BP CEO at yacht race today

BigDallasDick8x6

Admired Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
3,881
Media
6
Likes
859
Points
333
Location
Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I would imagine most people would not have such a problem with him personally taking a day or more off...rather, the fact that he flew back to Europe and is watching a yacht race underscores the difference between his standard of living half a world away versus the standard of living of those who once worked on oil rigs, worked in the tourism industry, or fished in the Gulf before the company he headed changed things. It's the fact that he gets his life back in spades, but for those who live in and around the Gulf, they lose their livelihoods.

Yeah it's very reminiscent of the Detroit auto execs flying their private jets to DC to ask for money while they layoff auto workers because of their poor decisions.
 

BigDallasDick8x6

Admired Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
3,881
Media
6
Likes
859
Points
333
Location
Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
the CEO was abused by the congressional committee

Are you serious? What should they have done, given him a medal? He fucked up big time despite making millions per year. I have no problem with anyone earning whatever they can get, but they need to EARN it. He did not have the necessary controls in place. That's a key responsibility of the CEO and he failed.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I would imagine most people would not have such a problem with him personally taking a day or more off...rather, the fact that he flew back to Europe and is watching a yacht race underscores the difference between his standard of living half a world away versus the standard of living of those who once worked on oil rigs, worked in the tourism industry, or fished in the Gulf before the company he headed changed things. It's the fact that he gets his life back in spades, but for those who live in and around the Gulf, they lose their livelihoods.
Yeah, well...thats capitalism. The whole point of making money is so you can do what you like and not care about anyone else. I doubt this situation is really like that, the guy probably had a long standing diary appointment and probably normally has a life spent flying backwards and forwards. Not exactly fun in itself. Think of it as a 12 hour commute to work each day.

But really, if you dont like company directors earning enough money to do things hopelessly too expensive for most of us, its not an issue with BP but with the system.

This isn't rocket science, but if BP wants to further alienate the American public...it has every right to do that. Its free enterprise.
I think there comes a point where you just want to tell the US where to get lost. If they dont want you trying to fix it as best you can, well let them get on with it by themselves. I would, but then I never wanted to be a company director either. Its one thing to be sorry and try to fix something that has gone horribly wrong, but quite another to try to do it if all they do is jeer at you.
 

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,053
Media
44
Likes
833
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Are you serious? What should they have done, given him a medal? He fucked up big time despite making millions per year. I have no problem with anyone earning whatever they can get, but they need to EARN it. He did not have the necessary controls in place. That's a key responsibility of the CEO and he failed.

Your post intentionally distorted what I stated in my post. It did so by quoting only part of one of my sentences. You will NOT get away with it. Here is what I actually said:
"Although the CEO was abused by the congressional committee, his performance was not good and his continual evasiveness was inexcusable. Perhaps his being abused was at least partly the result of his evasiveness."

Here is how you quoted me:
"the CEO was abused by the congressional committee"

Moreover, in other posts which I have made, I have made it inescapably clear that I do not condone BP's actions. I have also stated that it is their responsibility to compensate everyone who has been impacted by the oil well blowout.

Quite frankly, I am tired of people who twist and distort what others have said. Unfortunately, it deceives people who do not have access to original statements.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
His taking time off will make no operational difference; it's nothing more than a matter of public relations because of the inability of the public to look at the matter rationally.
But that's why you have public relations, to create a favorable impression for the public. Those of us who can see it objectively are a tiny minority. BP desperately needs good PR right now, and in those terms, this is another disaster.

Although the CEO was abused by the congressional committee, his performance was not good and his continual evasiveness was inexcusable. Perhaps his being abused was at least partly the result of his evasiveness.
There was some playing to the cameras and constituents by members as there always is in televised hearings, but less than usual from my perspective. For the most part I believe members of the committee conducted themselves in accordance with the gravity of the situation.

I do not believe he was abused at all, if he got a severe grilling, it was his own doing. He was given a 14 page letter from the committee several days in advance, outlining five specific areas of concern that he would be required to respond to in the hearing. You can bet your ass if he'd been asked those questions by his board of directors he would have had ready answers, or he'd be out of a job. Instead, he repeatedly evaded the questions and flat out lied under oath, pretending not to know the answer or even have an opinion on anything, because the internal BP "investigation was ongoing".

He refused to divulge anything that had been discovered so far in the investigation. He repeated stock deflective responses over and over like a robot, "I had no prior knowledge", "I was not a part of the decision making process" my favorite being the ironic and Orwellian, "BP is focused like a laser on safety," which he repeated so many times I lost count. The man has worked for the company for 28 years, and in his prior positions was an expert on exploration and a soils proving engineer for chrissake. After 60 days he knows exactly what the problems were, if he did not know at the time of the blowout. Based on his performance before the committee, I think he should have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Excerpted from a post I made in another thread, and a link to an article outlining the specific areas of concern that could have led to the blowout, that Hayward was instructed to be prepared to respond to in the hearing:

In a 14 page letter to CEO Hayward from the Congressional committee investigating the cause of the blowout:
“Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense. If this is what happened, BP’s carelessness and complacency have inflicted a heavy toll on the Gulf, its inhabitants, and the workers on the rig.

The lawmakers described five “questionable decisions” by BP before the April 20 explosion, including the use of a less robust well design, failure to anchor the well’s casing using a process recommended under industry practices and cutting short procedures to ensure cementing was sound. The decision on testing the cement was called “horribly negligent” by an expert the committee consulted, according to the letter."
A detailed synopsis here: BP Cost-Cutting Added Risks at 'Nightmare' Well - Bloomberg Business Week‎

And here at last, a sensible perspective from the UK:
"The committee has been conducting an aggressive inquiry into the gusher, and called Hayward in to answer specific charges of suspected safety lapses and shortcuts in the design plan of the well in the days before the explosion on the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon rig. But Hayward, who had been carefully coached by legal and media teams and was testifying under oath, failed to satisfy.

The committee's search for answers was repeatedly frustrated by Hayward, who denied any involvement in or prior knowledge of the ill-fated decisions about the well that led to the blow-out. Hayward had multiple variations on the same theme: that he had no direct involvement or knowledge of problems on the Deepwater Horizon, even though engineers lower down in BP's hierarchy had spoken about a "nightmare well".

He clung to his argument that it would be premature to comment until investigations had run their course. His answers, all delivered in flat, impassive tones, infuriated committee members."

 
Last edited:

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
You beat me to it Max. Well put. The man needs some time with his son and I have no problem with that. But the optics are terrible. I couldn't think of worse PR move for the CEO of BP than him enjoying a bit of Cowes Week on his yacht at this time. Either the man and his advisors are completely clueless, or he truly doesn't give a damn.
Maybe a bit of both, the latter for sure. I imagine he sees the writing on the wall though.

He's a liability now. I wouldn't be surprised if he's replaced in pretty short order.
 
Last edited:

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,053
Media
44
Likes
833
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
But that's why you have public relations, to create a favorable impression for the public. Those of us who can see it objectively are a tiny minority. BP desperately needs good PR right now, and in those terms, this is another disaster.

There was some playing to the cameras and constituents by members as there always is in televised hearings, but less than usual from my perspective. For the most part I believe members of the committee conducted themselves in accordance with the gravity of the situation.

I do not believe he was abused at all, if he got a severe grilling, it was his own doing. He was given a 14 page letter from the committee several days in advance, outlining five specific areas of concern that he would be required to respond to in the hearing. You can bet your ass if he'd been asked those questions by his board of directors he would have had ready answers, or he'd be out of a job. Instead, he repeatedly evaded the questions and flat out lied under oath, pretending not to know the answer or even have an opinion on anything, because the internal BP "investigation was ongoing".

He refused to divulge anything that had been discovered so far in the investigation. He repeated stock deflective responses over and over like a robot, "I had no prior knowledge", "I was not a part of the decision making process" my favorite being the ironic and Orwellian, "BP is focused like a laser on safety," which he repeated so many times I lost count. The man has worked for the company for 28 years, and in his prior positions was an expert on exploration and a soils proving engineer for chrissake. After 60 days he knows exactly what the problems were, if he did not know at the time of the blowout. Based on his performance before the committee, I think he should have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Excerpted from a post I made in another thread, and a link to an article outlining the specific areas of concern that could have led to the blowout, that Hayward was instructed to be prepared to respond to in the hearing:



And here at last, a sensible perspective from the UK:
"The committee has been conducting an aggressive inquiry into the gusher, and called Hayward in to answer specific charges of suspected safety lapses and shortcuts in the design plan of the well in the days before the explosion on the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon rig. But Hayward, who had been carefully coached by legal and media teams and was testifying under oath, failed to satisfy.

The committee's search for answers was repeatedly frustrated by Hayward, who denied any involvement in or prior knowledge of the ill-fated decisions about the well that led to the blow-out.Hayward had multiple variations on the same theme: that he had no direct involvement or knowledge of problems on the Deepwater Horizon, even though engineers lower down in BP's hierarchy had spoken about a "nightmare well".

He clung to his argument that it would be premature to comment until investigations had run their course. His answers, all delivered in flat, impassive tones, infuriated committee members."



True, there was grandstanding by the committee. But the committee would have made the CEO look much worse if the members had exercised the self-discipline necessary to appear totally calm, objective, and courteous. They could have repeatedly, every single time he evaded, calmly pointed out that the question was in the written list and that he had more than ample time to get the answers. That would have reduced the ability of anyone to sympathize with the CEO.

I have seen how effectively a calm and courteous demeanor can totally devastate an unreasonable person. Years ago, a gay activist was a guest on a talk show hosted by the former (super) mayor of St. Paul. The host was incredibly nasty, but the guest refused to respond in kind. The host became totally frustrated and stunned into complete silence. It was reported in the newspapers. The host came out of it looking like an ogre and the guest came out of it looking like an angel.

