Company executives and top drill hands on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig argued for hours about how to proceed before a BP official made the decision to remove heavy drilling fluid from the well and replace it with lighter weight seawater that was unable to prevent gas from surging to the surface and exploding.
One employee was so mad, the rig’s chief mechanic Doug Brown testified, that he warned they’d be relying on the rig’s blowout preventer if they proceeded the way BP wanted.
“He pretty much grumbled, ‘Well, I guess that’s what we have those pinchers for,’ ” Brown said of Jimmy Harrell, the top Transocean official on the rig. “Pinchers” was likely a reference to the shear rams in the blowout preventers, the final means of stopping an explosion.
Brown said in sworn testimony on Wednesday that the BP official stood up during the meeting and said, “This is how it’s going to be.”
I don’t want to prejudge anything. But I think there is enough of what most reasonable people would label “probable cause” to appoint a special prosecutor and impanel a criminal grand jury to start hearing evidence. Lets start the ball rolling here.
does the US press mention the US company which owned and operated the rig?
I’m sure investors in BP are happy their liability has been capped and the US taxpayer will have to cover the costs of corporate incompetence.
Londoner, yes, Transocean, the rig owner, is mentioned frequently, including in this report. BP seems to have made some bad decisions. According to a report I read, Transocean was recommending a process that would take some time and cost $5-$10 million. In the event, the BP exec on the scene made the wrong decision. Naturally all this will be worked over with testimony and evidence from all sides before blame is officially laid.
According to another report, BP was also involved in a consortium to manage oil spills at the time of the Exxon Valdese disaster. The consortium fiddled while the oil leaked, and within twelve hours, if I recall correctly, Exxon made the decision to get going on spill remediation without them, time being of the essence. Since that time, the report said, Exxon has become compulsive about safety. That ethos appears not to have been aboard the Deepwater Horizon, whoever is finally at fault. I can sympathize with British feelings here, given an already difficult economic environment. The facts will be the facts, though, or I hope so.
And I was already avoiding BP gas stations because of the Lockerbie bomber’s release and BP’s part in the pressure to make that happen.
And, Londoner, if you are looking for an American cause to blame, you might look to our Coast Guard, which did not deploy a fire boom scheme. That might have contained the oil spill more effectively if it had been done as planned early on. The requisite fire booms weren’t even in the Gulf region and had to be ordered well after the time when they could have been most effective.
John,
Why would BP investors be happy? They have already seen 1/3 of the value of the stock evaporate.
There is a long and sad history of corporate and group decision making and the disasters that happen because of it. There is a famous analysis of the Challenger disaster and how the push by NASA to get the Morton-Thiokol engineers to launch against their best judgment was the proximate cause for the booster seal failure that day. Most college and high-school students have seen the video of the Tacoma Narrows bridge failing in spectacular fashion.
Failure is a price we pay for a technologically advanced society. We cannot gain certainty over life and protect ourselves 100%. Also, not all failures are directly due to corporate greed and evil capitalism. Most are due to ego, pride, management pressure and incompetence. Hey – that sounds a lot like the White House and Congress.
Bottom line is that we need to carefully assess risks versus benefits, define the risks against which we are protecting, and work very hard to narrow the range of things that fall into the category of “we don’t know what we don’t know.”
Katherine – I’m not looking to blame any particular nationality……I think the investigations should be completed and responsibilty taken where it is due…..
ps I doubt a rig contractor would do something they thought unsafe ….it’s their rig and people at risk
There were three parties involved as far as I am aware: BP the lessor of the rig; Transocean the owner and operator of the rig; and Haliburton who were responsible for completing the cementing of the well and the concrete plug which does not appear to have been completed at the time of the incident.
BP are not my favorite company, far from it, but in my experience they often rely on subcontractors and operators and will only have one or two key staff in an operation. They seem to accept that it is their responsibility to deal with the incident and its cleanup, but I think it is rather early to jump to some of the conclusions being drawn about the responsibility for the incident which both the US executive and congress appear to be willing to do. I have seen this before with US government and commercial operations – the piling into a company or individual irrespective of the evidence, and invariably to protect themselves and US organisations and companies. I am not sure that anyone has covered themselves with glory on this one but the partisan jumping on BP over against US companies seems premature when a full and considered enquiry has yet to take place.
