- Home
- We Need a Severe Outbreak of Common Sense
- BP = Bigger Problem!
BP = Bigger Problem!
- By Rick Sidorowicz
- Published 06/12/2010
- We Need a Severe Outbreak of Common Sense
- Unrated
Rick Sidorowicz
Rick Sidorowicz is the Publisher and Editor of The CEO Refresher, moderator of The Mindful Network, Minister of Culture of High Performance Retail, and Editor of 1001 Ways to Wow Your Customers. He also works with T4G Limited as a Business Strategist and Consultant developing innovative solutions for retailers and financial services organizations. His profile and contact information are @ www.ricksidorowicz.com .
View all articles by Rick Sidorowicz
It seems some progress has been made with the latest attempt at containment however, if I read things correctly the "solution" will be a "relief" well that will likely be completed in August. August? Three more months of spewing oil into the Gulf? Wow!
So the contingency and risk management plan is the relief well that takes three months to complete, meanwhile the catastrophe continues. That doesn't sound like a very sensible plan, does it?
It must make sense to Canadian regulators as I heard that the capability to drill a relief well is a requirement for offshore drilling on the Atlantic coast and in the north. And the requirement is to be able to have the relief well completed "within the season." Hummmm. Within the season. Is that like ... three months?
Somehow I don't think the Canadian regulators created this requirement on their own, as it seems quite similar to the timing of the relief well effort in the Gulf. Was this a requirement of drilling in the Gulf? I suspect it was, and we can all read about the disastrous impact that will continue until August.
I'm not hearing that any regulations have changed. Is it an "acceptable risk" of offshore drilling? Perhaps it is even now for the regulators and that is absolutely absurd!
If a relief well is the ultimate back-up plan to minimize any catastrophic damage why isn't it a requirement to have it in place before drilling starts? Likely very expensive to drill two wells ... but ... isn't that the true cost of obtaining the oil? Assuming of course any catastrophe is deemed unacceptable. Why wouldn't this be so? Who is prepared to accept the risk of not having the back-up in place? BP? The regulators? Obviously they have and continue to accept this risk. Problem is ... it's not their decision to make, unless of course they accept the personal responsibility for the impact of their decisions.
Something like a crime against humanity.
Oh, is it true that BP is paying out dividends of about $10 billion to shareholders? If so the timing seems quite absurd in the circumstances. Is it a cash grab? A prop for the stock price? Or is it business as usual with the Gulf situation just a minor blip on their corporate radar? What are these people thinking?
Maybe it's bye bye BP.
So the contingency and risk management plan is the relief well that takes three months to complete, meanwhile the catastrophe continues. That doesn't sound like a very sensible plan, does it?
It must make sense to Canadian regulators as I heard that the capability to drill a relief well is a requirement for offshore drilling on the Atlantic coast and in the north. And the requirement is to be able to have the relief well completed "within the season." Hummmm. Within the season. Is that like ... three months?
Somehow I don't think the Canadian regulators created this requirement on their own, as it seems quite similar to the timing of the relief well effort in the Gulf. Was this a requirement of drilling in the Gulf? I suspect it was, and we can all read about the disastrous impact that will continue until August.
I'm not hearing that any regulations have changed. Is it an "acceptable risk" of offshore drilling? Perhaps it is even now for the regulators and that is absolutely absurd!
If a relief well is the ultimate back-up plan to minimize any catastrophic damage why isn't it a requirement to have it in place before drilling starts? Likely very expensive to drill two wells ... but ... isn't that the true cost of obtaining the oil? Assuming of course any catastrophe is deemed unacceptable. Why wouldn't this be so? Who is prepared to accept the risk of not having the back-up in place? BP? The regulators? Obviously they have and continue to accept this risk. Problem is ... it's not their decision to make, unless of course they accept the personal responsibility for the impact of their decisions.
Something like a crime against humanity.
Oh, is it true that BP is paying out dividends of about $10 billion to shareholders? If so the timing seems quite absurd in the circumstances. Is it a cash grab? A prop for the stock price? Or is it business as usual with the Gulf situation just a minor blip on their corporate radar? What are these people thinking?
Maybe it's bye bye BP.