BP Ignored Warnings Before Oil Rig Explosion

Oil is cleaned off a Brown Pelican at the Fort Jackson Wildlife Rehabilitation Center at Buras, La. (AP/Charlie Riedel)

In the hours before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20th, BP received and ignored warning signs that something was seriously wrong. In a memo [pdf] released last night, the House committee investigating the disaster confirmed that BP made a "fundamental mistake" in continuing operations after the problems were detected. The memo doesn't say who specifically made the call to keep drilling after the problem was found, but we can just about picture the guy. BP's investigation has "also raised concerns about the maintenance history, modification, inspection, and testing of the [rig]."

The Times has published a provocative article looking at the links between BP and President Obama’s energy secretary Steven Chu. Three years ago Chu received the bulk of a $500 million grant from BP to develop alternative energy sources, and Chu selected BP’s chief scientist Steven E. Koonin to be his under-secretary. The White House points out that the Energy Department "doesn’t have jurisdiction over the oil spill," but on May 12th Obama sent Dr. Chu to BP’s command center in Houston to meet with top engineers and scientists. Remember what Chu said after walking out of the meeting? "Things are looking up." And we're winning hearts and minds, too, right?

The catastrophe has also shined a spotlight on the incompetent Minerals Management Service, the federal agency in charge of regulating the oil and gas industry. Slate reports that bureaucrats there "let industry officials fill out their own inspection sheets and then traced it over in pen, according to an inspector general's report. Inspectors accepted gifts, like tickets to sports events and pricey dinners, from oil companies. They watched porn on their work computers. (Perhaps they were simply researching the 'junk shot.')"

The Interior Department is rushing to complete more stringent regulations governing safety and environmental practices, but the Times reports that "drilling companies objected to the new rules, saying they were overly prescriptive and would be costly to comply with." Cue the tiny violins. Meanwhile, BP is running tests to decide whether to go through with the "top-kill" plan to choke off the leak with mud, followed by cement. The technique has been used successfully to stop other spills such as the oil flooding out of sabotaged Kuwaiti oil wells, but never attempted at such a depth. If it doesn't work, experts fear it could actually make the spill worse by causing a new leak or tearing a new hole in the leaking well pipe. You will be able to watch it live, whenever they do it.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on May 26, 2010 1:07 PM

Comments [rss]

Amanda Harletsch

"So according to facts, Halliburton purchased an oil spill cleaning company(Boots&Coots) 3 weeks prior to the biggest oil spill in human history.

Also, Halliburton was involved in a 2009 Australian oil spill?

Hmmm...that's interesting. What's also interesting is that there are ways to clean up the spill very efficiently(visit the link below/1st post), but, it is only logical these methods are suppressed. After all, make PROFIT, make PROFIT..."

"Halliburton Co. (NYSE: HAL - News) – one of the largest oilfield service providers in the world – has agreed to acquire well-intervention firm Boots & Coots Inc. (AMEX: WEL - News) for about $240.4 million in stock and cash. The transaction, which has been approved by the boards of both the companies but is still subject to regulatory and shareholder approvals, is expected to close by summer.

As per the deal, Boots & Coots shareholders would get $1.73 in cash and $1.27 in Halliburton stock for each share they hold. This represents a combined price of $3.00, 28% premium to Boots & Coots’ Friday’s closing price.

Houston-based firefighting company Boots & Coots has been synonymous with putting out some of the world’s biggest oilfield fires. It specializes in providing pressure control services for oil and gas wells and employs about 700 people."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Halliburton-Buying-Boots-amp-zacks-479355254.html?x=0

dave1

Dick Cheney is an (evil) genius! He blows up an oil rig and then profits off putting it out! Just like he invades Iraq, destroys the country, and profits off the soldiers doing the destroying, and the contractors doing the rebuilding. The dude got GAME!

Amanda Harletsch

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/62899,business,dick-cheney-halliburton-implicated-in-bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill

Amanda Harletsch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xuy2rC-dIA

Guest

I love that our government is blaming BP because it ignored warning signs. Sounds a lot like what our government did when it ignored warning signs that terrorists were planning to fly planes into buildings pre-9/11. Pot meet kettle.

Amanda Harletsch

so, what your saying is:

"if i failed i can expect people to fail as well"

So stupidity is better than "hypocrisy"

Man, so elemental that borderlines in premature.

Guest

I won't point out your "elementary" grammatical mistakes, but I will point out the fact that you and Politburo missed the fact that I was poking fun at an inefficient government that likes to blame others while never taking the blame themselves. That was all. You two want to read more into it than that, go right ahead and talk amongst yourselves.

Politburo

Apples meet oranges.

Guest

Not apples and oranges at all. My statement only had apples (ignoring warning signs). Simple. If you want to include oranges, explain what they are.

