RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Lustgarten writes: "What is missing is a criminal prosecution that holds responsible the individuals who gambled with the lives of BP's contractors and the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico."

Fire boat response crews battle the blazing remnants of the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon, off Louisiana, 04/21/10. (photo: Reuters)
Fire boat response crews battle the blazing remnants of the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon, off Louisiana, 04/21/10. (photo: Reuters)



How BP Should Be Punished for the Gulf Disaster

By Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica

22 April 12

 

What is missing is a criminal prosecution that holds responsible the individuals who gambled with the lives of BP's contractors and the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico.

wo years after a series of gambles and ill-advised decisions on a BP drilling project led to the largest accidental oil spill in United States history and the death of 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, no one has been held accountable.

Sure, there have been about $8 billion in payouts and, in early March, the outlines of a civil agreement that will cost BP, the company ultimately responsible, another $7.8 billion in restitution to businesses and residents along the Gulf of Mexico. It's also true the company has paid at least $14 billion more in cleanup and other costs since the accident began on April 20, 2010, bringing the expense of this fiasco to about $30 billion for BP. These are huge numbers. But this is a huge and profitable corporation.

What is missing is the accountability that comes from real consequences: a criminal prosecution that holds responsible the individuals who gambled with the lives of BP's contractors and the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico. Only such an outcome can rebuild trust in an oil industry that asks for the public's faith so that it can drill more along the nation's coastlines. And perhaps only such an outcome can keep BP in line and can keep an accident like the Deepwater Horizon disaster from happening again.

BP has already tested the effectiveness of lesser consequences, and its track record proves that the most severe punishments the courts and the United States government have been willing to mete out amount to a slap on the wrist.

Prior to the gulf blowout, which spilled 200 million gallons of oil, BP was convicted of two felony environmental crimes and a misdemeanor: after it failed to report that its contractors were dumping toxic waste in Alaska in 1995; after its refinery in Texas City, Texas, exploded, killing 15, in 2005; and after it spilled more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil from a corroded pipeline onto the Alaskan tundra in 2006. In all, more than 30 people employed directly or indirectly by BP have died in connection with these and other recent accidents.

In at least two of those cases, the company had been warned of human and environmental dangers, deliberated the consequences and then ignored them, according to my reporting.

None of the upper-tier executives who managed BP - John Browne and Tony Hayward among them - were malicious. Their decisions, however, were driven by money. Neither their own sympathies nor the stark risks in their operations - corroding pipelines, dysfunctional safety valves, disarmed fire alarms and so on - could compete with the financial necessities of profit making.

Before the accident in Texas City, BP had declined to spend $150,000 to fix a part of the system that allowed gasoline to spew into the air and blow up. Documents show that the company had calculated the cost of a human life to be $10 million. Shortly before that disaster, a senior plant manager warned BP's London headquarters that the plant was unsafe and a disaster was imminent. A report from early 2005 predicted that BP's refinery would kill someone "within the next 12 to 18 months" unless it changed its practices.

Such explicit flirtation with deadly risk was undertaken as part of Mr. Browne's effort while chief executive to expand BP as quickly as possible. Mr. Browne relentlessly cut costs, including on maintenance and safety. Then he hastily assembled a series of acquisitions and mergers between 1998 and 2001 that added tens of thousands of employees, blurred chains of command and wrought chaos on his operations. His methods - and the demands of Wall Street - became overly dependent on quantitative measures of success at the expense of environmental and human risk.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+4 # pres 2012-04-22 22:43
Halliburton is the main criminal by representing and selling defective mud that supposedly capable of plugging up the BP well. That's the way it was represented and BP was stupid enough to take the their word for it.
Halliburton, and it's subs, is the most evil company on the planet.
(although Monsanto is also racing with them)
 
 
+5 # grouchy 2012-04-22 23:25
The important question to ask here (assuming anyone really wants to know) is WHY HASN'T THE PROPER LEVEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY BEEN DEMANDED! Now, get a truthful answer to that one and you will be looking at the structure of power in our nation and likely the world. On the other hand, it sure is easier to just hitch our wagon to the train as it heads into the swamp!
 
 
-1 # RLF 2012-04-23 03:45
If you are waiting for Eric Holder to prosecute banksters or polluters or torturers or scammers...then you are wasting your time. He is just like Obama...repube to the core and highly ineffective.
 
 
0 # brianf 2012-04-24 06:44
Well, maybe not to the core, but they are both way too pro-corporation and conservative. They both fiercely protect members of the Bush administration and many of their worst policies. That seems to be true of a large number of Democrats these days, unfortunately. Many of the same Democrats who voted to censure Clinton did not vote to censure Bush, even though Clinton's lying about an affair is such a minor thing (and unrelated to his duties) compared to the numerous horrible things Bush did, including lying about the reasons for invading Iraq, among other things. It makes no sense, and it's extremely unfortunate, but that is how most Democrats are these days. Look how many of them voted to defund Acorn based on unsubstantiated and false charges. It often seems like they hate their own party.
 
 
+3 # Billsy 2012-04-23 11:39
T'would help to fine the bejeezus out of them. Yet, what about those who line their autos up at BP owned Arco stations in san francisco and elsewhere, willing to save a few bucks on cheaper gas while supporting the severe cost-cutting policies of BP? Activism starts in the smallest way with how we all conduct our personal lives.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN