For a CEO of large multinational corporation...
- Thread starter seshomoru
- Start date
He's obviously been prepped by attorneys who warned him about admitting too much in the way of liability. Admitting recklessness or anything like that can lead to massive punitive damages and possibly even criminal charges.
but here goes.<div>
</div><div>CEO's of most of the oil companies and oil services companies have never stepped on any oil rigs to do work. They might've gone there to take a few pictures... but most of them are business guys who are paid to run a business. Understanding the day-to-day operations on an oil rig are not necessary to make the business decisions to successfully run a company. The only people allowed on rigs are roughnecks, company men, engineers, and anyone else pertinent to the operation of that rig. Having anyone else there does nothing but clutter the space and increase the chance of an accident. It's just best to keep anyone not involved in the operation of that rig away from the rig.</div><div>
</div><div>I didn't even see his interview and don't even know what he said... but if he was asked specific questions about the operations on that rig, he's not going to know the answer (for this case, he probably should've studied up though). Those decisions are left to rigsuperintendents, drilling advisors, and engineers.</div>
</div><div>CEO's of most of the oil companies and oil services companies have never stepped on any oil rigs to do work. They might've gone there to take a few pictures... but most of them are business guys who are paid to run a business. Understanding the day-to-day operations on an oil rig are not necessary to make the business decisions to successfully run a company. The only people allowed on rigs are roughnecks, company men, engineers, and anyone else pertinent to the operation of that rig. Having anyone else there does nothing but clutter the space and increase the chance of an accident. It's just best to keep anyone not involved in the operation of that rig away from the rig.</div><div>
</div><div>I didn't even see his interview and don't even know what he said... but if he was asked specific questions about the operations on that rig, he's not going to know the answer (for this case, he probably should've studied up though). Those decisions are left to rigsuperintendents, drilling advisors, and engineers.</div>
His job today was to sit there and take the vitriol hurled at him by the "esteemed" committee members posing for the cameras. He was not there to engage in a discussion nor debatethe facts. There was no logic, even if it existed, to assuage the feeding frenzy.
In Southerneese, his job was to lube up, bend over and take it like a man without flinching.
In Southerneese, his job was to lube up, bend over and take it like a man without flinching.
start a criminal investigation didn't help. That word to the world should have been delayed for a while... like after the pipe is plugged.
Priorities, priorities, priorities.
Now, right now, the governor of each state should be in put in chage of making sure "their water" is cleaned up. All the Feds need to do is shut their mouthsand give the governorswhat they ask for.
Priorities, priorities, priorities.
Now, right now, the governor of each state should be in put in chage of making sure "their water" is cleaned up. All the Feds need to do is shut their mouthsand give the governorswhat they ask for.
of the well that's going on. Besides, BP has spent more on commercials and PR than they have in compensation. That's criminal.
I don't really agree with the idea that a car guy has to run Ford, or the CEO of Delta should have been a pilot, etc. The actual job of the CEO has much more to do with strategic plans then the day to day operation. They are totally different skill sets.dudehead said:
But, if you are the CEO of a multi-national multi-billion dollar business where you have the potential at becoming a billionaire, you better know the answer to a lot of questions. I certainly don't expect Tony Hayward to step onto a rig and coordinate operations by any stretch of the imagination. I do, however, expect him to understand the risks of the business he gets paid to manage and invest in the right people and technologies to make sure nothing like this ever happens. He may not know the mechanics of the rig, but he's damn well smart enough to hire somebody that does and that can explain to him what risks are present. (I know this isn't just a Tony Hayward problem, there's many execs to blame. But, he's ultimately responsible for getting the right people on the management team to make sure epic 17 ups like this never happen...it's oil we are talking about, not a widget factory).
You can't reap the rewards of being at the top of the totem poll while simultaneously being able to brush aside anything that happens at the operational level during your watch. Reward should be directionally consistent with risk. You can't have the reward, without the risk. Which means, you better be one smart, detail oriented, mother 17-er if you want that pay check. Otherwise, get somebody smarter and more attentive to run the show.
You can't reap the rewards of being at the top of the totem poll while simultaneously being able to brush aside anything that happens at the operational level during your watch. Reward should be directionally consistent with risk. You can't have the reward, without the risk. Which means, you better be one smart, detail oriented, mother 17-er if you want that pay check. Otherwise, get somebody smarter and more attentive to run the show.
