First some observations about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. According to 60 Minutes, the Deepwater Horizon did have a pretty good safety record until last month. BP's recent spate of safety problems may have as much to do with its takeover of ARCO as anything else. The well that the Deepwater Horizon drilled was apparently at a record-breaking depth below sea level; working in these conditions means charting new technological territory. The government can't "take over" the effort to plug the well since the only people / companies with the requisite capabilities (knowledge and physical assets) for working at these depths are BP and the companies (Transocena, and Halliburton) who are its partners in crime.
As frustration rises so does the level of inflammatory rhetoric. Even those who may know better likely feel compelled in their public utterances to ratchet up the level of accusations and demands for action. BP and the US government need each other. BP needs access to new oil leases, and US (and thus the government) needs the energy. But BP screwed up by appearing to be trying to shift blame onto its partners and the government screwed up by not setting expectations and by making illogical or impractical demands of BP, and by making promises on which it can't make good.
On side note, it's interesting that states don't want the ferderal government to spend federal tax dollars - unless it's on their state. Bobby Jindal, a one time opponent of the stimulus bill, now appears quite keen (an understatement) to accept help from the feds.
OK. So much for the boring stuff; what about a conspiracy theory. Of all the oil majors, BP was the first to embrace the idea of a transition to greener non fossil fuel energy. Its new 'flower' logo and the name change from British Petroleum to BP reflected both its increasing internationalization (if I remember this was about the time it bought ARCO) and a vision of being about more than just petroleum products.
Suppose that in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the government acts to transition more quickly than before towards green energy. Of all the majors, perhaps BP is best positioned to take advantage of such a shift in policy. So given the spill (and I'm not saying that BP blew up the rig intentionally; I am sure it genuinely was an accident), does BP benefit more, relative to its competitors, by making the oil industry look good or making it look irresponsible. Since I doubt that any legislation could be directed exclusively at a single company, all the oil majors would bear the same burden. And those companies with the greatest diversity and the least dependence on oil will profit the most.
"I'm just saying...", as they say.
No comments:
Post a Comment