[BITList] under budget

[CT's]

IMO, when bonuses, promotion and salaries are based upon “coming in under budget” and the project is not achieving that goal- [oh, no; lower profit], cost comes before safety [inevitably].
      After all, profit is the reason d’etre for BP’s very existence [it ain’t a charity, folks]
      As in this case, a day or four saved by cutting corners, may result in millions of dollars saved – brownie points issued, bonuses increased, prestige enhanced..................................................................
      What a desirable and tempting situation. 

      From what I have heard over the years from sub-contractors who have worked for BP, they are a royal pain in the ass. Lot’s of safety personnel, lot’s of safety bullshit but it all turns to naught where profit is in question.

      ct
      Profits were not just a tangential consideration in BP's decisions: An editorial
      Published: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 6:29 AM 
       Editorial page staff, The Times-Picayune 
      Follow 
      Share this story
      Story tools
      Like other independent probes of the BP oil spill, the Deepwater Horizon Study Group is pointing to the same key mistakes by BP and its contractors that led to the disaster. But the group of 60 scientists and independent offshore drillers is also asserting that BP compromised safety for the sake of profits in drilling the Macondo well. 

      HANDOUT PHOTOThe Deepwater Horizon oil rig burns and collapses into the Gulf of Mexico on April 22.
      That's a crucial distinction -- one that other investigators, regulators and the industry must acknowledge. 

      In asserting that BP put profits ahead of safety, the study group is taking issue with statements by Fred Bartlit Jr., the lead investigator of the presidential national Oil Spill Commission. Presenting the commission's preliminary findings earlier this month, Mr. Bartlit declined to link BP's decisions on the rig to the company's efforts to save money. He said there is no "evidence" that anyone at the rig or BP explicitly decided to "do it the cheap way instead of the safe way." 

      Commission co-chairmen William Reilly and Bob Graham questioned BP's decisions. Mr. Reilly referred to what he perceived as "a culture of complacency affecting everything involved" with the Macondo well's drilling. 

      But the study group members have gone further, suggesting BP's decisions were more than tangentially related to the firm's drive to save money. The study group is correct, and it's important the national commission gets that right. 

      The group said that "perhaps there's no clear-cut 'evidence' " that BP or its contractors "made a conscious decision to put costs before safety; nevertheless, that misses the point. It is the underlying unconscious mind that governs the actions of an organization and its personnel." 

      We could not have said it any better. 

      This is more than a difference in semantics. BP has a history of putting profits over safety in decisions that led to other accidents. The company had vowed to change that management culture in recent years -- but the oil spill exposed that campaign as insufficient at best, or a public relations sham at worst. 

      BP needs to change for real this time. And a recognition that the firm has been putting profits over safety is a necessary first step. 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/pipermail/bitlist/attachments/20101130/7907054e/attachment.shtml