Video: BP Security Goons Stop Press from Talking to Workers

Responding to reports that BP was restricting media access to public beaches and other areas affected by the Gulf oil spill, BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said in a statement on June 9th: "BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the the cleanup operations from sharing his or her own experiences and opinions." Two days later, a New Orleans-based TV News reporter tried to interview some clean-up workers on a public beach. Watch the infuriating video:

At today's congressional hearings with oil executives, Rep. Anthony Weiner cited that video as just one example of many incidents of BP's stupid attempts to censor the catastrophe. "I don't understand on any level why you guys should be in charge of anything," said Weiner. "Why should there be any decision-making ability on your part at all here? And that's one thing my Republican friends, who want to criticize the administration for not doing enough, maybe we agree. Maybe we do need to have BP involved in a heckuva lot less. Anything to do with our environment, anything to do with our citizens, going forward."

Members of the Change Chevron campaign and Rainforest Action Network interrupt a House Energy and Environment subcommittee hearing on oil drilling today. (AP/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

Yesterday, the congressional committee released documents revealing that days before the rig explosion, BP engineer Brian Morel referred to it as a "nightmare rig." And today Rep. Edward J. Markey excoriated big oil executives for relying on essentially identical—and demonstrably inadequate—spill response plans. "The plans cite identical response capabilities and tout identical ineffective equipment," said Markey. "In some cases, they use the exact same words. Three other companies include references to protecting walruses, which have not called the Gulf of Mexico home for three million years. Two other plans are such dead ringers for BP’s that they list a phone number for the same long-dead expert."

And in another galling article published today, the Times reports that BP's contigency plans "do consider an uncontrolled blowout, one that releases 240,000 barrels a day into the gulf for at least 100 days — far worse than the current spill. In the event of such an enormous spill, according to these plans, 'no significant adverse impacts are expected' to beaches, wetlands or coast-dwelling birds." The plan was "fully approved" by the Minerals Management Service. Today BP stopped collecting oil from the blown-out well because the ship was struck by lightning and caught on fire.

Tonight at 8 p.m. EST, President Obama will deliver his first Oval Office address to the nation on the topic of the Gulf oil spill. (You can also watch it live on the White House YouTube channel.) Starting 5 minutes after the remarks, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs will answer your questions. Starting now, you can submit questions about the disaster via Google Moderator, and vote the best ones to the top. "Dick from Povertyland" already wants to know if the spill "can cause martial law and fema evacuations."

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

By John Del Signore in News on June 15, 2010 4:35 PM

Comments [rss]

The Man Bat

You know that BP paid Rahm Emanuel's rent for 5 years?

glennQNYC

An example of Obama’s ‘boot on a neck’ approach to executive leadership.

John Clavis

Jles wins the dumbest comment of the hour award. Corporate misbehavior and flouting of regulations means we should have... less regulations? Maybe we just shouldn't have Republicans in charge. You betcha!

jles

Really? So could you explain to me then how this corporate misbehavior and regulation flouting somehow received FULL APPROVAL from the regulatory body in place? And you want to expand this faction of government?!?! Think about what a meeting at the MMS must be like:

Young MMS Analyst: "Boss, so what happens, if, say, we're wrong about this assessment, and the oil starts to leak at that depth? What power/authority/capability do we have to deal with a worst case scenario? Or, you know, any leak whatsoever. "

MMS Head Regulator: "Good question Timmy. We have absolutely none. I have no idea what we'd do."

Seriously....what the hell do they do at the MMS all day if they can't recognize potential issues OR do anything to actually stop them if they did. Let's TOTALLY pump taxpayer money towards building up this bureaucracy.

The bottom line is government is completely inefficient. There is no incentive for them to do their job well...because it doesn't matter (See: nearly every government job). Hell, it even looks like they're about to start hiring at the MMS (version 2)!!

