MMacGillivray
June 12, 2010, 04:10 AM
Hi, Gordon - controversy is good; discussion is so important - I'm looking forward to reading the new web site.
In the meantime, I'm truly heartbroken about the oil spill in the Mexican gulf; it's a real shocker.
My own opinion is that this is a classic example of what happens when large corporations aren't supervised enough; the profit motive is king - and I guess we all take chances when the bottom line is going to be affected.
I used to work in the oil industry (in a very minor capacity!) and occasionally I would hear tales of what this company or that company got away with in countries which aren't as well regulated as the UK or the USA. If it's bad in the Gulf of Mexico, just think of the potential for disaster in drilling operations in third world countries where oil company bucks speak much louder than the regulations.
Of course, this doesn't only apply to the oil industry. Think of the disaster at Bhopal. That should have been a wake-up call for industrial giants to make sure that the best safety and operating procedures are followed to the detriment of the bottom line if necessary.
It is right that President Obama is tackling this problem. However, I think there is a danger that, by emphasising the Britishness of the company, Obama is missing the real target - and that is the potential for disaster in all sorts of manufacturing environments both at home and abroad. (I believe, btw, that BP has more American employees than British ... to the tune of several thousand.)
Although based in London, the company has been effectively Anglo-American since its 1998 merger with Amoco – it employs 80,300 people, of whom 29,000 are in the US. Some 40% of its shares are held in the UK, while 39% are held in the US. A collapse of BP would destroy livelihoods, damage pension funds and wipe out savings on both sides of the Atlantic. For critics of "big oil", that's hardly a cause for tears. But BP's failure wouldn't dent America's reliance on fossil fuels even slightly. Ironically, the real beneficiaries would be other big oil companies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/10/us-bloodlust-bp-oil-spill
I don't think that BP has handled this as well as they could; but I do wonder how many oil industry executives at this very moment are scrambling to tidy up their own little pile of mess - and that applies to all oil companies irrespective of nationality.
Margaret
In the meantime, I'm truly heartbroken about the oil spill in the Mexican gulf; it's a real shocker.
My own opinion is that this is a classic example of what happens when large corporations aren't supervised enough; the profit motive is king - and I guess we all take chances when the bottom line is going to be affected.
I used to work in the oil industry (in a very minor capacity!) and occasionally I would hear tales of what this company or that company got away with in countries which aren't as well regulated as the UK or the USA. If it's bad in the Gulf of Mexico, just think of the potential for disaster in drilling operations in third world countries where oil company bucks speak much louder than the regulations.
Of course, this doesn't only apply to the oil industry. Think of the disaster at Bhopal. That should have been a wake-up call for industrial giants to make sure that the best safety and operating procedures are followed to the detriment of the bottom line if necessary.
It is right that President Obama is tackling this problem. However, I think there is a danger that, by emphasising the Britishness of the company, Obama is missing the real target - and that is the potential for disaster in all sorts of manufacturing environments both at home and abroad. (I believe, btw, that BP has more American employees than British ... to the tune of several thousand.)
Although based in London, the company has been effectively Anglo-American since its 1998 merger with Amoco – it employs 80,300 people, of whom 29,000 are in the US. Some 40% of its shares are held in the UK, while 39% are held in the US. A collapse of BP would destroy livelihoods, damage pension funds and wipe out savings on both sides of the Atlantic. For critics of "big oil", that's hardly a cause for tears. But BP's failure wouldn't dent America's reliance on fossil fuels even slightly. Ironically, the real beneficiaries would be other big oil companies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/10/us-bloodlust-bp-oil-spill
I don't think that BP has handled this as well as they could; but I do wonder how many oil industry executives at this very moment are scrambling to tidy up their own little pile of mess - and that applies to all oil companies irrespective of nationality.
Margaret