Politburo

You're right, and I retract that.

But what was your point?

Guest

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the government when they point fingers at businesses and such for having the exact same policies.

Politburo

I'm not sure I'm seeing the hypocrisy. You're saying that because of 9/11, the government can't criticize anyone anymore?

Guest

No. I'm saying they can criticize whomever they want to, but it would be nice if, for once, it would admit failure, take the blame and say "we're sorry for fucking up."

dave1

And who is this "Government" you speak of? Are you saying that the Administrations are the same? That "Government" is some nebulous entity? Please.

Think2wice

This shit is becoming "The Pelican Brief".

cinagram

Green movement has reason to destroy oil platform... No? Agenda Much???

dave1

Seriously? The "Green Movement" thought it owuld be a good idea to destroy the gulf region for decades of not centuries because they "hate progress", right? And they totally have access to deepwater subs that can evade detection, too, right?

Halliburton did this. they are making money off this, and it gives Dick Cheney's buddies something to pin on Obama.

Amanda Harletsch

yeah the green movement uses destruction of nature as the means to save nature!

DUMB theory.

cinagram

Have you seen FOOD INC. Have you read "State of Fear" Kiss your favorite politician. Not I!

Green, FDA, ADM, Tyson Inc, USDA,

BDS=(Boycott.Divest.Sanction)

WOW.

between

rand paul arguing that 'mistakes happen'

a few weeks ago someone on this site saying 'it was natural oil and not a man made disaster' and now this.....

maybe 'the green movement' sabotaged the rig

i'm just speechless.

wow......maybe this is the world people deserve?

p.s you writing reminds me of Rorschach. (thats not good.)

longacre

Actually, Rush Limbaugh came up with the "green sabotage" conspiracy a couple days after it happened. :-)

Politburo

Yeah, the green movement did it by going back in time millions of years and putting a bunch of oil deep under the Gulf. Then they put a bunch of natural gas into the oil so that it would be problematic to extract.

No?

Splicer

Eight years of Republican decimation of any oversight of business and it's Obama's fault? The Times shilling for their buddies in big business and Wall Street -- again.

TheKlaus

" the House committee investigation the disaster "

TheKlaus

" the House committee investigation the disaster "

longacre

Love the spin blaming BP. Obviously this was a massive mistake, but ultimately you can't blame it on corporate greed because they have a pretty obvious financial motive for making sure their rigs don't blow up.

This is ultimately the government's fault: The government should not issue permits for activities that the government does not have the resources to fix if something goes wrong.

jaycjay

"but ultimately you can't blame it on corporate greed because they have a pretty obvious financial motive for making sure their rigs don't blow up."

You're missing one important thing there. BP doesn't own the rig, they pay for access to it. So their motivation is to extract as much oil as possible over the time of the lease. Anything that slows or suspends production hurts them financially.

If something happens to knock it out of commission, they rent access to another one. They don't have a financial interest in its long-term viability.

longacre

Fair enough, but then Transocean, the owner of the rig, would be the interested party. They have even more to lose since they actually paid for the rig and they don't make anything if there's no oil being delivered.

dave1

Yes, and Transocean made a cool 270 million in insurance off the Rig Explosion.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/05/transocean_profits_from_oil_sp.php

Politburo

So we shouldn't have nuclear plants, or coal plants (see fly ash pool disaster in TN), or any number of other things?

You do realize that we all see through your silly pretzel logic...

jaycjay

"The government should not issue permits for activities that the government does not have the resources to fix if something goes wrong."

Really? So the government should stop licensing all drilling and mining, and the entire nuclear industry? And that's just a start; you could use that logic to shut down a good part of the US economy.

You lefties kill me.

longacre

Not all drilling and mining, just operations which can result in uncontainable calamities.

Deep water drilling is very recent technology and there are few rigs in the world drilling as far down as the Deepwater Horizon was. This type of drilling requires very expensive, specialized equipment, like robotic subs capable of operating a mile below the surface. Neither the Coast Guard nor the Navy have any of those, so instead, the government trusted and relied upon BP to be able to take care of disasters on their own. As we can see that hasn't worked, and the White House has to practically beg BP just to see video of the oil coming out, because the gov't does not have any equipment capable of filming it themeselves.

If BP operated a nuclear reactor that melted down, it would have been contained within days. The Feds have contingencies for that.

Politburo

"If BP operated a nuclear reactor that melted down, it would have been contained within days. The Feds have contingencies for that."

Still laughing here...

theevilone

If that were true then BP could have voluntarily installed the remote shut-off switch. Gee, I wonder why at a cost of $500,000 for the switch they didn't do it. Hmmm. Corporate greed maybe?

Ultimately, they should be required by the govt to have them - no argument there, but the idea that companies are going to take extra safety measures without considering the impact to their own profits is hi.lar.i.ous.