In September 2010 I blogged about The Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, which has turned out to be my most viewed blog post to date. One thing that struck me when conducting my research was that each company involved in this catastrophic event blamed the other. What this showed, even to a dilettante like me, is what a bunch of wankers they all are:
On the 8th of September BP Plc released its official report into the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion. The report claimed that no single factor caused the oil spill but that decisions were made by “multiple companies and work teams” that contributed to the accident that arose from “a complex and interlinked series of mechanical failures, human judgments, engineering design, operational implementation and team interfaces.” The report was met with huge criticism: it was self-serving and a way to distribute blame was the common disparagement. (Risk Management Magazine 2010; Nalon 2010)
The three parties complicit in the Deepwater explosion are Transocean (owner and operator of the drilling rig), BP (leasing the rig at the time) and Halliburton (contracted by BP to operate the rig).
I’m no fan of Halliburton, let me be clear about this from the start – I view them as nothing more than a slew of Republican cronies and donors who like to dress-up in fatigues on weekends, think that “gerns don’t kiell peeepel, peeepel kiell peeepel,” and worship the ground Bush Administration Vice-President Dick Chaney walks on (he used to run Halliburton… ever wonder how they won the contract for Iraq?). But are they souly responsible for the Deepwater explosion, fire, death of 11 men, and an oil spill that has cost BP 20m usd. Well, BP thinks so. I’m not so sure.
Halliburton was contracted by BP to, inter alia, cement Deepwater’s drill holes. In very, very sum terms, the process involved the drilling of a hole, inserting a case into that whole, and then cementing the casing to ensure no leaks. According to an AFP report:
BP alleges that Halliburton used defoaming and dispersant additives that should not be used with foamed cement slurry it used to seal the bottom of the Macondo well, and the contractor failed to inform BP of problems with the slurry, both before and after the incident.
Consequently, BP has filed a case in the federal court in New Orleans, with its lead trail attorney, Don Heycraft, saying the oil company seeks “the amount of costs and expenses incurred by BP to clean up and remediate the oil spill, the lost profits from and/or diminution in value of the Macondo prospect, and all other costs and damages incurred by BP related to the Deepwater Horizon incident and resulting oil spill”.
However, from my understanding this is a case of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’, of BP living in a glass house and throwing stones. A BP document, provided to The New York Times by a Congressional investigator, revealed that BP officials knowingly and complicity chose a type of casing – the very same filled by Halliburton – that was known to be the riskier of two options: the paper said that if the cement around the casing pipe did not seal properly, gases could escape, where only a single seal would serve as a barrier. If the less riskier option was chosen, the casing pipe would have provided two barriers. The reason for the riskier of the two options: the “best economic case,” according to the BP paper.
So what is all this bollocks BP is bemoaning about? Two wrongs don’t make a right here, and had the BP officials been more Ethical than Ebenezer in their choice of casing, not only would it have given them a moral leg to stand on, but it might have even prevented the explosion all together – even if Halliburton still used the dodgy cement.
Apparently criminal charges will be laid. Furthermore, the US Government slapped the three companies with citations in October 2012, stating they had all breached state oil production regulations, with hefty fines expected to follow. So I guess they can squabble all they want. Public opinion was formed long ago. But honestly, what’s BP trying to achieve here, to recover costs, to share some of the expense, to expose the malefic practices of a company well-known for its ethically malficent behavior? Probably all of the above. But honestly, what hypocrites.
