Compelling TV - The Grilling of Tony Hayward

Political theater, nothing more. It's not gonna help stop the oil from flowing, and it's not gonna "uncover" any truths. Good for Congresscritters seeking facetime, though.

Okay, let's get realistic here. What is the guy supposed to do? He showed up for a public grilling by political hacks who want face-time on television, while both sides are saying the same thing in as many different ways as possible. It's not a court of law.

I'm sure his company's legal reps have told him what he can and can't say. He has to protect the company, as much as he can, so we'll have someone to sue into the ground. It's a giant damned disaster, made even worse by bumbling and red-tape on both sides of the issue.

I have to admit that I find this whole thing embarrassing as hell. We look like a bunch of bullies, ganging up on a company like this. And for what purpose? Not a damned thing except looking good to the folks back home. Sorry, it's not working for me.

In a perfect world we would have had full cooperation by the government and BP to get this thing shut down ASAP. Then investigations by both sides to discover the cause of the explosion. Then it's time for chastising and law-suits, and proper compensation to those who are suffering as their livelihoods are devastated.

The President should have waived the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) and gotten those foreign ships in here skimming oil before it hit the coastline. My point is that many, many things could have been handled differently and better. Those politicians need to sit down and shut up before the rest of the world gets tired of the act and stands up to point some fingers their way. Sorry if this is an unpopular opinion, but good grief, can't we at least act civilized?

So far, I agree with all of you!

Again, I'm not sure there's anybody who can wrap his/her head around the scope of this disaster. We haven't even come close to understanding what it means in real terms. . . .

I have to admit that I find this whole thing embarrassing as hell. We look like a bunch of bullies, ganging up on a company like this. And for what purpose? Not a damned thing except looking good to the folks back home. Sorry, it's not working for me.

Click to expand...

So if you had been a representative present for the grilling, would you have apologized to BP for the bunch of bullies ganging up on their company?

I would have apologized for the uncivil behavior, and probably left the room, refusing to participate in yet another dog-and-pony show.

Elaine Margarett said:

This will be a watershed event (no pun intended) in off shore drilling.

Click to expand...

in United States controlled waters.

in United States controlled waters.

Click to expand...

Those waters are damned important to me.

I don't feel the least bit sorry for a company that acted so negligently and caused so much damage to our coasts. They're putting out billions of dollars? Good. Maybe--just MAYBE--it will help fix the damage they've done. They're getting grilled on TV? Good. MAYBE other companies will see this and not want to be next. The government is "bullying" them? Fine. MAYBE they'll get off their collective ass and write up some better regulations, some regulations meant to deal with the reality of deepwater drilling. And maybe the obtuse, CYA answers given by BP will serve to spur them on.

But I think it's a fallacy to say that there's bungling "on both sides" of this thing. There're no "sides" to it.
When it comes to wanting this fixed, we're all on the same side.
But when it comes to whose fault this was, the blame falls squarely on BP. The congressmen weren't out there doing offshore oil exploration and wondering how they could cut corners.

Synonym said:

I would have apologized for the uncivil behavior, and probably left the room, refusing to participate in yet another dog-and-pony show.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

It really is a disgusting display.

Monkey said:

I don't feel the least bit sorry for a company that acted so negligently and caused so much damage to our coasts. They're putting out billions of dollars? Good. Maybe--just MAYBE--it will help fix the damage they've done. They're getting grilled on TV? Good. MAYBE other companies will see this and not want to be next. The government is "bullying" them? Fine. MAYBE they'll get off their collective ass and write up some better regulations, some regulations meant to deal with the reality of deepwater drilling. And maybe the obtuse, CYA answers given by BP will serve to spur them on.

But I think it's a fallacy to say that there's bungling "on both sides" of this thing. There're no "sides" to it.
When it comes to wanting this fixed, we're all on the same side.
But when it comes to whose fault this was, the blame falls squarely on BP. The congressmen weren't out there doing offshore oil exploration and wondering how they could cut corners.

Click to expand...

I don't feel sorry for BP, either. But the hearing was nonsense and beyond useless. If Congresscritters really thought they needed to talk to Hayward, they should have done it in private. The emergency is still going on. This isn't the time to be worried about scoring political points...unless all you are is a politician.

Synonym said:

in United States Government controlled waters.

Click to expand...

Inserted boldface mine.

Operating under a lease approved by the United States Government, with a plan approved by the United States Government, and under the direct supervision of the Minerals and Management Service, an agency of the Unites States Department of the Interior.

If they didn't have MMS employees sitting next to him being grilled at the same time, it's a witchhunt.

Monkey said:

But when it comes to whose fault this was, the blame falls squarely on BP. The congressmen weren't out there doing offshore oil exploration and wondering how they could cut corners.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the politicians on both sides who have collected millions in donations from BP and allowed them to be granted rights to drill in US waters given their terrible safety record have absolutely nothing to do with this.

I think I'll wait and see, when cooler heads prevail, whether there were corners cut and criminal negligence committed. People died, the company is/will lose a fortune and I can't unilaterally lay this one off on greed by big oil. Not when they are hurting themselves this badly.

I understand that you care deeply and feel passionately about this. That's admirable. Please don't think I'm dismissing you or your passions. Honestly, I don't understand why we are even drilling in water that deep without the means to handle a catastrophe of this magnitude.

I agree, Synonym. And I'm glad we can all just get along.

There were lax regulations in place...that's been the case for many moons, now. But BP only payed bare lip service to even those lax regs, and didn't seem at all interested in doing anything not explicitly required by law. They were willfully reckless.

Unfortunately, as it turns out, their emergency plans were/are almost identical to every other major player in the gulf right now. But I have heard that Exxon, after its Valdez ordeal, has put tight regulations in place to police itself, at least when it's in US waters (not so much, elsewhere).

I'd bet that Hayward dude really wishes he had his life back now more than ever.

wow, are you actually astroturfing your own posts?

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5062382&postcount=50

I suspect that Hayward's doing exactly what the BP lawyers told him to do - admit nothing, deny everything and avoid direct answers. Since this is on the public record the statements can be used in civil lawsuits - not that there aren't going to be enough of those, but the legal beagles at BP don't want to add more information to it.

And, seriously - the CEO isn't going to know everything that's going on with every rig flying the BP flag. He's going to be briefed on the big matters, the important matters. Not on the day-to-day goings-on of one of many rigs. His denials may actually have substance to a degree. But no good lawyer is going to send his/her client into a congressional hearing and tell them to say anything that may come back to bite 'em in a court of law. So I'm not surprised at the way things went.

I, myself, found Tony Stark *much* more entertaining when he testified.

Rawr!

Elaine Margarett said:

Why not?

I can't link because of dialup issues. You gotta problem with that? At least my posts reflect my views and are on topic. Unlike clever(?) masturbatory posts meant to stroke one's er...ego.

Click to expand...

no, it's fine. seems a little spammy, but it's certainly not offensive so as much as it's amusing.

on the downside, i think you're unfair in portraying me as someone who never posts anything of substance.

on the upside, your talk of masturbation and stroking is very hot.

Elaine Margarett said:

Seriously, how do these people sleep at night?

Click to expand...

with the full knowledge they've been approved for 13 more gulf leases?

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183267

you can do that on dial-up?