$18 million and a new job offer at BP affiliate in Russia.
That's the package being offered the soon-to-be-former CEO of BP, Tony Hayward. Hayward is stepping down in October.
Hayward is infamous for his sound bite during the oil spill:
"No one wants this over more than I do. I'd like my life back."
In a somewhat lesser-known quote Hayward said, "It's not very much oil considering the size of the gulf."
Besides "Don't let the gas cap hit you on the way out" does anyone have a comment?
Has BP got the American Companies who drilled the well, capped the well and screwed it up - and caused the spill - to court yet ?
Word on the street is "you can't trust any damned Russian.
As usual MM your writings are always intresting.
Alternate Poet -- Not that I have heard of.
If they do, there are bound to be countersuits against them.
There's plenty of blame to go around.
Plenty of blame yes - so I wee the victimisation of Hayward as just that - victimisation to divert attention from the fact that this was a home-grown disaster. The US allowed and encouraged the deep drilling, the US monitored the safety and methods used, teh US insisted that US firms did the work - victimising the head of the organisation who is far removed from the actual work is disingenuous in the extreme - legally responsible is the same as you being responsible for the guy who cuts your lawn, who cuts his finger !
So since BP only paid to have the drilling done they deserve none of the blame?
Would drilling have occurred at that very spot had BP not paid?
I personally do not hold Hayward responsible.
But to say BP is completely innocent is ridiculous.
By the way, in this country if your landscaper cuts his finger on your property you can bet you will be sued.
Would it have occurred if the US government had not sold the rights to BP ? This is a disingenuous argument - and slightly ridiculous.
Nowhere do I say that BP is innocent in any way - there is no need to misquote or misread me - I write pretty clearly.
The point of this reply to Mighty Mom was in response to the victimisation of Hayward while overlooking that the work that failed was all done by incompetent US companies - everyone tries to shift blame to someone else I guess.
Sorry but the question is valid, and the answer is no.
No you don't say BP is blameless you just blame the American companies.
I understand the jealousy.
You understand very little it seems. If you mean the question about drilling in that precise spot then I guess you could go back to pre-history and blame the area for being what it was then that created the oil. The question is mindless.
What would make anyone jealous of American companies that have demonstrated their gross incompetence in this debacle?
It doesn't matter, really, whether the owner of the well is American, English, Saudi, Canadian or Martian. The point is, they own, and thus are responsible for, its contents.
Question: Would Exxon Mobil be within its rights to sue the company that made the ship Valdez?
Here's some interesting testimony.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-2 … panel.html
Funny, when you mentioned American company involvement, my mind immediately went to Halliburton. And voila, Halliburton was involved. They were ignored, but were involved.
Excerpt from the story:
"A backup test on the well seal, called a cement bond log, wasn’t run because initial indications were that it was a “good cement job,” Guide said. The procedure would have cost more than $100,000 and taken more time, Donald Godwin, an attorney for Halliburton Co., said at the hearing while questioning Guide. [b]Halliburton]/b] provided some well services to BP on Macondo.
Guide said he didn’t review a Halliburton report that said BP would face a greater risk of gas escaping into the well if it failed to alter its design.
This is clearly not the same argument - but if you press it then the fact that the ship was operated by Exxon would make it directly their fault yes, in the same way as you are responsible for your driving not Honda or Toyota.
There was early speculation that Halliburton had done this deliberately as they were the last company to work on it and had just left the rig when it exploded.
This may be far-fetched, BUT given the direct lies and dirty tricks of Cheney (associate of Halliburton) in regard to the Iraqi invasion, this would be small beer to discredit the Obama administration and a 'foreign' competitor.
I am sure that Mr Hayward will find his way back eventually if he really needs to.. It was not his fault and I can't say that I find his comment about getting his life back in any way offensive, it is a fairly normal thing to say!!! If I were in his situation I would want my life back too!
Do you not think that the CEO of a company should be held accountable for the company's actions?
To some extent, in a company as large as BP there is no way that he can be truly responsible for what goes on everywhere within the company.
If it is a problem that he knew about, or a problem that is replicated across the business that he "should" have known about then yes he should be held accountable.
However if this is a one off that has not been highlighted by audits and the like then you can hardly make him responsible!
As long as he has the right management structure and the correct levels of checks and audits then he has done his job!
Obviously he did not do his job. There are only two possibilities. He was unaware of this threat - in which case he did not ensure he had proper management structures in place. - Or - he was aware and decided to save a few bucks by ignoring it.
I do not accept that it is OK to grow a company to the size where the CEO is not held responsible for the actions of the company - we already have that problem with our governments and religious institutions.
What?!! Cap the growth of huge corporations to something not morally reprehensible so that the little guy (and fishies) stand a halfway decent chance?!!!
How anti-capitalism of you.
Unfortunately disasters happen, especially when you are pushing the boundaries to keep bringing up oil despite dwindling reserves in the easy to reach places that have already been exploited. Everyone was aware of the threat, but the world still needs oil.
I kind of like Tony Hayward. He seemed almost masachistically honest - saying "I don't know" when he didn't know, saying he was fed up of having to be seen to be working 24/7 despite the fact that there was nothing he could personally do to plug it (other than perhaps standing behind the engineers with a whip). I can understand why people who are personally affected didn't like him though, just because he didn't seem very emotionally engaged with the affect it has had on people.
I don't believe Tony Hayward was victimized. He simply didn't do his job well. It's not just this recent oil spill. It's pretty evident he wasn't very involved with the day to day operations of a company he is paid to oversee and represent. There's fault all around, but overall, he's the man in charge. It appeared he didn't really care to be involved.
Neither of us know the full facts - however;
If a company or institution gets too big then there is no way that the person at the very top can know what is going on.. Removing them as a "PR" stunt does not solve the problem and can delay the resolution of the real problem further down the chain..
Any culture that removes people due to problems will drive people to hide the problems rather than air them and tackle them. Everyone below him is now (and probably already was) trying to hide everything, thus the problem gets harder to solve and prevent in the future.
I have worked in companies where when things went wrong they were treated as opportunities to learn (However do it twice and the direction of the door could still be indicated!)These companies in my mind were far better at tackling problems and improving performance in general.
Other companies (such as the one I work for now) have a culture where people are punished for mistakes, therefore everything is hidden, no one will take responsibility and everyone looks in the other direction lest someone look at them!
We all make mistakes - it is a matter of learning from them.
Like I said, I don't know the full story, and nor does anyone else yet..
by CMHypno 11 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … itain.html
by Kathryn L Hill 9 years ago
by kerryg 11 years ago
Go ahead, boycott BP. Not only do you get to send a message to the company that has proved incapable of stopping the undersea gusher unleashed on April 20, but (unless you live in a one-gas-station town) you can do it without much pain to yourself.Drive right on by the BP station and pull up to the...
by fishskinfreak2008 11 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_ … 90ZWxsaW5nThese are most likely CROCODILE TEARS that don't mean anything and "devastated" is only being used for POLITICLA purposes
by salara 11 years ago
do you think bp is going to uphold there obligations to this spill?
by AdsenseStrategies 11 years ago
I'd like people's ideas on the following suggestion.Given that 4 out of 6 people in the world live on the equivalent of less than 10 dollars a day, adjusted for local conditions, and given one BILLION people live on less than 1 dollar a day, aren't we staring in the face a gigantic untapped...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|