BP has Refineries, Should he know how to run the Cat Cracker, and HF units too? BP has Pipelines. Should he be knowledgeable on subsea flowline installation? What about Relief valve desgn and sizing? BP has LNG Plants, should he know how to run the turboexpanders.
If so, that is an impossible skill set, and no one in the world could run an oil company.
The more I see what is happening, the more I feel like a sausage plant worker. No one knows what we do and no one wants to see it.
If so, that is an impossible skill set, and no one in the world could run an oil company.
The more I see what is happening, the more I feel like a sausage plant worker. No one knows what we do and no one wants to see it.
It was a about a bunch of dumb *** congressmen (and women) getting face time on TV. None of those dick heads have any idea what they are even asking about. Not to take upfor Haywood, but he was there to take a public flogging. That is all. As for him saying "I don't know" etc, isn't it sort of like Charlie Rangle who, while being on the tax writing committee, claims he didn't know about declaring some rental income (or something like that). I believe he is still in Congress and his buddies take up for him. And that stupid ***** from Florida saying this is why they don'tallow drilling off theircoast....maybe sheshould check where the Chinese are drilling off Cuba. I think that is closer to the coast of Fla than the DeepWater Horizon.Do youhave to know anything to bea representative and call someone else incompetent?
A pox on every damn one of them in the committee room yesterday....including Haywood.
A pox on every damn one of them in the committee room yesterday....including Haywood.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">They just pony up 20 billion in compensation. As far as Hayward, he was smart not to say anything. I hope BP gets hammered for any wrong doing but we got to remember that 40% of BP stock is owned by Americans and America can't handle anymore nut thumping when it comes to the economy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I wish we could dive them into bankruptcy but leaving emotions out of the discussion that would be very bad for us as Americans and the oil industry that employs thousands here in Miss.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>My hate for the oil companies grows every time I buy gas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The way the price goes up really fast but goes down really slow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I know there is a lot more to that then the oil companies but hell you got to blame someone and they look like a good target to me. Like I said we got to be rational.</p>
I feel sorry for the honest Americans who have BP stock and all, but I feel worse for the people who now have no income because of BP. You can still sell your stock, get a little money out of it, and go about your life. A lot of people on the coast can't.Big D said:
And BP is not going bankrupt. They can afford this. It's not like this well was what the entire future of the company was hinging on. They weren't even making income off it yet and were still making billions every year.
Precisely. I'm not expecting him to go install the BOP himself, but he knows the bottom lines, he knows the culture of the company (he's the one that sets it). It's not so much that he was in denial, it's that he seemed completely clueless and had no response to a lot of legitimate questions other than to mumble and mutter some random, idiotic ********.ckDOG said:
Yes, some congressmen were posturing. However, if you watched the hearing, a lot of them asked very legitimate questions about the safety records and operations of BP, and they had documentation to support it. To these questions, Hayward acted like he was some contract janitor hired to mop the floors of your local BP station. When asked why BP moved forward with the BOP when the company's modifications actually increased the risk it would fail (they had documentation supporting this), he just kept repeating "The BOP was the fail safe." WTF??? When asked why two ombudsman over the last six months were fired immediately after raising, and documenting, egregious safety issues, Hayward said, "we're looking into it." A congressmen then told him he had documentation that BP had already said the second guy was fired because of forced downsizing, yet BP then opened up a search for his position days later. Hayward just shrugged his shoulders and said they'd investigate. His rambling, non-sensical remarks about the claims processes also let me know that it's going to be hard as **** for people to get compensated for what BP did to them.
@$%* that lying SOB. All that most congressmen are trying to do is force BP to be open and honest. More power to them. To the posturing idiot congressmen, well they can @$%* themselves as well. They're only making it worse and forcing BP back into their hole of lies.
likemost MNC's do.. it should be his *** to the fire right next to Hayward. Even though most of these dipshit politicians are just yelling at them to boost their next campaign. Best of luck to BP staying solvent in all this
I don't expect him to understand the mechanics of it. As you said, it's an impossible skill set to execute at the CEO level (especially at a business the size of BP) and know how every single process is designed and functions. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.