And one thing I can tell you is that in the oil industry, blaming everyone else but yourself is the general order of the day.
None of that excuses the proper holding of a full and fair enquiry and the proper compensation of those who have lost, and of course prayers for the families of those who have lost their lives, the environment and people affected with loss of livelyhood and the need to stop and to the extent it is possible expend all efforts needed to clean up the mess.
Yes, a circular finger-pointing is the usual order of the day after something awful like this happens. I assume and hope that the chain of events which led to the disaster will become clear. Without regard to that BP is already paying huge sums and will continue to, so if — if — the primary or even secondary fault was theirs, they will be much more cautious in the future, as will Transocean. Not clear yet that Halliburton did anything other than what was requested by the operators, however, if there was something defective about their part of the job, that will emerge as well.
I was just out in the car with the radio on and was considerably irritated to hear President Obama claim vehemently that he has been in charge “from day one,” that they have 20,000 people working on this (presumably most of the people working on this are BP or contractors), and that everything that has been done since the accident has been done under his (i.e., Federal) direction. He might want to reconsider that insistence, since it doesn’t look like this has been a well-coordinated or well-considered post-accident plan. The plan and actions have been BP’s, and I don’t see that the US government has had one in particular. I am generally anti-federal involvement, but this does seem like one case, since accidents occur offshore and out of the jurisdiction of state governors and may affect multiple states, where the Federal government SHOULD have an emergency plan ready to activate. Plan B was, apparently, the blowout preventer which didn’t work, and Plan C is apparently being invented on the fly mostly by the oil companies. We all need oil, but we do need to have plans in place to deal with major disasters as well as plans for preventing them. This applies as much to the Gulf of Mexico (where multiple nations are drilling) as it does to the North Sea.
JW (No. 3): this is not likely to land in the taxpayors lap. The legal requirements covering this place unlimited liability for cleanup and removal on BP. There is no cap for that. Third party liability is capped at what now seems like a ridiculously low figure of US$75 million. However, BP has said enough times in enough places that they will pay all legitimate claims and not rely on that cap. Moreover, if BP’s word is not good enough these days, there is a billion dollar plus trust fund paid for by the oil companies (not the tax payors) that is available to cover deficiencies. Whatever cock-ups and fallibilities are revealed by this mess, it is not likely a situation where the tax payors are being gouged at the expense of big oil. I suppose we can spin out indirect impacts (oil ends up costing more and we all pay at the pump). But that’s qualitatively different than BP walking away essentially unencumbered with financial responsibility for the spill.
I would just like to note for those who are suggesting that BP is not a ‘US company’ that BP bought out Amoco and that both BP and Amoco are direct descendants of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. You don’t get much more American than that.
If the testimony is accurate then it seems the accident is all down to the BP engineer who imposed a decision based on economic, i.e. cost-control, considerations that ignored a material fact or two like the thickness of the casing. It reminds me very much of the Challenger disaster which was the result of launching in freezing weather which allowed certain O-rings to fail, as Dick Feynmann showed, brilliantly, at the hearings. I don’t know why no one has made that analogy in the jouralistic coverage. One BP engineer has a lot to answer for, and it will be up to BP to evaluate the weaknesses in their corporation’s decision-making policy (one hopes).
What really amazes me is the apparent ignorance in the US of the similar oil leak in shallower water north of Australia late last year – an American company was involved I believe – which took about 10 weeks to control, so don’t hold your breath, everyone.
#12 TACit
[blockquote]If the testimony is accurate then it seems the accident is all down to the BP engineer who imposed a decision based on economic, i.e. cost-control, considerations that ignored a material fact or two like the thickness of the casing.[/blockquote]
Well that is clear that this is someone has decided that we are supposed to think.
