Japan's Earthquake and Energy Policy: In Development, Another Case of "MBA Follies" and Greed?

The consequences "Japan's" March 11, 2011, earthquake and resultant tsunami continue to escalate in destructive scope . And while the earthquake's aftermath has become bad enough in terms of human death and shock to the rest of the Pacific rim countries, this blogger feels there is not enough being said about what appears to is a often-miscalculated power, immensity and unpredictability of Mother Nature and the too often-proved puny, though maybe well-intentioned devices (emergency planning, engineering, "fail-safe" nuclear reactors, etc) and decision stratagems dreamed up by us humans to resist, control or merely delude ourselves about Mother Nature.

This propensity by humans to so often self-delude, in the form of corporate "decision making", is really an attempt, highly rewarded in modern times, to save money by implementing the "science" of risk analysis to justify less-costly design safety features, even when potential loss of life is factored in. Risk analysis in many cases these days is nothing more than using statistics to rationalize away the potential for grand scales of destruction of property and loss of life to occur, in that order.

Keep in mind that an unexpected or historically rare grand scaleharmful and property-destroying event or action can be judged ignorable, a riskable bet, if it is calculated by committee agreement or single-person (expert) consultation that northeast coast Japanese earthquakes and tsunamis are not related; i.e, they occur independent of each other and occur together no more than a certain few times in a hundred or even thousand normal events of one kind or the other. In other words, the expert belief/committee line is that tsunamis are not caused by earthquakes, nor vice versa. The key here is independent occurrence which statistically allows the company risk analyzer-statistician to multiply the two small probability percentages of each type of catastrophe rather than add them: for example, in 2011, if they are deemed independent, a 1/10 earthquake occurrence probability plus let's say, 1/8 probability of tsunami occurrence would yield a 1/80 (1.25 %) chance of both occurring at the same time; but if the two catastrophes are deemed related by cause and effect, their chances of occurring together is 22% (1/10 + 1/8; 10% + 12%). Obviously, statistical independence of tsunami and earthquake is better for lowering insurance premiums and building less costly reactors (fewer/weaker safety design features). This is why corporate committees will argue against unbiased analysts on behalf of independence of failure modes: independent-judged events will appear to have an ultra-small chance of occurring together and, furthermore, they will appear to be unrelated, i.e., not be linked as in cause and effect. (Which in this case is BS).

This blogger suspects in the recent March 11, Japan earthquake-tsunami case, the probability of an earthquake above 7.9 occurring together with a monster tsunami was probably game-matrixed to exec committees, supposedly including one of Toshiba's, as small enough so that the joint occurence could be virtually ignored. In statistical terms, the joint probability of earthquake and tsunami was, incorrectly, presented to be beyond estimated 2-3 sigma, or perhaps it could have been played with to appear to be even in the 6 sigma category which in modern corporate lingo is very convincing. This is how risk boundaries are set: smaller scale harm, etc. is something to plan for, i.e., within reasonable cost; large scale is something to statistically argued away and put aside...to let governments and taxpayers deal with while "to big to fail...", enough of this. Sometimes loss of life is the least costly risk: tho abominable, such a risk policy might not be an intentional crime but arguably non-existant statistics wise, until it occurs. Regardless of statistics that says a 3 sigma rule or even a 6 sigma rule. "6 sigma" would have an "impossibly" low chance of occurrence, history shows statistical improbability is not fact and statistical numbers don't walk around and prevent stuff from happening.

What does this analysis mean for the northeast coast of Japan? One of the most earthquake-prone, tsunami witnessed areas on the planet? Well, at the least it means reactor design should have had double or triple the safety features of a reactor intended to be located, say, in Iowa or in the Rhone Valley. Secondly, who in their right mind would locate a reactor close to the coast in that region of Japan. In less endangered, less historically earthquake-tsunami prone areas, one might suspect trade-offs of gain/reduced cost for reactor location, or mis-location. But in Japan? On the northeast coast? Enough. Let's say this blogger hopes all parties are in the final summations found to be pure and guiltless, tho perhaps not faultless, in their decisions. It seems better in the long run to be found to have made a sincere tho faulty decision than be found guilty of deliberate collusion to misrepresent.

