Response to Gulf Oil Gusher Described as Chaotic

Contingency plans for a major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico were not lacking, yet the response to the April 20 BP well disaster was–and continues to be–chaotic, says a detailed report in The New York Times. According to the article:

There were at least five plans governing the response to this spill, including national and regional plans drawn up by the Coast Guard and federal and state authorities, as well as lengthy plans prepared by BP. Each one either failed to consider a continuing blowout or drastically underplayed the effects of one.

Coast Guard Admiral Thad W. Allen, who is coordinating the federal response, told the Times that each agency is going to have to reexamine its worst-case scenario. Agencies plan for the worst to make sure there is enough equipment on hand to contain a spill, but already boats and containment booms are being brought in from as far away as Norway and Alaska, respectively.

The preparations also failed to put a working hierarchy in place, and people on the ground don’t have a good grasp of what agencies are in charge, slowing response time. Local parishes and areas have coordinated their own responses, making things even more complicated, the article states.

Separately, a letter from a congressional panel to BP CEO Tony Hayward charged that the oil company, against the advice of consultants, adopted cost-cutting measures that might have contributed to the disaster, The Wall Street Journal reports.

“Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense,” according to the letter from Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Bart Stupak, D-Mich, the panel’s second-ranking Democrat. Hayward is scheduled to testify before the panel on Thursday, and will be questioned about five specific decisions that the letter said ”posed a trade-off between cost and well safety.”

In one instance, BP chose to use a single pipe that ran from the bottom of the ocean to the bottom of the well, even though an internal review showed the pipe would give oil and gas a direct pathway to rise up the backside of the well. A more secure option would have cost more and taken several days longer.

BP officials told the Journal that the company did not cut corners.

Print Print  

Like what we're doing? We'd appreciate your support.

Leave a comment