The Times reports that a Congressional Investigator has deliberately leaked one piece of paper to The New York Times to suggest that it was a BP decision to use the particular concrete and the conclusion is drawn that the concrete was inadequate. Very convenient when you consider that the responsibility for putting in the concrete which failed catestrophically was that of US firm Halliburton, which has a bit of a reputation arising out of Iraq contracts from Donald Rumsfeld’s time. So one piece of evidence is leaked suggesting that the decision was taken by BP to use the concrete, and this issue of whether Halliburton used it correctly, cured it correctly and allowed sufficient time before it was subjected to strain and whether the concrete is inadequate if properly used is apparently by-passed.
Sorry – a lot of people here, me included will just think this is just typical American dirty tricks. What on earth is an investigator for the US Congress doing placing such a story with the New York Times? Who authorised him to do so and was money exchanged to put him up to this?
BP is a British company.
Let’s see; if Halliburton well technicians were required to do a job with a less-than-adequate amount or quality of material, due to cost-conscious decision making by a BP engineer (who may or may not actually be British of course), the consequent failure under pressure of the casing was the result of – the work done? or the material chosen? Halliburton was originally Dick Cheney’s company if I’m not mistaken but long since sold. It was interesting to read the entire Times article and the comments, though mostly ill-informed, that followed it. People are sure getting worked up, and probably should wait to do that until more information than has so far been published is made public. Actually it doesn’t surprise me in the least that the NYT, which I in general ignore, has printed Congressional testimony, and I think that Americans expect it to do this. Whether the inference implied by the limited information accurately sums up the whole situation is still not clear, I will grant you that. Such completeness is presumably why the testimony was sought.
That’s the reason I brought up the Challenger disaster, because it was a demonstration of material properties that showed beyond argument how the O-rings would have cracked at certain temperatures. One hopes there will be analogous demonstration or at least accurate modeling of materials behavior in the well-leak testimony, not just “he said” – “but he said” disputes. You seem to be suggesting that BP couldn’t get a ‘fair hearing’ in the US. Well, I don’t know for sure, because it looks like the Administration is taking this ‘crisis-opportunity’ to wallop the oil industry in several places that hurt. Shell is getting booted just for having plans. And there is sometimes a clash of managerial cultures when European companies work in the US. The Congressional leak in NYT was probably calculated to sell papers and keep the public following the story, and it’s succeeding, isn’t it! This is not over.
#14 TACit
[blockquote]Let’s see; if Halliburton well technicians were required to do a job with a less-than-adequate amount or quality of material, due to cost-conscious decision making by a BP engineer (who may or may not actually be British of course), the consequent failure under pressure of the casing was the result of – the work done? or the material chosen?[/blockquote]
What we have is a deliberate leak from a Congressional investigator pointing to the decision-making on what concrete to be used having been made by a BP employee. We do not know if the catastrophic failure was (1) the result of that decision, or (2) whether if properly used that material was safe, but that Halliburton did not apply it properly, or with only 12 hours to cure, it had not reached a safe degree of strength. Since the contractors were behind in their work there is that possibility. In addition, with other events the question is whether any concrete could have taken the enormous pressures it was subjected to. However these issues are not being considered, as a deliberate leak has been made by the Congressional investigator to set the idea in the US and international public mind that the failure was the deliberate or negligent act of BP.
[blockquote]People are sure getting worked up, and probably should wait to do that until more information than has so far been published is made public.[/blockquote]
Absolutely, but the Congressional investigator made sure that did not happen.
[blockquote]Actually it doesn’t surprise me in the least that the NYT, which I in general ignore, has printed Congressional testimony, and I think that Americans expect it to do this.[/blockquote]
I have heard that view expressed before about the New York Times. I cannot fault them with their publication of Congressional testimony which, correct me if I am wrong, is a matter of public record and takes place in public. The issue is the deliberate passing of one document by the Congressional investigator to the New York Times and the inferences it looks like the Congressional investigator intends the public to draw from that.
[blockquote]You seem to be suggesting that BP couldn’t get a ‘fair hearing’ in the US.[/blockquote]
In the long run one would hope that they can, but in the short term with President Obama telling BP not to argue about responsibility among the three companies and with the hammering I have seen the BP representatives getting in Congressional hearings and now the deliberate leaking of one document by a Congressional investigator it looks like they are not getting a fair hearing, instead the US establishment appears to be looking after its own companies and hammering BP.
