on the issue. And there has been no public debate because both of our major parties are now under the control of the same monopolist powers.*
And of course those monopolist powers include our major news media. A most depressing thought… and yet, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Lynn is largely correct. No wonder that an oil company is able to behave, without consequences, as if it owns our planet.
* This is from the first chapter of Lynn’s book. The book jacket promises “With an entirely fresh set of solutions… empowering the individual citizen,
Cornered is both a wake-up call and a call to arms for anyone who believes in democracy, competition, and liberty for all”.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