In a former life chapter this blogger served as a NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) liaison and emergency administrator for a large academic research institution. So, this blogger has some background to speak about nuclear radiation safety, and especially about human foibles and self-delusions when it comes to playing around with radiation. Nuclear power, despite it's champions, is like juggling cyanide pills with gloves on and wearing a clown suit. "Stuff" does happen, believe it. And predictably, more stuff happens when we humans, behind committee curtains, manage to convince ourselves that because radiation can't be seen, heard, smelled, or tasted or felt we can relax and engage in distanced, impersonal risk analysis where consequences (human injury, disease, inconvenience and death) of systems failure/damage are weighed against safety costs.

Moreover, quite often the costs of failure consequences are least in cases of death; so it goes in the land of RA (risk analysis) and MBA Follies. The follies of risk analyses and consequences are already surfacing in this Japan earthquake: a Japanese engineer is quoted in BBC web site reporting March 14 as having made reference to cutting of corners in reactor design so that design safety factors to protect against earthquake and tsunami were not considered:

1422: Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this. (BBC News- March 14, 2011)

First, note that engineer Goto uses the phrase, "against earthquake or tsunami" which "or" confirms this blogger's suspicion that an independent-model statistics were used to game out risk analysis, i.e, to justify the least costly design safety scenario.

Further, sadly but predictably, Engineer Goto's comments to the BBC should immediately raise expectations of near-future questions and investigations at several levels. And also predictably, by this blogger's opinion in the above paragraphs, there will be found at the bottom another case of MBA Follies - a risk decision based on a boardroom committee consensus that a major earthquake and earthquake-generated tsunami occurring together, though it might be strong enough to trash a just enough safety design, just will not happen.. or will be, based on mis-applied statistics, acceptably not likely so as to certainly not happen on our watch". Well, it did happen on somebody's watch and there will, or should, likely be consequences.

And as a final sub-thought in the above vein of Stuff is Still Coming, there is this headline from the March 14, HuffingtonPost web site:

LIVE UPDATES: 17 U.S. Military Personnel Test Positive For Radiation.. Recovery Efforts May Face Temperatures Below Freezing.. More Video..
Japan Asks U.S. For Help.. Costs To Hit $35 Billion.. Volcano Erupts.. Germany, Switzerland Suspend Nuclear Plant Approvals.. PHOTOS.. Robots Deployed To Aid Recovery Efforts.. HOW YOU CAN HELP

One suspects, sadly, these headlines, which are quoted from sources, might not turn out to be exaggerations.

But to the point: the reactors in Japan are rupturing, exploding and leaking radiation. Radiation is impacting emergency workers, surrounding populations (despite ever-widening evacuation zones) and spreading with help from atmospheric winds to ships at sea... and eventually will spread in perhaps more than just detectable levels to west coast America (Alaska, Canada, United States, Mexico, South America) and Russia. And let's not overlook radiation spread to other parts of Asia.

And let's give a few prayers that, so far, the earth quake region is apparently confined to the north east coast; although recent volcano activity in the south Japan area is raising questions.

This blogger chooses, as a privilege of speaking one's mind in a blog, to reduce the Japan earthquake and results to two major points: we can't overestimate the power of Mother Nature and her ability to exceed our imagination of what surprises She might bring to the table, and we should have long ago been committing a large amount of resources - tax incentives, research and money - to develop solar, wind, tidal, wave power, etc ... GREEN POWER. Nuclear power is, to repeat an often made point, a controlled, hopefully slowed down atomic bomb. And remember, it doesn't take but a small few reactor mishaps to screw things up locally and drift area wise for many years.

As to the WHY haven't we (humans and nations in general) been massively involved in developing and perfecting the use of green, passive power, Why haven't we been committing major resources to develop room temperature superconductivity, microwave energy beaming from space-situated fusion cells, etc.? This blogger proposes it hasn't happened because of an economic-ism malaise and paralysis that seem to have us locked in a petro-prison (this blogger's term).

