BP makes itself easy to demonize

May 3, 2010

BP wants to be “judged by its response” to the Gulf of Mexico disaster. The politicians and the public already seem to be concluding the UK oil giant has failed in its duty to address the consequences of the accident. BP should not be surprised that authorities with an interest in diverting attention from their own failings want it to take all the blame. But it hasn’t helped itself either.

The company has made much of its overkill response, including record-breaking amounts of dispersant for tackling the oil slick. But that simply reflects the size of the calamity. Results are what counts – and oil is fast approaching the Louisiana shoreline.

It increasingly looks like BP and its regulators were too confident that the supposedly failsafe blowout preventer (BOP) would seal the well in the event of catastrophe. True, this is the last in a chain of emergency stops. But implausible events do happen. Perhaps that explains why insurers would not cover this risk.

Contingency planning for the preventer’s unprecedented failure was inadequate. A steel dome to be dropped on the well was only partly constructed and weeks from being deployed in what will be its first test in deep water. Miles of booms have proved incapable of containing oil.

Meanwhile some of BP’s public statements have been off key. BP has said the disaster was not “our accident” – it happened on a rig managed by deep-water specialist Transocean – and is promising to pay all “legitimate” damages claims. The “no quibble” approach to damages is laudable, but BP was always responsible for the consequences of any spill.

If BP really can do no more, then it should say more. A more contrite tone would help, as would an explanation of its contingency planning. BP will not be judged just on its response, but also on its preparedness, and on its results. For Tony Hayward, the chief executive who started his oil career on a rig, the stakes are rising.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/


Hit them hard in the pocket book for destroying America’s fishing, marine wildlife and tourism industries not to mention the millions of interdependent jobs and industry and mom & pop stores in 5 states and Latin America.
Why? Because these slimy Oil companies have deep sea oil rigs in Brazil and Norway with better equipment that will/can be shut off , that they NEGLECTED to install in the US because of our corrupt politicians and lobby groups who got PAID!!! Now we get screwed with devastation while they laugh all the way to the bank with obscene profits!
BP knows they can get away with murder in the US…….just payoff the right politicians.
Beyong Petroleum my ass……GET OUT BP and pollute the UK and Europe! We don’t need you here.
Remember Houston refinery disaster? Disasters follow BP!

Posted by Jimmybo | Report as abusive

The 1999 Minerals Management Service report “detailed fairly regular failures” of blowout preventers. So I guess BP knew they had no need of an acoustic cut off switch as a backup because “fairly regular failures” never happen.

Source http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/30/93 250/us-report-found-failure-of-offshore. html#ixzz0mv1TPGde

Posted by Potatoe1 | Report as abusive

A 1999 Minerals Management Service report “detailed fairly regular failures” of blowout preventers. I guess that explains why BP thought there was no need for an acoustic switch as additional backup.

Posted by Potatoe1 | Report as abusive

Yes — speaking of “penny wise and pound foolish.” BP : “Hmmmm decisions…. a half million bucks for the acoustic cut-off switch or a billion to clean-up a mess …. I guess we should chance it.”

Interesting the the insurance underwriters would not take that bet.

Posted by jackmo | Report as abusive

“oil is fast approaching the Louisiana shoreline”? It was supposed to be there last weekend. Maybe BP is doing doing something right.

Posted by DanG | Report as abusive