[blockquote]it looks like the Administration is taking this ‘crisis-opportunity’ to wallop the oil industry in several places that hurt. Shell is getting booted just for having plans.[/blockquote]
Yes, the administration is going on the offensive to try to deflect attention from itself and appeal to a popular sentiment. The medium term problem though is that the US is a huge consumer of oil products and strategically will have at some point to consider using any sources within its territorial waters which can allow it to continue consuming at that rate, much as we in the UK had to in the North Sea following the Middle East oil crisis in the early ’70’s. BP pioneered much of the technology which is being used in deep water drilling and extraction and as President Obama has recognised they have the expertise to deal with this catastrophe.
[blockquote]And there is sometimes a clash of managerial cultures when European companies work in the US.[/blockquote]
Again absolutely. The US is the graveyard of British companies – we don’t understand the business culture and we are naive about the opportunities we are offered – we see this time and time again with British technology, retail and banking companies that acquire US companies seeing it as a point of access to one of the world’s biggest markets, only to retire wounded [if they are lucky] a few years later when the skeletons have come out of the closet. Those companies which do well in the US are those which do their research properly and partner with a reliable US partner and advisors.
[blockquote]The Congressional leak in NYT was probably calculated to sell papers and keep the public following the story, and it’s succeeding, isn’t it![/blockquote]
It looks like the Congressional leak was calculated to smear BP and protect the two US companies deliberately, and it appears to be succeeding, for the moment, but is fairly transparent to anyone who thinks about it.
[blockquote]This is not over.[/blockquote]
Not by a long way, but round one to the Congressional investigator and his chums.
None of that affects the need to investigate the events leading to this tragedy and to properly limit the damage and compensate those who have lost out for whom I have great sorrow and concern. Those responsible should be brought to book and lessons learnt so that such incidents are protected against. They cannot be completely ruled out because of the risky nature of any resource extraction, but unnecessary incidents can be avoided and it looks like this incident had a number of warning signs which were not properly noted before the well blew up. It is reasonable however, despite the justified anger and outrage this incident has caused, to expect thorough fair investigations from the US authorities without partisan grandstanding. We will have to see.
My impression that the BP “company man” on the rig was responsible for the decision to go ahead, eleven hours before the explosion, and that there was a loud argument about it before that decision was made, comes from verbal testimony at the Congressional hearings as published by several news sources. I haven’t even seen this alleged leak to the NY Times as, like TACit, I don’t consider the NY Times a reliable news source.
I’d need to know more about this “congressional investigator” also. Pageantmaster, the idea that the NY Times, of all newspapers, would conspire to protect Halliburton is not believable. They have excoriated Halliburton for years, mostly unreasonably. I saw, in left-wing blogs and commentary, the early suggestion that since Halliburton was involved it must be to blame, and even that Cheney, who left his executive position at Halliburton over eleven years ago, is to blame. Further, most of the Democrats running Congress, and the President, alternate between calling corporations in general the root of all evil and taking big money from them. (Republicans skip the part about calling them evil but do take money, it must be admitted.) The idea of this congressional leak and a vigorous defense of the American firms at the expense of BP just isn’t credible, with my apologies to the London Times.
Further investigation may very well reveal that Transocean and Halliburton also made errors. We’ll need to wait for the evidence to be all in.
I do, on the other hand, trust reporting in the news pages of the Wall Street Journal. From yesterday’s front page article: [blockquote]BP, for instance, cut short a procedure involving drilling fluid that is designed to detect gas in the well and remove it before it becomes a problem … BP also skipped a quality test of the cement around the pipe … despite what BP now says were signs of problems with the cement job and despite a warning from cement contractor Halliburton … BP has admitted a possible “fundamental mistake” in concluding that it was safe to proceed with mud removal … Finally, a BP manager overseeing final well tests apparently had scant experience in deep-water drilling. He told investigators he was on the well to “learn about deep water.”[/blockquote] From [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575266560930780190.html]here[/url] (may require subscription; I am transcribing from my print copy).