This blogger has no miracle agenda since there are presumably far more capable technologists and politicians able to negotiate technical problems as well as negotiate the intricacies of "modern" political-industrial systems. But the need to move forward seems to shine briliantly in our eyes - it's past time to get off the pot and solve The Energy Problem with safe as well as reliable power.

2011, An Orphan Year

There is a feeling that 2011 will be a year of nothing special to remember but instead will be noted as a year when several significant things were planted to be harvested/manifested later. This blogger sees significant developments planted in 2011 in the areas of earth movement, England, global finances, American politics, global alliances, arts and weather.

More About NASA's Mono Lake Press Conference on Arsenic-containing DNA

The NASA Mono Lake press release conference has heated up to a higher intensity. Here is follow up post this blogger contributed to The Daily Galaxy web site on December 13, 2010, that updates this blog's post of December 2, 2010.

Although I also feel NASA's Mono Lake research, per se, might be flawed in design, I believe NASA had a larger purpose for the press release conference: through suggestion and implication, I feel NASA has begun to prep the public to accept expanded definitions of life so to eventually introduce the public to their reality.

Also, the Mono Lake release seems to send some signals about NASA's internal positions on the "life problem" [at this time]. First, that DNA itself is robust, hence adaptive to many environments. Second, that NASA favors the DNA morphology as a venue of bioinformation. And third, that DNA is probably to be found throughout this solar system and perhaps beyond, although perhaps restricted to the "Goldilocks" zones of far systems (?).

Personally, I find it difficult to accept that DNA, in all its complexity, is a commonly occurring, and preferred, chemical structure found throughout the planets and solar systems. Why? Because it is hard to imagine that jiggling a planet-or-moon-sized boxful of many-ported Lego chemical blocks, mainly from the first 3 rows of the periodic table with some transition and higher elements thrown in, will generally produce the DNA morphology more often than many, many other possible chemical assemblages. (But, since I am not a computer which can easily generate and compare thermodynamic advantages of different complex morphologies, maybe DNA is a preferred structure! Who knows, maybe NASA?)

So, I feel NASA's implied emphasis on DNA is either naive or founded on specific evidence. But, as I don't feel NASA is naive, it is my expectation there will be more "releases" building up to hard evidence for extra-earth life based on DNA. The corollary to this evidence is that earth life is not spontaneous in origin but might equally have been seeded, since one could expect DNA to be also transported by passenger microbes on asteroids, meteorites, etc.. In this last respect, NASA seems to have been excited about the piggy-back transport scenario for a long time - just a thought.

NASA's December 2, 2010, Web Conference on Astrobiology - Tantalizing, Wasn't It?

The December 2, 2010, NASA-TV streaming conference was for this blogger a kind of chilling experience in a Christmas morning sense ... but not for the science. I believe today's NASA panel, conducted in a familiar, entertaining, enthusiastic (and fetching) manner, was part of a public education seminar series that is designed to "prep" the general public for Disclosure -a Disclosure that "we" (NASA, global governments, leaders, military police at landing sites, ordinary citizens experiencing encounters, etc) have already experienced contact with ET and most probably that ET has been with us for a long time. This is a personal intuitive sense that the blogger does not equate to belief in, or declaring obeisance to, the popularized web and TV-based sensationalist (some say also "paranoid") voices. This blogger's personal belief is that ET is a real phenomenon and when publically "exposed" will very likely prove to be "mundane" (non-superpowered) in purpose, intelligence and general capabilities.

Scientifically, this blogger heard little news from what physical inorganic and organic chemists, and forward looking biologists and research physicians (and general forward-thinking citizens who are carpenters, plumbers, bookkeepers, etc) haven't already predicted or suspected for decades - the polling indicates that well over 50% of Americans believe in or accept the possibility of ET. Certainly, there have been many less mind-chained technologists, and lay persons, writing science fiction over the last century who have been visualizing life formsw based on non-water and non-phosphorous homologs. Michael Crichton's books are notable examples.

Almost 40 years ago, ths blogger personally developed and taught an advanced course in non-water based chemistry and electrochemistry, with biological implications and applications such as biosensors and replacement of carbon with other, homologous, elements. The most popular near-water model for HOMOLOGOUS chemical systems was even then believed to be based on Arsenic and its close neighbors in the periodic table (e.g., Germanium, Silicon, etc). The point being made is there are a host of elements just as likely as Arsenic to show up in exotic life systems.

So what else sent shivers thru this brain? It was the coincidence-that-is-non-coincidental timing of a clean and simple, public panel being held on this particular subject, exotic life chemistry, at this time of near-critical-mass-point of ufo sightings along with an increasing rate of "disclosures" by military guards, government officials, statesmen, nurses, and just ordinary citizens from all parts of the globe who are now telling, near the end of their time on this orb their stories about past and current ET encounters. These encounters number in the thousands - and even tens of thousands if one also includes alleged events in the abduction arena.(And notice how presentable, entertaining and down-to-earth the panelists conducted themselves while disclosing some striking implications.)

I expect there will be one or two more publically televised "education" events before the "good" news is let out that ET, our bio-chemical brothers, exist. Even the Vatican has moved to anticipate that eventuality with its announcement in 2008 that the good Patria feel it is "OK" for Catholics to believe in ET because they are our "brothers" though perhaps being different in their lack of original sin (a stateement with profound implications and whose exact meaning is still to be explained). But how our new family thinks, spiritualizes, behaves,now it's ethos is structured, etc. is another question. However, one imagines that if ET has revealed themselves, and we are still alive and the globe is not in ashes, then ET is not a threat from the perspective of our programmed, instinctive, naked-ape attack-or-flee reaction base. There might of course be bio-hazard dangers (and we have also heard in the more expansive (speculative?)ufo-ET network about quarantine sites for ET's in various areas of the US and elsewhere (Dulce, New Mexico, etc).

How ET might smell to us, how and what ET eats for energy (certainly not eating us, but think of ET as terrifically strong radishes, hmm), eliminates as waste (our earth's deep ocean, super hot thermal vents have led to the evolution/adaptation, of life to live on a sulfur-based biochemistry where thir waste products are allomorphs of pure sulfur), and what ET drinks are questions whose answers are delightfully up for grabs and yet to be answered. However, these points bring up articles in the speculative UFO web world that have presented alleged personal accounts of ET encounters and "weird" or unsettling smells and "awareness" that evince sometimes severe psychological stress - which are expected reactions from our human biology base.

For instance, Arsenic-based chemistry, though perhaps "operating" along similar (homologous) chemical paths as phosphate systems, most likely leads to metabolic wastes that incorporates Arsenic hydrides which tend to smell strongly of a garlic essence instead of the familiar rotten egg smell of human waste. Or think of Arseno-proteinaceous breakdown sludge instead of human-like coproplytes, or and think of really bad breath, perspiration, etc.

The ufo-ET web network has long reported first hand witness "accounts" (claims?) of the very terrifying effect of just the smell of ET - an immediate recognition by the human brain smell centers that the wafting odors don't fit into our 3-D stereo-configured smell receptacles which are evolved to accept and recognize not only differently shaped molecules but those within specific ranges of elecro-charge-density, etc. (Human sensing organs are very comprehensive and sensitive instrument arrays especially when combined with such our complex, "intuitive" central computing center, the human brain.)

The Nasa panel today, also very nicely explained, in an easily understood show and tell manner, that we humans are not biologically unique. Further, the NASA panelists implied that in the vast, chemically complex universe we should not be surpised to meet "life forms" (at least chemical-based life) that are sentient and perhaps more advanced than us: this technically trained blogger believes Life is a term that deserves deeper analyses than has been done at present and has broader meaning than our usually understood bio-organic definition ... and conceivably might occur as non-physical formats.

I believe, further, that NASA has more cards hidden in their hand but are waiting for the right near-time to show them ... now that the public, through the mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc) is being educated to wider and higher expectations.

America's Failures in Foreign Policy: The Role of Our Virtual Culture

Is America failing itself by being unable to develop complex models for our foreign policy objectives and behavior? It appears so, given the great similarities in how we attempted change, but failed, in Vietnam and Iraaq, and now again, it seems,in Afghanistan.

This blogger proposes the fault for our failure to achieve foreign policy success in these past cases, and future failures unless we change something, derives from the virtual, reduced-in-complexity, plots and worlds of America's pop culture which provides us with the models that shape our mental vision of the world and pre-selects the methods we repeatedly and ineffectually, use to intervene abroad and pursue our global interests.

As for our American culture and how it influences our foreign policy, Americans seem to be perpetually stuck with our heads in TV virtual (and incomplete) worlds written to provide immediate gratification for audiences and commercial sponsors. We then "grow up" (and not necessarily mature)trying to make foreign peoples, cultures and problems conform to some familiar, simplistic Hollywood script. The problem is our elected officials, in order to gain admission to office, have to play to the cultural electorate who have been reared on this stuff.

Richard Haass, Newsweek correspondent, writes about the need for America to reformulate it's mission, tactics and objectives in Afghanistan. A segment of his article was preleased in a Huffington Post article by Nicholas Graham,
"Richard Haass In Newsweek: Rethink Afghanistan Because Nation Building Is Not Working And We're Not Winning ":

Haass:
"After nearly nine years of war, however, continued or increased U.S. involvement in Afghanistan isn't likely to yield lasting improvements that would be commensurate in any way with the investment of American blood and treasure. It is time to scale down our ambitions there and both reduce and redirect what we do. ... The war the United States is now fighting in Afghanistan is not succeeding and is not worth waging in this way. The time has come to scale back U.S. objectives and sharply reduce U.S. involvement on the ground. Afghanistan is claiming too many American lives, requiring too much attention, and absorbing too many resources. The sooner we accept that Afghanistan is less a problem to be fixed than a situation to be managed, the better."

We americans always seem to carry with us, around the world, a false, video game, bad guys-good guys interpretation of conflict and disagreement whereby we insist on forcing any foreign "issue" into a format looking like a 40 minute TV drama, full of blood and guts and ending in a simplistic "win" and a kiss, and "losers" who are usually blown up or at least killed off in some entertaining way. Have Americans lost our sense of reality? Is it always necessary to "win" in easily perceived terms? What about more subtle foreign policy successes?

Has America, because of its perpetually adolescent, immediate-gratification, short-term attention span, TV culture, become unable to think log term or subtly?

Are we stuck in a foreign policy point of view that de-emphasizes a real-world pursuit of complex policy objectives and instead focuses on promoting more easily (to Americans) understood, titillating gadgetry, TV-video-game features that usually consist of fancy or quasi-speculative "war toys", viz. Drone UAV's (unmanned aerial vehicles), huge main battle tanks, fancy anti-personnel weapons of all sorts, exotic framed B-2 flying wing bombers ala some "Terry and the Pirates Face Lost Nazis" film, and so on?

All the above suspicions seem to hold water. Our foreign policy, our economics, our energy "planning" - all lack a mature and steady, long term approach. We will continue to make this mistake while our culture remains overwhelmed by virtual foes, unreal weaponry and heroism, and of course while we still have deep bench money make man-sized versions of our cultural fantasies.

The BP-Deepwater Oil Spill: A Rationale for International Coordination of Resources

The April 20, 2010, BP-Deepwater oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico appears to have consequences that extend beyond the shores adjacent to the failed drill rig, and have impact on the national and global scale. This regulatory-ecological-resource extraction-adverse event raises issues this blogger attempts to address concerning: (1) corporate powers and autonomy, (2) resource planning, (3) corporation-government-public liasing, (4) local, national and international resource planning, risk assessment and approvals for resource extraction, and (5) possible structures of coordinating organizations.

The Deepwater Gulf oil spill has raised the above issues plus questions about corporate power and autonomy, corporate self-regulation and the future of relations (conflicts) between corporate and public interests.

Some related questions:
(1) As we now know from the BP-Deepwater disaster, future resource-extraction adverse events may well involve damages that exceed the ability of just one corporation to pay. Is there a need for accountable industry collectives fund, identify resource locations, plan extraction and cover liabilities?

(2) What about damages that extend beyond just monetary compensation, i.e global scale damage to the environment, economies and populations? How can this case be covered and what organizational formats, policies and protections might be required? When is a resource plan appropriately denied because of these dangers? Wand who shall make this decision?

(2) Are these corporate-activity adverse events expected to get worse? Can they be prevented? What kind of organizational structures can serve to answer these questions?

The Deepwater Gulf oil spill raises significant issues, accusations, doubts and questions about corporate power and autonomy, corporate self-regulation and the future of relations (conflicts) between corporate and public interests. Yet these issues must be successfully met if humans are not to sanitize, sterilize and kill the planet's life and habitability.

At the time of this blog, estimates are from 100 million to 150 million gallons of crude have been released into the Gulf of Mexico. Being driven by Gulf currents, the oil spill is expected to inundate the beaches of US Gulf shore states. As of July 7, 2010, all 5 Gulf states are receiving tar balls on their shores - Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Missouri. If the spill is not stopped, it is expected to eventually drift South along the Florida coast and then up the eastern seaboard of the United States. If still not stopped, the spill is expected to eventually impact Greenland, Iceland and northern Europe. Where ever the oil impacts, it will damage or destroy sea life, estuaries, wetlands and beaches. Regional economies may be decimated and populations might have to be relocated owing to the toxic nature of the oil components (benzene and similar hydrocarbons), the accompanying methane gas, the chemical dispersants used to break up the balls of crude oil, and even perhaps the radioactive nature of deep-origin crude oil itself.

But apart from "fault" or "how", there are perhaps larger issues generated by some simple "why's": why did deep water oil drilling occurr in the first place, and in general "why" does it appear there is trend towards inceasingly risky methods and scenarios linked with the search for scarcer and scarcer oil and other resources required by our national and global economies?

These "issues" lead to further questions that focus on the national and global scale and even give reason for changing the way nations and corporations relate to each other, and suggest organizational structures that might implement these relationships.

-have we reached a critical thresh hold in the (convenient) availability of raw materials required by national economies? (Are raw materials becoming more scarce and hence more difficult to extract from the planet? Are there increasing dangers of nation-to-nation conflict over depleting and/or more extraction-difficult resources?)

-Beyond the critical thresh hold of difficulty of extraction, are we seeing as with the BP-Deepwater oil spill a tremendously expanded potential for tangible (cost valuated)damage? In retrospect, did the original cap on BP's liability, $75 million (just 1.3% of BP's 2010 first quarter profits, $5.6 Billion), even approach a reasonable liability considering the global damage now projected?

-Are we seeing damages from careless, or even careful...it does not really matter anymore, business activities so huge they are beyond what one corporation or even an industry sector operating collectively can pay? (BP now has agreed to estblish a $20 BILLION catastrophe fund to cover lost wages, health problems, etc. resulting from the released oil.)

-More, are we now experiencing a thresh hold of business activity damages beyond which lie immense and terrible intangible consequences that are beyond compensatory (money) valuation, i.e. damages to global stability and habitability either not recoverable in a time frame we humans are comfortable with, or not recoverable at all. (The Gulf may be oxygen-stripped (lifeless) in part or whole for decades.)

- Has the scale of tangible and intangible damages resulting from business activities expanded beyond even what a single nation or even a group of nations can cope with as damages and required efforts to recover, or adjust, extend beyond national boundaries to involve the entire globe?

As corollary questions:

-have we reached, and rapidly going beyond, a critical, national and global population threshhold?

-are national governments and even industry sector collectives sufficient structures to effectively protect humanity from its business life?

There are conclusions and suggestions relative to the future of making use of the planet's resources - an evaluation and review process for the use and extraction of the planets resources:

- Organization of industry into related sectors who develop resource proposals, or long term plans, starting at the level of individual corporations, and with cooperation with national resource agencies, and eventually with an international strategic global resource planning and coordinating council.

- National resource management agencies who coordinate with local businesses, industry sectors, and evetually an international (global)combined resource planning and coordinating council.

-International Resource Management Council responsible for review and approval of resource plans and proposals from nations and industry sectors. Members of the Council represent industry sectors, nations and independents(non-profit ecological impact study associations, natural resource and animal preservation groups, etc.)

- a top level global coordinating body (evolved United Nations, etc.) whose jurisdiction might extend off-planet to monitor, codify and effect outer space leasing of planetary and asteroid territories and the extraction of their resources.

This blogger believes all of these structures will come into being sooner than later because the problems and damages with other Deepwater-like activities are looming right now and if they occur will add even more terrible and geographically widespread damages and threats to human life and the planet's habitability.

MBA Follies: The Gulf Oil Spill: BP's Corporate Decision Making and Accountability, Human Culpability and Dereliction, And the Fallacy of Self- Regulation

The April 20, 2010, British Petroleum-Trans Ocean oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, only 40 miles offshore from Louisiana, has the potential to devastate the economies and sea life of the Gulf shore states and perhaps even impact the eastern United States and eventually Europe. The question of how the spill occurred, or who might be at fault has not yet been determined although there are indications that BP's, or the leasing company Trans Oceanic's, corporate cost-benefit decision making (risk analysis) at the least was a contributing factor that resulted in less expensive, hence weaker, equipment being in place when drilling penetrated a highly pressurized and highly explosive pocket of crude oil-methane gas at almost 20 thousand feet below sea level (15 thousand feet below sea bed).

The pricipal issue of this blog:

Has corporate decision-making wrecked the Gulf region and made it unlivable long term? (As of July 7, 2010, all 5 Gulf states are receiving tar balls on their shores.)

This blogger finds the BP Gulf Oil crisis (it has to be now called a crisis) a fascinating though tragic and sad consequence of a fallacious regulatory philosophy being taught/impplied in some business schools and a tenet of some eco-political thinking - that the best judge and monitorship of business activities are businesses themselves. This blogger's experience in a mid-career executive program at a leading business school was eye opening when he heard this proposed. And, admittedly as the cadence of this credo flowed smoothly across the lecture hall, "self-regulation" of business by business seemed to have an appeal

Corporate accountability, responsibility and “ethics” were presented to the blogger in a bottom line context that appeared to the blogger to be very different from human definitions and in many cases antagonistic to human interests and safety. That experience has stuck in this blogger's mind and has led the blogger to feel corporate America is far off-base in its perception of its social obligations to America and to the local communities where corporations operate. At the root of the matter, this blogger has come to several conclusions about the potential danger of attributing human qualities, and rights to corporations, in contradiction to the appparent current Supreme Court's perspective.

If one thinks about it for only a bit even, the lack of an ethics in the corporate world as humans understand ethics should not be a surprise - a corporation’s existence does not depend on the same essentials as required by humans, even though a corporation is a collection of humans. The corporation has its own set of existential priorities which are different from a human’s: a corporation does not breathe air, consume food, drink water, require houses, schools, etc. …in the normal sense. Corporations are uni-focused on the "bottom line", i.e. profitability, which is whether short or long term is the final measure and assurance of corporate success. Although, it can be argued, a corporation can certainly benefit from the infrastructures humans are motivated to create for themselves such as schools, shopping malls, roads, ports, and more.

Therefore, it is logical that cities, towns and governments tax corporations for using human infrastructures. And it should be logical that humans be constantly on guard against unthinking (rather, uni-focused)corporate damage to these essential human life-constructs, much like having a bear in your living room. Don't blame the bear, blame the person who foolishly believed the bear was deprived of watching the world series on the new flat screen tv.

