British Petroleum

Just some thoughts I had as I listened to the various radio stories on the big British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

There are a number of questions being asked in the media about this spill. Was it preventable? If so, whose fault was it? Does BP generally have a corporate culture that doesn't do preventative maintenance, a "fix it as it breaks" culture as one investigator in an earlier spill in Alaska put it? Is it the fault of bean counters at the top discouraging "unnecessary" maintenance? Is it the fault of lazy people closer to the problem? Is it BP's fault, or that of the subcontractor that operates the rig... or that of the manufacturer that made some crucial part? Or is it nobody's fault, they did everything they could, and it was really just an accident? Is deep water drilling just too risky? Should it even be allowed?

In my opinion, while the answers to all these questions are interesting, they are also irrelevant to anyone who is not in the business of offshore oil drilling. For no matter what the human contributions to the situation are, the solution is the same, in my opinion: make BP pay for ALL the damages caused by the incident, and for ALL cleanup efforts they are not directly engaged in, and if that bankrupts them, so be it.

If the spill is genuinely their fault, this is a no-brainer. Clearly, an organization responsible for a deep water oil rig takes on an enormous trust, and if they violated that trust by not doing everything they could to prevent such a spill, I think losing the business is getting off light, considering the magnitude of the disaster. A bankruptcy sale would result in the transfer of many such operations out of the hands of an organization that, in the event they're just not doing proper maintenance, clearly cannot be trusted at that level, and into the hands of other organizations that deserve a chance to prove themselves in exchange for some help reimbursing those affected by the incident.

Of course, if they can actually afford to pay out and continue doing business, and choose to continue offshore drilling in spite of the payout, clearly the value of the oil is greater than the risks involved.

If it's the fault of a contractor, BP is still the responsible party. If any part of the blame needs to be shifted off to the contractor, BP can do that themselves by suing the contractor, and getting some of the money from them that needs to be paid out to the various wronged parties. BP should not be able to wriggle out of its responsibilities by offering up the contractor as a scapegoat, able to go bankrupt with minimal damage to BP. For even if BP did EVERYTHING "right" from the perspective of the industry...

That only proves that there was one initial decision that turned out to be a very, very bad decision: the decision to drill at that location in the first place. I honestly don't care what the government has to say about it. Just because it's legal, it doesn't make it right, and people, even ginormous multinational corporations, should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, even the unforeseen ones, even the unforeseeable ones... and if others are caught in those consequences and the responsible party attempts to dodge that responsibility--well, if that isn't a reason for having courts and governments, I don't know what is. We'd be genuinely better off without one, otherwise.

In the end, the bankruptcy of BP would send precisely the message to drillers and potential drillers that needs to be sent. For it is the companies involved in drilling and pumping who have the most direct interest in consulting scientists, engineers, and technicians, along with their accountants and lawyers, to figure out what the actual risks of drilling are relative to potential profits. Are the profits great enough to fund an insurance policy designed to handle just such a possibility while still being genuinely profitable? Was BP just a bad company, or are the risks simply too great, as revealed by this incident? The spill itself changes the information that goes into such considerations. And when justice is done, and done consistently, the consequences to the bottom line and the consequences to society become nearly synonymous... and the firms who will do the business become the most trustworthy assessors of risk.

Either way, the consequences to BP will be evaluated by BP, and by other companies according to the actual knowable facts. If companies don't believe they can get away with taking enormous risks (and this goes for drilling, the financial industry... everything, really), if they can't expect their pet politicians to shield them from the consequences, they WON'T take those risks. Mark my words: the Gulf oil spill and the recent financial crises are directly related to a common root cause.

Because the alternative is to let the politicians make the decision on this. They might consult scientists, engineers and technicians, but regardless of the answers they get from them, they will also be consulting pollsters and campaign strategists. The answer they will come up with will ultimately balance not risks to society (measured in financial risk to the firm in an environment where the courts can be expected to require reinbursement of wronged parties) against benefits to society (measured by how much more than production and risk management consumers are willing and able to pay for their product... demand), but rather which hurts their chances at the polls least: allowing drilling and therefore risking the ire of the environmental movement and the people affected, directly or indirectly; or banning it and losing the rather large financial contributions to their political campaigns oil companies provide.

Most likely (almost definitely, barring a deafening roar from the electorate), they'll try a third option: engage in some ineffective rhetoric, create a new bureaucracy or some new rules that fool people into thinking they are doing something about the problem but don't actually address the problem, and go home laughing.

Honestly, if that's all the government is good for, I'd rather live in a world where there's nobody to stop a more direct form of reprisal by the wronged parties.

Labor/Capital Mix and Pest Control

One thing I've noticed in my chosen profession is that there is a tension between the interest in doing a thorough, professional job, and an interest in keeping costs down. I'm in the Pest Control industry.

I go to these educational meetings and learn all these things our technicians are supposed to be doing for their customers: taking time to talk with the customer, dusting voids, inspecting for harborages, moisture conditions, and other conducive conditions. We're supposed to use our chemical solutions (hereafter referred to as "products") sparingly, only in those places where it is deemed necessary. Doing this takes time.

But then you've got these bean counters who are less interested in getting the job done right and more interested in how many accounts they get to bill relative to how much labor they're having to pay for. These people either don't know much about how pest control is supposed to be done, or they just don't care. Finally, these bean counters wield considerable power in this, as every every industry. Yes, even the Pest Control Industry could serve as inspiration for Dilbert comics. So the technician who takes his time to get the job done right gets a talking to, and is actively compared to those technicians who are able to do fifteen to twenty jobs a day. That's no more than a half hour per job, including drive time. That's barely enough time to quickly spray the perimeter. So that's all that ever gets done, unless the customer actively demands more.

It got me thinking, as I woke up this morning, about decisions businesspeople make with regard to labor/capital mix. The accountants in the industry, given the choice between more labor less capital (taking the time while reducing product use), and more capital less labor (general broadcast treatments that use more product but take less time), the outcome of the wrangling over time and professionalism is a preference for more capital. This may be because it is more efficient. But I also note that the government taxes labor (income and payroll taxes) at a higher rate than they do capital (capital gains, sales, etc.). This will definitely have some effect on the decisions people make with regard to the use of man hours vs. the use of materials.

So the solution to me seems simple: tax labor and capital at the same rate... preferably zero. This removes the government's stimulus to prefer capital use over labor, making a great number of industries less consumptive (without penalizing the many, many cases where more capital actually means more productivity). And I'm not saying no taxes at all: this is just another strike in favor of the Single Tax, which I have discussed at great length in other entries. Tax labor and people tend to use less labor, resulting in unemployment. Tax capital and people tend to use less capital, resulting in lower labor productivity and reducing opportunities in capital goods producing industries. Tax land, and people tend to use less land... and since land is the one thing people can't just make more of, that's the only way to make more land available for more uses, thus actually improving productivity.