BP did not put profit before safety on Gulf well: probe

Nov 09, 2010 by Karin Zeitvogel
A US Coast Guard handout image of fire boat response crews as they battle the blazing remnants of the BP operated off shore oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 21, 2010. The head of the presidential panel investigating the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster said Monday he had found no evidence that BP and its partners had sacrificed safety for profits.

A US presidential panel probing the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster examined Tuesday the oil industry's safety culture, after its lead investigator said he found no evidence BP and its partners had sacrificed safety for profits.

"To date, we have not seen a single instance where a human being made a conscious decision to favor dollars over safety," Fred Bartlit, chief counsel to the commission, said Monday at the start of the two-day hearing.

The April 20 explosion on the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers and sparked a massive oil spill that crippled local fishing and tourism industries and did untold damage to the Gulf's fragile ecosystem.

Bartlit also said the probe team agreed with 90 percent of the findings of BP's 183-page in-house report released in September, but slapped the oil giant for taking "unnecessary risks" that may have led to the platform explosion.

BP had repeatedly changed its plan for securing the well after drilling was completed, and also took the unusual step of placing a cement plug to seal the well 3,000 feet (900 meters) below the surface instead of the usual 300 feet (90 meters) down, and then filling the space above it with water instead of heavier mud, the panel found.

"That cement plug acts as a backup barrier, just in case anything happens with the cement down at the bottom," said Bartlit.

"If hydrocarbons begin to leak in they will be stopped by that surface cement plug. We think BP introduced a certain amount of risk into the situation that we think may not have been necessary."

Bartlit's assessment put him at odds with US lawmakers who accused BP and its main partners on the Macondo well, Halliburton and Transocean, of cutting corners to finish drilling the well, which was reportedly millions of dollars over-budget and costing 1.5 million dollars a day.

Representative Edward Markey, who chairs a committee that is probing the oil spill, said the disaster was just the latest example of BP's "long and sordid history of cutting costs and pushing the limits in search of higher profits."

Commission co-chair Senator Bob Graham suggested all three companies involved made mistakes because of pressure to complete work on the well by April 20.

An oil stained pelican sits on a dredging hose in Barataria Bay in June 2010 near Port Sulpher, Louisiana. The BP oil spill has been called one of the largest environmental disasters in American history.

"As a result of that, a number of things that might have made the outcome quite different were deferred or abandoned," he said.

The other panel co-chair, William Reilly, said the accident had been caused by a "culture of complacency affecting everything involved with this exercise.

"If we had not been complacent, we would not have experienced two full months of a gushing well leading to 200 million gallons being spilled," he said.

Bartlit said the initial assessment of the team that conducted the probe, which was ordered by President Barack Obama weeks after the spill started, was that the explosion on the rig was caused by flammable hydrocarbons rushing up the casing of a riser pipe to the platform and exploding.

BP and Transocean workers on the rig failed to recognize warning signs on a computer which was showing a dangerous build-up of hydrocarbons in the riser pipe just before the blast on the rig, the probe found.

Rig workers also misinterpreted the results of a specialized pressure test to see if the cement had isolated the hydrocarbons, said Sean Grimsley, deputy chief counsel for the commission, calling the experienced workers' misjudgment one of the biggest mysteries surrounding the accident.

"The question is why these experienced men out on that rig talked themselves into believing that this was a good test that had established well integrity," he said.

"None of the men out on the rig wanted to die. None of the men out there on the rig wanted to jeopardize their safety. Why did they come to this conclusion? We may never know the answer to that question."

Many of the workers on the rig died in the blast and some officials from all three companies have refused to testify before the commission, which the US Senate has refused to grant the power to subpoena witnesses.

The seven-member commission has to present Obama with a report on the root causes of the Gulf oil disaster by January 11.

Explore further: Earthworms as nature's free fertilizer

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Experts question BP's take on Gulf oil spill

Sep 27, 2010

(AP) -- Engineering experts probing the Gulf of Mexico oil spill exposed holes in BP's internal investigation as the company was questioned Sunday for the first time in public about its findings.

BP's broken well in Gulf of Mexico is 'dead'

Sep 20, 2010

US officials have finally declared BP's broken well in the Gulf of Mexico "dead", five months after a deadly oil rig explosion set off one of the costliest and largest environmental disasters ever.

Competitor points to BP-driller relationship

Jul 12, 2010

(AP) -- The first public hearing by a presidential oil spill panel Monday zeroed in on the relationship between BP and the company it hired to drill the now exploded rig.

Recommended for you

Earthworms as nature's free fertilizer

5 minutes ago

Earthworm presence in the soil increases crop yield, shows a new study that was published this week in Scientific Reports. "This is not unexpected," says Jan Willem van Groenigen, associate professor in the ...

A success in managed pressure drilling

15 minutes ago

As one of BP's top 40 wells globally (and the only UK well qualifying for that category in 2012), the successful delivery of the Harding field's 'Producer North East 2a' well (referred to as PNE2a) was crucial to the business. ...

Passion for the natural world clears the waters

22 minutes ago

A toxic legacy has hung over the picturesque northern NSW coastal hamlet of Urunga for almost 40 years. Although now obscured by dense vegetation, the forest of dead melaleuca trees at the edge of a wetland ...

Indonesia to ratify ASEAN haze agreement

4 hours ago

Indonesia's parliament on Tuesday voted to ratify a regional agreement on cross-border haze as fires ripped through forests in the west of the country, choking neighbouring Singapore with hazardous smog.

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2010
Although it is tempting to blame someone for every disaster, it is reassuring to know that the profit motive did not cause the Gulf oil well leak.

Oliver K. Manuel
barakn
1 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2010
Commission co-chair Senator Bob Graham suggested all three companies involved made mistakes because of pressure to complete work on the well by April 20

So profit wasn't the motive behind the deadline? Yeah, whatever.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2010
Ultimately, profit is the only motive anyone would have for drilling. As far as I know, there aren't very many people drilling for oil for the sole purpose of adding a new sample to their oil collection.