The FT's excellent feature on BP in last weekend's magazine may well have the same effect as Rolling Stone's profile of General Stanley McChrystal a couple of week's ago....but probably not so fast.
As with the war in Afghanistan, however, one is left firmly with the impression that the main protagonists in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster, namely BP and the United States authorities, are out of their depth in the serious consequences of their own (in)actions.
BP chief executive Tony Hayward is reported to have succeeded Lord Browne - now advising the UK Government - with the view that his company employed too many people trying to save the world. That was in the days of "Beyond Petroleum"....as well as "Big Profits"
Oil has always been BP's core business, and for many it was the main driving force for war in Iraq. Like civilian casualties, safety and environmental problems are regarded as collateral damage.
The question now is whether events in the Gulf of Mexico have changed United States public opinion to the extent that the country is willing to make the environment a core American value.
In the meantime, the top management at BP certainly deserve to go, but like the company's own "top kill" operation in the Gulf, this will not solve the deeper issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment