It may be too little, too late to help BP's (BP) public image, but it turns out that BP and...

It may be too little, too late to help BP's (BP) public image, but it turns out that BP and other oil majors based their response plans to a potential Gulf spill on government data that was faulty; government models had put very low odds on oil hitting shore, even in a spill much bigger than the current one.
From other sites
Comments (6)
  • Tom Au, CFA
    , contributor
    Comments (6879) | Send Message
    There are usually multiple causations, hence extenuating circumstances, in situations like this.


    And if "it is good enough for government work"...
    24 Jun 2010, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2869) | Send Message
    the devil is in the details, if the details are allowed to come out we just may find out who the real Devil is in this matter, BP needs to do whatever it can to salvage its rep, lets hope they do, we need to know the real reasons why this catastrophe happened
    24 Jun 2010, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • frosty
    , contributor
    Comments (722) | Send Message
    But who wrote the report? Probably an oil company insider 'expert' hired by the (Bush) government. I thought Prudoe Bay proved that oil doesn't just evaporate. As far as little risk of hitting shore, didn't anyone ever hear of WAVES??? How about HURRICANES??? Or don't they have any of those any more in the gulf?
    24 Jun 2010, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • positivethoughts
    , contributor
    Comments (2065) | Send Message
    The company should of done it's own due diligence. I don't accept their excuse that they relied on government data which was faulty. Wouldn't it have been wise to do their own risk assessment to safeguard against liability and protect shareholder value and assets? What sort of insurance requirements do these operations employ? Wouldn't the insurance underwriters required something more extensive than government studies?
    24 Jun 2010, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • sieraromero
    , contributor
    Comments (150) | Send Message
    They did not have insurance. They were self insured. They did not want to pony up any up front money to insure against a catastrophic failure because it would pinch a few dollars in profits. If something did happen they could declare bankruptcy and just walk away. The same situation exists at nuclear power plants today. A catastrophy is to expensive to insure, so they do business as usual and hope for the best and if something happens,then to to to bad. We are addicted to energy and the whole problem will continue to bite us in the *** until we get serious about solving our dependence on energy. We also cannot continue to deliver energy in the cheapest way aand not the safest way possible.
    24 Jun 2010, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • The Patriot
    , contributor
    Comments (358) | Send Message
    I believe these were the same people who wrote the modeling program for Fannie Mae.
    24 Jun 2010, 09:22 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs