Is it just me or do most people dislike oil companies, even before the bp incident?

[Kimber]

I ask because I had a very close friend that I worked with at Amoco Chemical before it was purchased by BP (she was in the computer deportment) and she thought chemical companies and oil companies were bad, very bad. (I can't quote her because I don't remember what she said.)

 

Anyway, after the BP incident, it seems the media is really anti-oil companies in general. And the pres. seems inclined to use the bp incident as an opportunity to regulate the industry more. Not some I disagree with, but I don't know that I actually agree with it either. I'm more in the camp that if we just enforced the rules we have, we'd have fewer problems.

 

Anyway, just wondering if the dislike is really there or if it's in my imagination.

 

Kimberly

[Joanne]

I've observed that many people don't like uber-profitable businesses in general. This reaction is exacerbated when the profit is tied to a commodity (or service) that "everyone" needs.

 

There tends to be an "antiprofit" bias and the expectation that companies/people must be doing something wrong if they are "that" monetarily successful.

[Mejane]

People knee-jerk react when one of these accidents occur. They did the same thing with nuclear power back in the 80's, which is one reason we're still so dependent on oil. When my husband's company wants to put a power plant somewhere, protestors come out of the woodwork - not in MY backyard! Well, if not here, then where? Someone has to pay the cost so everyone can have power.

 

Accidents of any kind are devastating and I get the anger, but how many of those picketers are willing to go off the grid and give up their cars and other conveniences? Very few, I'd bet. In this case, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[LibraryLover]

Wow, MeJane and Joann, these are the exact same things dh and I talk about all the time. There is no downside to hating Big Oil (or big business) but we still buycomputers and put gas in our cars.

 

As an aside, the author of the famous Whole Eart Catalogue has done a total About Face on Nuclear Power. He's apologized for his role in preventing it's development in the US.

[MBM]

I make a lot of money because of them, Exxon in particular, so I guess you could say I don't dislike them.

 

I do wish more steps had been taken by the powers-that-be to prevent this latest tragedy.

 

[LibraryLover]

That's the thing, MBM. The technology for greater safety exists.

 

My mother's husband (not my dad) has family in the gulf area, and he reports that there is a local work boom. While it's a terrible environmental tradgey (although one from which the area will eventually recover), formally unemployed people are employed. There is now money where there was once no money. Not that anyone wishes this had happened, of course.

 

Exxon made people in Alaska wealthy (Before and after Valdez). Further, Exxon was forced to do things they knew wasn't right. Like power wash coastlines because the world was demanding they do so. In fact, as anyone in the environmental clean -up industry knows, those areas that were left to nature have recovered and fared much better than those areas that were 'power-washed'. My dh watched that happen with a lump in his throat, and was involved with cleanup research. 'Although they think they are saving the ecosystems of those inlets, they are destroying them".

 

I make a lot of money because of them, Exxon in particular, so I guess you could say I don't dislike them.

 

I do wish more steps had been taken by the powers-that-be to prevent this latest tragedy.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Kimber]

There tends to be an "antiprofit" bias and the expectation that companies/people must be doing something wrong if they are "that" monetarily successful.

 

I can agree with this. And it makes sense.

[Kimber]

I'm wondering now about the dispersant that are now being used on the oil. I am thinking it would probably be better to let the natural oil exist rather than adding the chemicals.

[LizzyBee]

The media hates oil companies, but I don't know anyone IRL who does. If it weren't for oil companies, we'd still be cutting wood to heat our homes and riding horses to work. :auto:

[Carol in Cal.]

However, I think that expecting them to regulate themselves is unreasonable. They are profit-driven, amoral entities, by definition. So they must be regulated by government rules and by public opinion pressure...those are the only influences that will work.

 

As an experienced chemical engineer, I am aghast at the stupidity of the assumptions that led to the gulf environmental disaster. Who doesn't have a reasonable fallback plan in case something goes wrong? Only someone who a) doesn't have enough experience to realize that something generally does go wrong, and/or b) someone who doesn't have to care because there is no regulatory pressure to do so.

 

So then I look at downside risk.

 

If the downside risk of a leak is small, like the oil would leak into a secondary container around the main one, then a reasonable plan is in place.

 

If the downside risk of a leak is large, like the oil could, I dunno, leak in huge quantities into a pristine ocean environment and then be carried to large areas of environmentally fragile ocean and beach areas, then I would expect significant regulation and public opinion pressure be applied, preferably preventitively and in advance of something like this happening. In fact, if the downside risk is large, I would expect that absolute prevention via secondary and tertiary backups or complete prevention of the activity itself would be appropriate.

 

And, BTW, people who are turning to nuclear power as a safer alternative are suffering from amnesia and from lack of understanding of the magnitude of the downside risk and containment issues, flat out.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Carol in Cal.

[Kimber]

People knee-jerk react when one of these accidents occur.

 

I'm actually very concerned about all of the negative attitudes toward BP at this point. The knee-jerk reactions while understandable could cause the people that work for BP to lose their jobs.

 

It's very disturbing.

 

But aside from the knee-jerk reaction, the incident seems to bring more media scrutiny and disdain for the industry as a whole.

[Mejane]

But aside from the knee-jerk reaction, the incident seems to bring more media scrutiny and disdain for the industry as a whole.

 

If it brings about improved safety standards, that's a good thing. It seems to take something like this happening to make companies responsible. Unfortunately. :glare:

[Mejane]

nature has an immense power to heal itself (heck, I live near Mt. St. Helens, I've seen it with my eyes). When people get int he way it tends to cause even more problems.

 

Yes. I watched a documentary about Chernobyl showing there are all manner of healthy plant and animal life flourishing there twenty years after the accident, even though scientists predicted it would be hundreds of years before anything could sustain there. Nature is an awesome force.

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes. I watched a documentary about Chernobyl showing there are all manner of healthy plant and animal life flourishing there twenty years after the accident, even though scientists predicted it would be hundreds of years before anything could sustain there. Nature is an awesome force.

 

Radioactive as well, though, unfortunately.

Certainly not fit for human consumption.

[LibraryLover]

If it brings about improved safety standards, that's a good thing. It seems to take something like this happening to make companies responsible. Unfortunately. :glare:

 

 

I do think we have to consider a world without oil, even as I am pragmatic about our need not lessening for some time.

 

Yet people cannot say not to big oil, say no to windpower, say no to nulcear power etc etc. Everything has a risk. The earth doesn't care...it doesn't need humans to carry on. Humans need energy however, and we are never going to turn the clock back on that need. It might be forced on us, and then we will have to get creative.

 

Explore for oil safely, make the safest nuclear reactors one can, let the **** windmills go up in your backyard...you can't scream no to everything and then try to maintin your energy needs.

 

Coal...now coal...that has got to go. The environmental and human health ramifications of coal are immense. Maybe coal -burning causes Autism. :001_huh: Homer Simpson aside, nuclear energy, even with storage issues, is a whole lot safer.

[Kimber]

They are profit-driven, amoral entities, by definition.

 

This I don't understand.

 

As an experienced chemical engineer, I am aghast at the stupidity of the assumptions that led to the gulf environmental disaster.

 

I totally agree, but at this point, I'm refraining from blaming BP, although they are legally responsible. I do understand from the media information that's been released so far that they had no back up plan at all. And that is inexcusable. Who ever put together the regional spill plan will probably be fired. I can't imagine someone making those types of mistakes. They're simply inexcusable.

 

What I can't understand or find on line is did BP actually cause the leak? Why didn't the system fail closed? What role did Transocean play? What about the cementing done by Halliburton?

 

I realize that legally and morally BP is responsible for the operation of that oil rig, and they are responsible for not having the systems in place for dealing with a spill. But did they actually cause the spill or even the explosion?

 

I don't think anyone knows this right now. But the media and every assumes BP caused the problem.

[simka2]

My dh has a difficult job working in permitting for an oil company...the last two weeks have been ridiculously difficult!!!!!

[Mejane]

Radioactive as well, though, unfortunately.

Certainly not fit for human consumption.

 

 

Correct. Interesting article from 2006 here:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm

[chiguirre]

IMHO, BP deserves its bad reputation. It has had a long string of safety violations, accidents and releases of pollutants. If I lived in Texas City (near a big BP refinery), I'm sure I'd thoroughly detest BP. I can understand how Amoco workers feel about being taken over by a company which stands out in its industry for its lack of concern for worker and community safety. Not all oil companies are irresponsible, but BP has repeatedly shown that it can't be trusted.

[LibraryLover]

The natural world is not dependant on humans. It did very well without us for billions of years, dramatic (to say the least) climate change and all. :D

 

Correct. Interesting article from 2006 here:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm

[Mejane]

The natural world is not dependant on humans. It did very well without us for billions of years, dramatic (to say the least) climate change and all. :D

 

Yes, and we don't have to eat everything. ;)

[MomOfOneFunOne]

Wow, MeJane and Joann, these are the exact same things dh and I talk about all the time. There is no downside to hating Big Oil (or big business) but we still buycomputers and put gas in our cars.

 

As an aside, the author of the famous Whole Eart Catalogue has done a total About Face on Nuclear Power. He's apologized for his role in preventing it's development in the US.

 

I would have to say that I do think there is a down side to hating no matter whom one hates. Even if it's a company and one doesnt' know anyone personally, I believe that one most certainly does do harm by hating . . . even if it's only harm to hater.

 

Maybe you don't really mean hate, though. I agree with most of the rest of your post though. All companies desire profit and to get that almighty dollar, they must sell what the ppl want. As long as the people want super sizes, oil fed cars, coal fed electricity, cheap plastic stuff . . . well, there will be companies to supply them. Taking it out on the company is backward thinking to my way of thinking.

 

I don't really think nuclear is the answer, though. I would like to see something of far less impact. Something that doesnt' have to be mined, transformed so dramatically and dangerously, and stored for so long and so dangerously.

 

My daughter has been listening to Michael Jackson and I"m reminded of the Man in the Mirror song. It has to begin with us. and by us,I guess I mean ME!

Edited June 10, 2010 by MomOfOneFunOne

[MomOfOneFunOne]

The media hates oil companies, but I don't know anyone IRL who does. If it weren't for oil companies, we'd still be cutting wood to heat our homes and riding horses to work. :auto:

 

That actually sounds good to me right now. Right now. B/c right now I'm not actually doing it. If I actually did have to split some wood and carry buckets of water I might sing a different tune. Still, the idea(l) of living like that sounds so very appealing to me.

[Kimber]

IMHO, BP deserves its bad reputation. It has had a long string of safety violations, accidents and releases of pollutants. If I lived in Texas City (near a big BP refinery), I'm sure I'd thoroughly detest BP. I can understand how Amoco workers feel about being taken over by a company which stands out in its industry for its lack of concern for worker and community safety. Not all oil companies are irresponsible, but BP has repeatedly shown that it can't be trusted.

 

They do deserve their bad reputation, and they should pay for the situation they have caused. But enough details are not out about this spill to indicate that they actually caused it. What about Transocean and Halliburton? They are involved and could have actually caused the problem of the rig not failing safe, even if BP is the cause of the explosion.

 

Also, Obama is trying to make Bp responsible for the loss of income to workers caused by his 6 months ban on offshore drilling.

 

That is just ridiculous. BP can't or shouldn't be held liable for verifying that other companies aren't going to cause problems similar to the one they find themselves in. If they do, they'll destroy the company, which is made up of people. And all of those people who are guilty of nothing but working for BP will lose their jobs and their pensions and their savings.

 

Revenge against BP isn't going to make the leak go away, but it will make the income and pensions of many regular innocent people go away.

[Margaret in GA]

That's the thing, MBM. The technology for greater safety exists.

 

My mother's husband (not my dad) has family in the gulf area, and he reports that there is a local work boom. While it's a terrible environmental tradgey (although one from which the area will eventually recover), formally unemployed people are employed. There is now money where there was once no money. Not that anyone wishes this had happened, of course.

 

Exxon made people in Alaska wealthy (Before and after Valdez). Further, Exxon was forced to do things they knew wasn't right. Like power wash coastlines because the world was demanding they do so. In fact, as anyone in the environmental clean -up industry knows, those areas that were left to nature have recovered and fared much better than those areas that were 'power-washed'. My dh watched that happen with a lump in his throat, and was involved with cleanup research. 'Although they think they are saving the ecosystems of those inlets, they are destroying them".

 

I think that while there is a current "work boom", the ultimate result will be loss of revenue for the entire affected area :

 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/08/news/economy/bp_oil_spill_florida/index.htm

 

I don't like oil companies. And I don't like coal companies. And I don't like natural gas companies. And I don't like mining companies. And I don't like clear-cutting forestry companies. On and on. What I detest is when people take the natural resources of this country and use up the environment surrounding them to make a profit. From what is ours. That's wrong. That's our oil and they have used to to earn insane profits for a select few individuals, avoid their share of taxation, and in the process they have managed to destroy a good bit of our earth. So, yeah. I have a problem with that. The influence of these mega-companies in our government has made this country light years behind other countries in the areas of green technology. It's sad, but we are really not going to do anything about our SUVs and coal burning plants until it starts affecting our wallets. I hope it's not too late by then.

 

Margaret

PS I do what I can: drive a car that gets good gas mileage, hang my clothes out to dry, produce much of my own food, have a very low electric bill each month... but really, how much does it matter what I do when my neighbor drives an SUV and keeps their thermostat at 61? :(

[angela in ohio]

I've observed that many people don't like uber-profitable businesses in general. This reaction is exacerbated when the profit is tied to a commodity (or service) that "everyone" needs.

 

There tends to be an "antiprofit" bias and the expectation that companies/people must be doing something wrong if they are "that" monetarily successful.

 

I agree 100%.

 

I do dislike BP in particular, though I am not anti-oil or anti-profit, though. They polluted an area near my old hometown. When I was in high school, a few of us boycotted a scholarship from them because of it.

 

Ultimately, I think most people dislike oil companies because the major media does, the same reason most people think anything else. :001_huh:

 

My dbil works for Chevron, and we joke about him being a "stinkin' big oil boy" all the time. :D

Edited June 10, 2010 by angela in ohio

[elegantlion]

I dislike companies that are ill prepared to deal with worst case scenario when it happens. :glare:

[Caroline]

I dislike companies that are ill prepared to deal with worst case scenario when it happens. :glare:

 

Exactly!

[Mejane]

I dislike companies that are ill prepared to deal with worst case scenario when it happens. :glare:

 

:iagree: There should be plans in place for this type of thing.

[chiguirre]

They do deserve their bad reputation, and they should pay for the situation they have caused. But enough details are not out about this spill to indicate that they actually caused it. What about Transocean and Halliburton? They are involved and could have actually caused the problem of the rig not failing safe, even if BP is the cause of the explosion.

 

 

I think BP deserves the bulk of the blame because, at the end of the day, it's their well and they are ultimately responsible for its safe operation. I also believe that they pressured TO and Halliburton to cut corners. We know that BP refused to perform the Cement Bond Log and Schlumberger got its workers out of there 6 hours before the explosion. If BP had performed the CBL, 11 people would be alive and the whole gulf coast wouldn't be threatened.

 

I think that BP deserves the same treatment as Arthur Andersen. When a company screws up repeatedly and willfully ignores safe operating procedures, they should have to pay the price for their actions. I personally think that BP's track record merit criminal charges being brought against the corporation.

 

I'm not in the least bit anti-oil, and I'm sick of BP tarring the entire industry with their irresponsibility.

[Mom in High Heels]

Before dh got transferred I worked for big oil. I was a Sr. Land Agent who bought right-of-way tracts for a new oil pipeline coming down from Canada (it is currently under construction. I got paid a lot of money (six figures), but I did my job well (and worked long hard hours) and I was very respectful to all my land owners. It was not an easy job because people didn't like me before I ever met with them. I used my stunning wit and charm though to turn them around. :D

I do think big oil is easy to hate. They make money (lots of it), but provide a necessary product. I can't hate them for that. In a perfect world everything would be fair and even, but we don't live in a perfect world. If people don't like it, they can stop driving. Gas prices are awful (around $7/gallon here in Germany), but there's not a whole lot to be done. I think people just need something to grumble about.

[Mommyof4ks]

I agree with those that say it is the big profits that people don't like, but big business and rich people keep our economy going so I don't have problem with it. Personally I love being able to jump in my car whenever I like, stay warm in the winter, cool in the summer, and on and on. The alternative energy movement is not solid and is much more expensive at this point, so for now it is the way it is. The pres. is back to pushing cap and trade again, so it won't be long before alternatives are cheaper than the oil based products we have now. The only problem with that is that many of us won't be able to afford either. :glare:

[Kimber]

I think BP deserves the bulk of the blame because, at the end of the day, it's their well and they are ultimately responsible for its safe operation. I also believe that they pressured TO and Halliburton to cut corners. We know that BP refused to perform the Cement Bond Log and Schlumberger got its workers out of there 6 hours before the explosion. If BP had performed the CBL, 11 people would be alive and the whole gulf coast wouldn't be threatened.

 

I agree with this. I believe that BP is solely responsible for the death of those people and they are liable in every aspect for every mistake they made, willful and otherwise. They are also responsible for the clean-up, regardless of the role played in this by Transocean and Halliburton.

 

BP has an awful track record and they are responsible on so many levels, down to the turtles and birds.

 

So I agree with you on pretty much every aspect.

 

My only concern is that in an attempt to hurt BP, by boycotting them and punishing the company by making them pay for the moratorium imposed by President Obama, the people that are employed by BP are going to be hurt. The people invested in BP are going to be hurt. Those with their pensions in BP are going to be hurt. (Btw, I'm not in that group.)

 

BP should be held responsible, including legally. But revenge against BP isn't the answer.

 

As for Transocean and Halliburton, they too need to be held responsible for the roles they played, if any, in this oil spill. Going after BP because of their track record should not let these others companies off the hook. They should be made to pay up. BP didn't drill that rig alone. And whether or not they pressured other companies to act irresponsibly isn't really an issue. Those companies are run by grown men and women and are responsible for their actions regardless of what BP did.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Kimber

[Colleen]

 

If it weren't for oil companies, we'd still be cutting wood to heat our homes and riding horses to work. :auto:

Hey, some of us are still cutting wood to heat our homes. No horses necessary since work is a 10 second commute.:tongue_smilie:

 

[chiguirre]

My only concern is that in an attempt to hurt BP, by boycotting them and punishing the company by making them pay for the moratorium imposed by President Obama, the people that are employed by BP are going to be hurt. The people invested in BP are going to be hurt. Those with their pensions in BP are going to be hurt. (Btw, I'm not in that group.)

 

BP should be held responsible, including legally. But revenge against BP isn't the answer.

 

 

I agree that BP employees are going to be hurt, just as Enron's and Arthur Andersen's employees were hurt. Unfortunately, if you work for a criminally irresponsible company, you may well lose your livelihood, your pension and your 401K that was invested in company stock. That's the reality of the situation and the reason that you should be sure that your employer is a responsible corporate citizen. We owned a bit of BP stock and took our loss. I wish I had paid more attention to their safety record, but that's water under the bridge. They have shown that they simply can't be trusted at all, and they'll have to take the consequences for their behavior.

 

As to whether vengeance is justified or not, it depends on how you feel criminals should be treated. In Texas, vengeance is certainly the preferred way to deal with criminals, and that should extend to corporate criminals, not just indigent defendants with incompetent lawyers, IMHO.

[LizzyBee]

Hey, some of us are still cutting wood to heat our homes. No horses necessary since work is a 10 second commute.:tongue_smilie:

 

My mom and my brother both heat with wood too. I would if we lived out in the country with more woods than a 10 ft wide strip of pine trees out back. :)

[gpsings]

I didn't hate oil companies, I don't now. It's sad what happened, but I don't feel inclined to be angry at anyone, I'm sure hindsight is 20/20, but it's not like they planned it.