In the case of the CEO of BP, it may well be, as he stated, that he had no prior knowledge of the problems with the well. However, if he had no prior knowledge, it is because BP lacked adequate provision for upward communication. If PB had adequate provision for upward communication, and if employees had been instructed and encouraged to report potentially serious safety problems, then he would have had knowledge and been able to do something about it. He had worked in an executive capacity for BP for something like three years which should be sufficient time for him to learn about the company's culture and procedures and take action to ensure that there would be adequate upward communication.
 
Last edited:

BigDallasDick8x6

Admired Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
3,881
Media
6
Likes
859
Points
333
Location
Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Your post intentionally distorted what I stated in my post. It did so by quoting only part of one of my sentences. You will NOT get away with it. Here is what I actually said:
"Although the CEO was abused by the congressional committee, his performance was not good and his continual evasiveness was inexcusable. Perhaps his being abused was at least partly the result of his evasiveness."

Here is how you quoted me:
"the CEO was abused by the congressional committee"

Moreover, in other posts which I have made, I have made it inescapably clear that I do not condone BP's actions. I have also stated that it is their responsibility to compensate everyone who has been impacted by the oil well blowout.

Quite frankly, I am tired of people who twist and distort what others have said. Unfortunately, it deceives people who do not have access to original statements.

1 -- I didn't distort anything. I quoted you exactly.

2 -- Everyone has access to the full context of your original statement.
 

BigDallasDick8x6

Admired Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
3,881
Media
6
Likes
859
Points
333
Location
Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I think there comes a point where you just want to tell the US where to get lost. If they dont want you trying to fix it as best you can, well let them get on with it by themselves.

We don't want them to TRY to fix it. We want it fixed. If anyone needs to be told to get lost it's BP.
 

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,053
Media
44
Likes
833
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
1 -- I didn't distort anything. I quoted you exactly.

2 -- Everyone has access to the full context of your original statement.

1. An incomplete quotation is not an exact quotation. Everyone knows that lifting things out of context can distort the original intent, and everyone knows that that is often intentionally done.

2. Of course everyone has access to the full context, but that does not mean that everyone will look at the full context.
 

BigDallasDick8x6

Admired Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
3,881
Media
6
Likes
859
Points
333
Location
Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
1. An incomplete quotation is not an exact quotation. Everyone knows that lifting things out of context can distort the original intent, and everyone knows that that is often intentionally done.

For clarity I quoted only the passage I was responding to.
 
Last edited:

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,053
Media
44
Likes
833
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
For clarity I quoted only the passage I was responding to.

For clarity, you could have quoted the entire sentence and put in bold the portion of the sentence to which you were responding. That would have preserved the entire context. I have used that approach myself.
 

BigDallasDick8x6

Admired Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
3,881
Media
6
Likes
859
Points
333
Location
Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
For clarity, you could have quoted the entire sentence and put in bold the portion of the sentence to which you were responding. That would have preserved the entire context. I have used that approach myself.

You do it your way and I do it mine. Different strokes.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
We don't want them to TRY to fix it. We want it fixed. If anyone needs to be told to get lost it's BP.
Thats just it. You dont. What proportion of the US wants to use less oil, and what proportion wants to pay more for it?
 

BigDallasDick8x6

Admired Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
3,881
Media
6
Likes
859
Points
333
Location
Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Thats just it. You dont. What proportion of the US wants to use less oil, and what proportion wants to pay more for it?

Actually, I just posted something on a Yahoo group earlier today in response to someone who was saying something about $10 a gallon gas. My response was $10 a gallon gas might be what it takes to wake up people to what a precarious position this country is in. Also a couple years ago at work when everyone was complaining about $4 gas, I said I hope it goes to $12. A lot of people didn't like that.

If BP is told to get lost, that doesn't mean less oil will be extracted. Someone else will fill the void. The basic math is what is against us. The US has 3% of the world's oil reserves but uses 25% of the oil. (So I have heard more than once -- don't want to argue the exact percentages, the principle remains the same.)
 

BigDallasDick8x6

Admired Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
3,881
Media
6
Likes
859
Points
333
Location
Dallas TX (North Oak Cliff)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Last edited:

FRE

Admired Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Posts
3,053
Media
44
Likes
833
Points
258
Location
Palm Springs, California USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Actually, I just posted something on a Yahoo group earlier today in response to someone who was saying something about $10 a gallon gas. My response was $10 a gallon gas might be what it takes to wake up people to what a precarious position this country is in. Also a couple years ago at work when everyone was complaining about $4 gas, I said I hope it goes to $12. A lot of people didn't like that.

If BP is told to get lost, that doesn't mean less oil will be extracted. Someone else will fill the void. The basic math is what is against us. The US has 3% of the world's oil reserves but uses 25% of the oil. (So I have heard more than once -- don't want to argue the exact percentages, the principle remains the same.)

As I've said before, it would be a good idea to shift part of the tax burden from the income tax to a tax on fossil fuel. It could be done in stages to avoid undue disruptions. The average person would experience no overall change in taxes, but there would be a powerful incentive to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Simply increasing the tax on fossil fuels would probably be politically impossible, but it might be politically possible to shift the tax burden from the income tax to a tax on fossil fuels.