But, what good is a CEO if all he/she does is manage financial statement metrics? If that's the case, A) why is he/she being paid so much or B) why aren't they the CFO or Treasurer instead. A CEO must have their hands in on all facets of the business, including operations. Maybe not at the detail level, but certainly at a level where he/she can understand, at the very least, the high-level process flows and the risks present.
Just because Tony sits in a corporate office literally thousands of miles away doesn't mean he can't become well versed in the risks of his business. Again, this isn't some risk that is immaterial to the company and shouldn't hit his radar. We are talking about the risk that the hole you put in the earth suddenly and uncontrollably begins gushing thousands of barrels of oil a day for months. If not for the environmental and PR impacts of an event like that happening, you would at least think the CEO would have a good grasp of the issues for purely a P&L impact. No, I have no experience in this industry, but you are going to SHOCK me if events like those aren't thought of as key risks to the business.
I think this is all important because you have to distinguish this from a "**** happens" one-off event that you fix going forward from a "gross negligence" event where people must own up to it and pay the price - and even be made examples of if that's what it takes (i.e. jail time).
Here is the very least of what I what I want to hear from a CEO in a situation like this:
"We at BP understand the risks associated with deep water drilling and the potential impacts on the environment and 3rd parties should we have a breakdown or failure in operations. In order to mitigate that risks, we have invested in the following technologies, equipment, and people necessary to mitigate those risks:
Let me introduce to you, Joe Blow, our Cheif Safey/Compliance Officer for the Gulf Region of BP Americas" Joe is XXX with # years of experience is YYY operations and safety. He is an expert in the field and has assembled a more than qualified team capable at carrying out the tasks I have set him with. He's going to give you the details of A, B, C, D, and E, our key mechanisms used at ensuring we can carry out our mission without jeopardizing the health of the environment, or the lives of the people affected by potential leaks. He is then going to tell you about what we do to ensure these mechanisms don't fail and what went wrong that day."
(Joe gives technical speech about safety and what went wrong)"
The CEO then needs to reiterate, in layman's terms, what went wrong that day (or the days leading up to it) and the situations were uncontrollable beyond the reasonable means available and implemented by them. Basically, he needs to show negligence wasn't present and then get on to plugging and cleaning. If he can't show that BP didn't set the tone for an effective safety environment, then there's hell to pay beyond cleanup.
Again, the CEO isn't responsible for designing the technical piece of the puzzle, but these guys are smart enough to understand what can go wrong and foster an environment where it is a priority to prevent events like this from happening. If they can't at least do that, then there is something very wrong.
People just want some sort of direct and clear answer that doesn't make it sound like nobody has a 17-ing clue at what happens in that business.
I don't want to make it sound like I think this industry is simple and should be easily understood and operated. It's complicated and takes a large amount of very intelligent people to make things work. Hell, many of the jobs are just outright dangerous. But, that's also why the rewards in this industry are so high - not everyone can just get a team together to explore, obtain, and refine oil and do it well. I think people want to (and should) hold the executives in this industry to a higher standard than other industry because of A) the potential rewards in the business and B) the potential massive impacts should they screw up.
But, what good is a CEO if all he/she does is manage financial statement metrics? If that's the case, A) why is he/she being paid so much or B) why aren't they the CFO or Treasurer instead. A CEO must have their hands in on all facets of the business, including operations. Maybe not at the detail level, but certainly at a level where he/she can understand, at the very least, the high-level process flows and the risks present.
Just because Tony sits in a corporate office literally thousands of miles away doesn't mean he can't become well versed in the risks of his business. Again, this isn't some risk that is immaterial to the company and shouldn't hit his radar. We are talking about the risk that the hole you put in the earth suddenly and uncontrollably begins gushing thousands of barrels of oil a day for months. If not for the environmental and PR impacts of an event like that happening, you would at least think the CEO would have a good grasp of the issues for purely a P&L impact. No, I have no experience in this industry, but you are going to SHOCK me if events like those aren't thought of as key risks to the business.
I think this is all important because you have to distinguish this from a "**** happens" one-off event that you fix going forward from a "gross negligence" event where people must own up to it and pay the price - and even be made examples of if that's what it takes (i.e. jail time).
Here is the very least of what I what I want to hear from a CEO in a situation like this:
"We at BP understand the risks associated with deep water drilling and the potential impacts on the environment and 3rd parties should we have a breakdown or failure in operations. In order to mitigate that risks, we have invested in the following technologies, equipment, and people necessary to mitigate those risks:
Let me introduce to you, Joe Blow, our Cheif Safey/Compliance Officer for the Gulf Region of BP Americas" Joe is XXX with # years of experience is YYY operations and safety. He is an expert in the field and has assembled a more than qualified team capable at carrying out the tasks I have set him with. He's going to give you the details of A, B, C, D, and E, our key mechanisms used at ensuring we can carry out our mission without jeopardizing the health of the environment, or the lives of the people affected by potential leaks. He is then going to tell you about what we do to ensure these mechanisms don't fail and what went wrong that day."
(Joe gives technical speech about safety and what went wrong)"
The CEO then needs to reiterate, in layman's terms, what went wrong that day (or the days leading up to it) and the situations were uncontrollable beyond the reasonable means available and implemented by them. Basically, he needs to show negligence wasn't present and then get on to plugging and cleaning. If he can't show that BP didn't set the tone for an effective safety environment, then there's hell to pay beyond cleanup.
Again, the CEO isn't responsible for designing the technical piece of the puzzle, but these guys are smart enough to understand what can go wrong and foster an environment where it is a priority to prevent events like this from happening. If they can't at least do that, then there is something very wrong.
People just want some sort of direct and clear answer that doesn't make it sound like nobody has a 17-ing clue at what happens in that business.
I don't want to make it sound like I think this industry is simple and should be easily understood and operated. It's complicated and takes a large amount of very intelligent people to make things work. Hell, many of the jobs are just outright dangerous. But, that's also why the rewards in this industry are so high - not everyone can just get a team together to explore, obtain, and refine oil and do it well. I think people want to (and should) hold the executives in this industry to a higher standard than other industry because of A) the potential rewards in the business and B) the potential massive impacts should they screw up.
"I won't rest until this oil leak is plugged - except to taketwo vacations, weekly concerts at the white house, democratic fund-raisers, and eight rounds of golf"
"I don't know much about that incident, but the Cambridge Police acted stupidly"
"I want you to listen, because I am only going to say this once, I did not have sex with that woman - Ms Lowinsky"
"Okay, when Bush was in charge, the Deepwater Horizon was cited five times and shut down once. Under my (Obama's) rule, we gave them two safety awards and NO CITATIONS AT ALL. Hell, we didn't even inspect the rig every month as we were supposed to. But, I want you to know, this is Bush and Cheney's fault"
Coach66, don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.</p>
"I don't know much about that incident, but the Cambridge Police acted stupidly"
"I want you to listen, because I am only going to say this once, I did not have sex with that woman - Ms Lowinsky"
"Okay, when Bush was in charge, the Deepwater Horizon was cited five times and shut down once. Under my (Obama's) rule, we gave them two safety awards and NO CITATIONS AT ALL. Hell, we didn't even inspect the rig every month as we were supposed to. But, I want you to know, this is Bush and Cheney's fault"
Coach66, don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.</p>
people asking the questions. This was a dog and pony show so they could be shown on national tv flogging the CEO of a major corporation. The CEO gave legal responses and was very smart to do so...after all, anything he says can be used against him in a court of law....and you can bet there will be some folks prosecuted, Heyward probably being one of them. BP will pay and should pay but the "hearings" were designed for the voting public to "hear" our "high integrity" (sarcasm galore) politicians bash Heyward. First priority should be stopping the leak and aggressively proceeding with cleanup. Despite what has seemed to be slow response by all involved, the past is the past.....we have to move forward and address this leak and cleanup with absolutely everything available to man regardless of what country or entity it comes from.
H
HippyDawg
Guest
I answered this question for you already. Is your memory as thin as your skin?
BTW, congrats on the popularity of your president and congress. Enjoy the next few months. November is right around the corner... You guys may have enough time to close Gitmo, if you get on your horse.
BTW, congrats on the popularity of your president and congress. Enjoy the next few months. November is right around the corner... You guys may have enough time to close Gitmo, if you get on your horse.