The Corporate Lies of Transocean

And now a word from the “Other” reality – the one in which ivory tower intellectuals, political campaign strategists, corporate executives, and Wall Street brokers dwell. This story certainly didn’t originate in our shared reality.

First, the comment, quoted from <veracitystew.com/2011/04/04/gulf-oil-spills-transocean-best-year-ever/>:
“In a perfect example of the massive disconnect between corporate greed and responsibility, Transocean, Ltd., the offshore drilling contractor whose faulty rig, the Deepwater Horizon, exploded last April… had, according to securities filings obtained by the Wall Street Journal, their “best year in safety performance.”

What?  Did the owners of the Transocean Deepwater Horizon just claim 2010 as their best safety year ever? Would that be the same year in which their rig blew up, killed eleven people, and dumped hundreds of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico?

Yes.  In the artificial, blustery, dishonest, world of corporate spin, someone at Transocean concluded either that 2010 was a good year for safety, or that they could dupe foolish mortals like you and me and the SEC and their stockholders into believing that 2010 was a good year for safety.

If 2010 was a good year, I'd hate to see a bad year.  Seriously, either they are stupid, or they are dishonest and condescending, and they think we are stupid. Take your choice.

To their dismay, Transocean soon realized that the target audience for that “best year ever” comment isn’t buying it. So what did the corporate spin doctors at Transocean do? Did they admit their mistake? Did they come clean? Or did they decide that they are so much smarter than you and me that they can lie through their teeth and force us to believe them?

With appreciation to <www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/04/gulf.spill.bonuses/index.html?hpt=P1&iref=NS1#>, here is Transocean’s second comment. Read it closely:
“The owner of the Gulf of Mexico oil rig that exploded last year, killing 11 workers and leading to what has been called the worst oil spill ever, said Monday that calling 2010 its ‘best year’ in safety ‘may have been insensitive’.”

Wow. Even when confronted with the absurdity of their previous statement, Transocean does not actually admit that they were wrong or dishonest. Instead, they tell us about sensitivity.

In the first place, they are off-topic. They do not respond to the safety issue, but refocus on the matter of how the message was presented. The plan: distract the public from the real issue by providing another “lightning rod” topic, sensitivity.

In the second place, note the wording. Not only did they not admit they had a horrible safety year, they also didn’t really admit their substitute offense, as they only “may have been” insensitive. Does it get any more arrogant than that?

The intent of this exercise in hypocrisy is to tacitly deny any wrongdoing while concurrently changing our focus from the oil spill to the way they presented their message.

Let’s move beyond literal words to the more subtle matter of implications. What is the implied message in the Transocean response?

The implication of the instantaneous refocus on the method of presentation (as opposed to the facts concerning safety) is that the facts themselves are so obviously true that we do not need to concern ourselves with them. Although Transocean “may have been insensitive” when they reminded us about their great safety record, they imply by their dismissal of the accusation that they obviously were speaking the truth.

The problem, as redefined by Transocean, is not that pesky little oil spill incident or their safety record. The problem is not even that they blatantly lied to the world about their safety record. No, the problem, IF there was any at all, was that they “may have been” insensitive, and that people may have misunderstood their pride in a commendable safety accomplishment.

Notice this subtle implication also. Not only is the substitute offense (insensitivity) minor and unworthy of further consideration, but the public is responsible (at least in part) for making the mistake of misunderstanding.

This spin is ingenious – or would be if the public accepted it. It distracts from the real issue, denies any wrong intent in the substitute issue, and implies that the corporation has been wronged by people who misunderstood their honorable motives.

Does anyone need a towel to cry into? I know you are all feeling bad for doubting them.

Do they really think you are stupid?  Yes, they do.  Need more evidence?  Consider the quote from the Transocean statement to the SEC:
"Notwithstanding the tragic loss of life in the Gulf of Mexico, we achieved an exemplary statistical safety record as measured by our total recordable incident rate and total potential severity rate. As measured by these standards, we recorded the best year in safety performance in our company's history."

Well, there it is, in undeniable terms.  Statistics confirm Transocean's exemplary safety record.  I am so relieved.  I thought that oil spill had been a disaster, but I must have been mistaken because they MEASURED it, and numbers don't lie.  Thank goodness it was a wonderful year, after all!

We could discuss the ridiculous attitude behind the phrase “as measured by our total recordable incident rate,” which seems to state that a massive oil spill is acceptable if there is only one of them per year.

We could laugh about the ingrained dishonesty in the term, “potential severity rate,” implying as it does that any disaster can be excused because it might have been worse.

For now, let’s just realize how easily we can be manipulated if we aren’t paying close attention. If you have ever doubted that a person or organization dedicated to maintaining an untenable untruth can lie with statistics, read that last statement again and wonder no more.

Transocean refused to own up to their errors and lies even when caught and called on the carpet. They blatantly twisted facts to support their desired conclusion. In an arrogant and cavalier manner, they ignored accusations and made themselves the victim and their accusers the offending party. They denied facts that stand incontrovertible in the plain light of day.

Arrogance… dishonesty… insults to our intelligence… condescending attitude… hypocrisy…

Here’s what we know that the ‘alternate reality’ spin doctors at Transocean don’t know. Sometimes, despite the best spinning and lying a corporation can do, the facts speak for themselves, if only we pay attention. 

- Gryphem