A Case Of Corporate Conspiracy

You just can't trust your employees these days. Being human, they might actually have a conscience. Some of them just can't be bribed, or threatened, and thankfully, a good many of them are familiar with the work of Chuck Hamel, an activist who has amassed a veritable treasure trove of documented treachery related to British Petroleums Prudhoe Bay oil pipeline operations.

Therefore, when BP announced it would have to suspend operaions on a substantial portion of the pipeline, it was quickly ascertained that this was the line that supplied eight percent of the country's domestic oil production.

400,000 barrels a day.

Hamel then responded quickly, letting it be known that the reason for the problems, the leaks, at this part of the pipeline, had everything to do with negligence on the part of the company. A kind of negligence that has been on-going for roughly eight years.

Simply put, they had been performing no maintenance whatsoever, and had even gone so far as to order maintenance operations suspended. This resulted in the build-up of bacterias which slowly yet consistently ate away at the line, corroding it, and eventually resulting in the leaks.

It gets worse. Acording to Hamel, one of the whistleblowers, a Robert Brian, had met with two Senators, who failed to follow up on his claims of company neglect. The Senators involved? Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham.

The Connecticutt Senate race just got a little nastier.

Nor does this tell the entire story. Gayle Norton was also informed, and nothing was done. According to Hamel, Britsh Petroleum has consistently lied to regulators and government officials, who routinely fail to follow up.

Now, we see the result. It is interesting to note that, since the story of what can only be described as evidence of BP's criminal neglect surfaced almost as quickly as the news of the failure of the pipeline itself, they have suddenly come out and said the problem, though substantial, is not as bad as initially feared. Very interesting indeed. I can't help but surmise that they initialy intended to shut down more of the pipeline than was necessary, but realized this would not be a good idea. Not good at all.

Such as another story told by Hamel, who was told by whistleblowers of a cover-up in 2003 that involved the disposal of more than 2000 gallons of toxic drilling mud and fluids through the ice. This of course was not the proper method of disposing of the material. But this act saved the company a lot of money.

And, according to the same whistleblowers as related through Hamel, this was pretty much the reasoning behind the lack of maintenance on the pipeline. It saved a lot of money.

Of copurse, companies never tell their employees everything, and they sure don't tell them anything more than they absolutely have to know. My feeling is, this wasn't about saving money.

This was about making money. It may have also been a form of domestic terrorism.

In 1998, when this policy was first begun, Clinton of course was President. and by the end of the year had been completey exonerated of the charges brought against him in his trial in the Senate following his impeachment. He was riding a crest of popularity and approval, and Al Gore, staunch and some would say rabid environmentalist, looked to be a sure bet to win the Democratic Party nomination for the year 2000, and seemed a safe bet to suceed Clinton to the office of the Presidency.

Al Gore of course was every energy executives worse nightmare. To the people who have advocated drilling in ANWAR, he was the reason for a lot of sleepless nights.

If the pipeine had to suddenly largely be shut down for extensive repairs, that would of course increase the pressure to drill in ANWAR and in other areas not favored by Democrats and liberals.
In the meantime, supply would not be up to meet demand, and so the prices, and thus the oil company profits, would rise. Therefore, oil company stocks would stay steady, and may even rise, to thus offset any negative influences of a potential Gore presidency.

Gore of coure was not elected, but the policy continued. Why not? Under Bush, and his Administration, including the Interior and Energy Departments, and the EPA, regulation became increasingly less stringent, even, by golly, downright friendly.

There were a couple of slaps on the wrist here and there, just for the sake of the technicality that these people are, of course, suppose to enforce the law. But for the most part, the energy industry has had a free hand for the last six years.

Strange how all those Republican tax breaks, with less and less in the way of regulatory enforcement, seems yet to not have trickled down to the rest of us. In fact, the oppossite is the case. There always seems to be a reason-an excuse, to increase the price of oil and gas. The ever increasing profits should, it is explained, be understood as the market forces at work. Those profits are best put into expansion and into research, blah, blah, blah.

This then was planned as yet another excuse to raise the price of gas and oil, thus increasing profits and so the price of industry stock.

Thank God, or the Goddess, or the Gods, or the Great Pumpkin, or whoever you want to thank, for activists like Chuck Hamel and the whistleblowers who depend on him. Or, perhaps more appropriately, just thank Chuck Hamel.

This is a criminal matter, and a national security matter. The industry, and all others that are vital to our national security, should be nationalized, or, failing that, offending companies such as BP should be confiscated and sold off to the highest qualified bidder.

Finally, all laws and regulations should be strictly enforced, in the most brutal way allowable by law.

The Republican and conservative ideals of a market economy are a string of fables based of deceptions and manipulations. It's time for the gravy train to come to an end.