Corporations do not have human ethical considerations. And this is very confusing to humans (including, this blogger believes, the US Supreme Court). For human safety and well being, this blogger believes corporations should be kept on a tight leash because corporate decision-making involves a different set of life-suppport factors as mentioned above. Thus in the case of oil-shale extraction, the close-focus of energy companies on potential over-use of precious water for steam extraction does not bear consideration from the corporation because once water is depleted, operations can be moved elsewhere, leaving a waterless (or polluted), bare region of gaping strip mines, or canals can be built(singled mindedly for minimum expense) to bring in water from, and hence deplete, other regions.

Likewise, and to the point, the analytical risk decision of Deepwater Horizon to save on drilling expenses by using less expensive (“cheaper” to us humans) safety shut-off equipment was a proper decision in a corpporate context which, if nothing negative had happend, would have meant additional corporate profits and substantial bonuses for human staff members in the decision and appproval chain. Besides, this decision was cemented by a successful corporate strategy concerning relations with Congress (campaign donations) that had resulted in a absurdly low liability cap of only $75 million, a little more than 1%% of BP's 2010 1st quarter profits of $5.6 Billion...and likely a very smaller fraction of BP pre-spill, reserve account. (Note: BP unfortunately but rightly, in the corporate strategy context, will not dip into its pre-spill reserve account but will penalize the dividend account so stock holders will suffer while the corporate body will not be affected. If BP staff are found to be negligent or acted flagrantly will there be stock holder law suits?)

The lesson learned from just these two examples and especially from the most recent oil spill in the Gulf region, is the following set of warnings:
- humans must not expect corporations to have/share human emotions, or needs.
- corporations have different needs than humans, or rather, corporations
do not breathe, eat, drink...as humans do.

- corporations need to be watched and regulated by independent (unbiased) parties on behalf of human safety.

- corporations should never be permitted to “self-regulate” (a ridiculous, non-term in the regulatory world).

The "ABC's" of institutional regulation posit that assured compliance with rules and guidleines to safe business activity is monitoring by independent agents. This is not a belief that business, or any other institution so monitored, has something inherently evil or untrustworthy about them, but only a requirement that goes hand in hand with the belief that regulation's first priority is "prevention" and NOT punishment.

Punishment focuses on the "after" something bad has happened. What is better than that the "Bad" never happened?! This is the rationale for giving priority to preventive regulatory laws guidelines and monitoring.

As an aside, business schools now have impetus to expand their curricula in the management sector by adding coursework on advanced regulatory techniques and decision-making. Techniques such as Morphological Analyses (Fritz Zwicky, Cal tech astrophysicist, 1967) will permit corporate executives to lay out (matrix sheet) and identify the key regulatory-risk factors that affect cost and liability.

But back to BP and Deepwater, regulatory-wise there was no failure of the regulatory system. Rather, human policy makers (Congress)insanely gave over their proper regulatory command and responsibilities to the regulated party, the corporate oil interests. It's just that Congress forgot, or never took the time to realize, or were easily convinced by corporate donations, that corporate needs and decison factors intrinsically compete with regulatory principles which basically exist to protect human safety. In this context there is no more misapplied concept than "self-regulation" which this blogger believes to be one of the most dangerous and fallacious tenets of some "conservative" and pro-business, business schools.

The real cost of of the BP Gulf oil "spill", or fiasco, will far outweigh the dollar value of cleanup because in the human world there are dollar costs and then there are intangible costs of traditions and lifestyle (loss of quality of life).

From a corporate viewpoint, it might not be even worthwhile to spend money attempting to stop and clean up the present damage as these efforts might have to go on forever.

The real question is whether, owing to by-the-book corporate decision-making based on cost-expense-profit considerations, a terrible and perhaps irreversible Pandora's Box has been opened on the Gulf environment and sea product industry. The Gulf region might come to be "sanitized, sterilized, uninhabitable, eliminated" ... for a long, long time.