Hitting land

Haven't written anything on the BP oil disaster, largely because I'm speechless.

What amazes me -- and I'm not naive -- is the enormous disregard BP has not only for the environment, but for their own reputation. They've invested millions in a global campaign to appear "beyond petroleum," and yet they have a history of spills, corroded pipelines, and refinery explosions. All of which were avoidable. And, despite making billions in profits each quarter, they oppose regulations at every turn, claiming they'd be "burdensome."

As BP touted the scale of the cleanup, documents showed that it was one of several companies that opposed efforts to tighten up safety procedures offshore. Last year, the MMS studied more than 1,400 offshore incidents that led to 41 deaths and hundreds of injuries between 2001 and 2007. Many of them, the MMS found, were linked to factors such as communications failures, a lack of written procedures and the failure of supervisors to enforce existing rules, and proposed mandatory requirements to reduce the number of incidents. That would have replaced a system under which many safety procedures were voluntary.

In a letter published on the U.S. government Web site Regulations.gov, Richard Morrison, BP's vice president for Gulf of Mexico production, wrote that while BP "is supportive of companies having a system in place to reduce risk, accidents, injuries and spills, we are not supportive of the extensive, prescriptive regulations as proposed in this rule."

He added: "We believe the industry's current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs..have been and continue to be very successful."

Mr. Morrison noted that BP had already adopted policies that complied with the MMS's proposed new rules. But he challenged the need for companies to file regular audits of their safety programs with the agency, saying that would be "an administrative burden."

Other companies and trade groups also wrote letters objecting to the rule. Many argued that regulators underestimated the cost of implementing the new requirements, because they didn't take into account the cost of bringing subcontractors into compliance.

They should embrace stricter regulation if only to save them from themselves.