I think any large business is hated right now. It's a hard time to try to run one, and a lot of them are just trying to stay afloat.

[LibraryLover]

I dislike companies that are ill prepared to deal with worst case scenario when it happens. :glare:

 

 

I am very much interested in greater and tighter safety controls. That will cost, too.

[Jenny in Atl]

 

My dbil works for Chevron, and we joke about him being a "stinkin' big oil boy" all the time. :D

 

Do you all know about the damage done in Ecuador, by Texaco/Chevron? Sad ugly business. It's easy to take advantage of those who have no $ or power to fight back.

[Carol in Cal.]

This I don't understand.

 

 

 

 

What I meant was that under the law, corporations are people, legally. They have limited liability, and exist to generate profits for their shareholders. That's not necessarily a bad thing, I hasten to add. I'm an ardent capitalist myself. However, it does drive the need for some kind of check on their actions, and tends to militate against self-regulation being reliable. Public opinion and legal regulations are what controls their possible excesses. There are people who work for good companies which don't take these legal truths to their logical extreme, but really, public opinion and legal regulation are what prevents abuse mostly.

[laundrycrisis]

I have not read all the responses but I will respond because I worked in the oil industry (refining) for two summers in college and seven years full time after college.

 

Yes, I believe that petroleum (and chemical) companies tend to be unpopular with the general public. Some are not good local neighbors; some have poor reputations as employers; some have poor environmental histories; and some conduct international business in unethical ways. These are some of the reasons. However, these do not apply to every company operating in these industries.

 

I also notice that whenever the market drives energy prices up, particularly gasoline prices, the public blames the oil companies and accuses them of gouging. My view from the inside was this: the price of crude is driven by the international market. The price of gasoline depends on the price of the crude and the margins for refining it, which are also determined by a free market. There are times when the price of gasoline is not particularly high but the margin to refine it is really high and the refineries make a lot of money during those times. There are also times when the refining margin is so low that the companies barely break even or some days lose money to refine it. This can even happen when the price of gasoline is high, if the price of crude is also high. Every oil company is not making money hand over fist when gasoline prices are high. The biggest ones that have a wide variety of operations (oil production, refining, gas processing, petrochemicals, specialty products) are diversified enough to financially do well most of the time. The smaller ones that have their assets focused in one particular area face very tough times financially when the market for their area is not going their way. Not every oil/petrochemical company is making lots of money all the time. It is also a very competitive business, within regions, within countries, and internationally.

 

Within the industry, some companies have better reputations than others for employee and community safety, for their commitment to be environmentally responsible, and for their business ethics. For six years I worked for a small company based in northern Europe that had a good reputation in all these areas. It did not have a presence in any of the "developing world" countries and had only very limited offshore activity. It was a good employer, and I personally witnessed (and was part of) a high level of commitment to be environmentally responsible. When I left, I went to work for a much larger oil company. While the plant I worked in was very safe, they had some environmental practices I was disappointed in and that would not have been allowed at my previous job. They also had international operations that I gathered many of the employees did not feel great about, and a reputation for forcing employees to either accept an assignment in one of these areas or lose their job. When I worked in "little oil" I did not feel bad about the industry. After I worked in "big oil" I did not want to be a part of it anymore.

Edited June 10, 2010 by laundrycrisis

[Renee in NC]

People knee-jerk react when one of these accidents occur. They did the same thing with nuclear power back in the 80's, which is one reason we're still so dependent on oil. When my husband's company wants to put a power plant somewhere, protestors come out of the woodwork - not in MY backyard! Well, if not here, then where? Someone has to pay the cost so everyone can have power.

 

Accidents of any kind are devastating and I get the anger, but how many of those picketers are willing to go off the grid and give up their cars and other conveniences? Very few, I'd bet. In this case, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

I had a neighbor who did exactly that. She drove diesel cars that used locally produced biodiesel and lived off the grid. Not only that, but she only ate locally grown food and kept her income low to avoid paying federal taxes (so that she was not financially supporting the war.)

 

I did not agree with her politics, but I had a great respect for the way she lived her convictions.