You need to make the potentially liability for a situation like this completely catastrophic for a company, because THAT is when corporations will actually use caution. When their shareholder profits are on the line. Sorry if you don't like the fact that that's the case, but it is. And guess what, BP will go completely bankrupt, and they should. The Exxon and Chevron will go out and make sure THEIR stuff is completeley in order. I just don't understand how the "solution" to all of these problems is to increase the size of the regulating body that completely shit the bed on realizing this. (See: MMS and the SEC).

I should also note that I am a Democrat, and believe the need for alternative energy is absolutely paramount (as Obama said), but I'm starting to really get concerned with the Democratic "ideal" that increasing taxes, and bigger government is the solution to all the worlds ailments. Cause, it's usually one of the causes.

John Clavis

Or, more simply put, the actual solution is not to elect Republicans, because Republicans break the government so as to make their embezzlement, nepotism and war profiteering more efficient, as we have seen.

John Clavis

So let me get this straight -- you're a "Democrat", but you buy into and propagate the stupid Republican stereotype that "the Democratic "ideal" that increasing taxes, and bigger government is the solution to all the worlds ailments"? I call shenanigans.

Republicans corrupted the MMS and made it non-functional. Were you aware of that? If a regulatory agency is made dysfunctional by people who don't believe in regulation, so that safety and public welfare doesn't get in the way of profit-making, how is that a problem with Democratic philosophy? How is government the problem when Republicans essentially shut down the government and let the corporations (BP in this case) do whatever they wanted?

"You need to make the potentially liability for a situation like this completely catastrophic for a company, because THAT is when corporations will actually use caution." I agree. Republicans disagree. They made MMS an agency that doesn't apply liabilities. Did Obama fix that? No. But it's asinine to label this a problem with government being "too big" or collecting too many taxes. That isn't what's going on here at all.

If the MMS was running properly, and if decades of corrupt politicians (corrupted by the industries they're supposed to be policing) changing laws to make regulations toothless and worm-eaten with exceptions, then there wouldn't be an issue with "size".

Corporations continue to get bigger and more powerful. They already pretty much run everything. The solution to that is NOT to charge them even less in taxes and regulate them even less.

jles

I would have to argue that the MMS has been corrupt and non-functional since it's inception, and yet it takes an oil spill for us to start recognizing that despite 8-9 years of Democratic power. Similar to the Moody's/S&P and client relationship on the securities industry, the MMS was designed with a strict conflict of interest in place. You can't be responsible for collecting lease revenue for drilling AND oversee safety. So, certainly not trying to let any Republicans off the hook here, cause I'm sure that Republicans under Bush had a hand in further corrupting this body, but Obama seemed to be pretty content with the drilling oversight system in place when he announced his desire to increase offshore driling not even 3 months ago.

And, i'm not saying the current problem is that it's too big or collecting too many taxes, I said that I worry the SOLUTION to this problem will be to make this faction of government even bigger (rather than more efficient) and we'll have to charge the public more in taxes...and, guess, what, it's already been done. Now it's 3 branches instead of one. I just fear this will lead to massive inefficiency and squander tax-payer money on a completely inept faction of government. Sorta how if the CIA and FBI actually talked to each other prior to 9/11, that could have possibly been thwarted.

And, even if the MMS was "running properly", they still have not even 1 single solution or protocol for how to respond to an oil spill. So, I don't really understand why this regulatory body exists. They should close it and start from scratch, because I have no faith in their ability. The MMS has already granted FULL APPROVAL(!) on another 27 offshore sites SINCE the spill. Awesome.

Your shenanigans call is completely warranted. I'm a registered Democrat and I voted for Obama, but watching this administrations blatant disregard for fiscal responsibility, and blind faith in government oversight has all but nearly ensured that I'll be voting republican for the first time ever in 2012. "Change" between presidents shouldn't only refer to oration ability.

jles

"This plan was 'Fully Approved' by the Mineral Management Service"

Who wants to bet Obama and others propose ramping up massive regulatory oversight of the oil industry despite the fact that it was these types of inefficient, apathetic government regulatory agencies that contributed to the problem to begin with?

You eliminate this liability cap, make BP pay every cent they owe for the damage they did, and I'll bet anything Chevron double checks their cement alinging wells twice/thrice tomorrow.