Environment, International, Society, Torts

BP Official Takes the Fifth While New Details Emerge of Argument Shortly Before The Deepwater Horizon Explosion

The legal situation over the Deepwater Horizon explosion appears to be getting more serious as accounts emerged that there was a serious argument between Transocean and BP officials shortly before the blast — with references to the possible use of the blowout preventer. One BP official, Robert Kaluza, has become the first known person associated with the blast to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to answer questions.

According to witnesses, there was a fierce disagreement at an 11 a.m. meeting on April 20 — less than 11 hours before the blast. Transocean’s rig operator Jimmy W. Harrell reportedly strongly objected to an order by BP’s top representative over how to start removing heavy drilling fluid and replacing it with lighter seawater from a riser pipe connected to the well head. There are allegations that the crew may have started the process without taking necessary precautionary steps.

Witnesses said that Harrell was so upset that, as he walked away, he complained “I guess that is what we have those pinchers for” — a reference to the now famous blowout preventer that is supposed to sever the main pipe in case of a disaster.

This is the type of meeting that races the heart of any plaintiffs’ lawyer. It is not just likely to be the focus of attorneys representing the families of dead workers but of company lawyers training to shift blame between the three main companies, BP, Transocean, and Halliburton. It may also indicate that likely tort actions will pursue a combination of negligent acts by these companies — through criminal prosecution clearly remains the most prominent concern for officials like Kaluza.

For the full story, click here.

61 thoughts on “BP Official Takes the Fifth While New Details Emerge of Argument Shortly Before The Deepwater Horizon Explosion”

  2. I have heard it on what I would say is a credible source. BP North America is considering filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection once the well is capped. Apparently, the liability that they are looking at is in excess of the current holdings in the US.

    I do not know if it is true, but it make some sense.

  3. Buddha:

    I wouldnt worry, I have a feeling BP is finished. They had some problems in Alaska as well with maintenance that led to a pipeline rupture.

    Too bad for everyone involved, this will probably shut down oil drilling and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and will hurt hundreds of thousands more who depend on fishing and tourism and the oil industry.

  6. Buddha,

    It seems like a pretty pathetic life to me. We should have laws covering ‘crimes against the environment’ just like we do ‘crimes against humanity’. It’s too bad that Tony Hayward doesn’t see this as an opportunity to get a better life trying to repair some of the damage that his company has done…

  7. Awwww. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, just wants his life back. Well you should have thought of that when your company was buying off politicians to avoid the costs of proper safety gear, you polluting pig. And by the way, weren’t you at Dick Cheney’s Secret Energy Task Force Meeting? All the more reason you should get your life back. Life behind bars that is, Big Oil Fascist and Egoist Extraordinaire. Selfish much, Tony?

    BP CEO Tony Hayward (VIDEO): ‘I’d Like My Life Back’
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01/bp-ceo-tony-hayward-video_n_595906.html

  8. Byron,

    Tankers have apparently been used in past spills to pump in oil slicks from the surface (and pump out relatively clean seawater) in past spills (notably in a Saudi oil spill – I’m not sure when and where). It may be that this is not feasible for some reason in this case (I don’t know if it could be used on plumes a couple of hundred feet down, for instance), but given that the slick is described in terms comparing it in size to various states (and not Hawaii or Rhode Island ;-)), the excuse that they can’t maneuver a tanker near the leak because there is too much stuff there seems pretty weak…

    It doesn’t seem possible to get BP out of the response here, but I would certainly like to see technical people (and assets) from other companies involved as well as the government. In this case other oil companies have all the right incentives to help – since all of the oil companies are required to have companies on contract to fight spills, all of these plans should be activated (at BP’s expense). This would result in more assets to fight the spill and more negative PR for BP (or positive PR for their competitors which is essentially the same thing) – it’s a little thing, but if this problem doesn’t cost BP tens of billions of dollars then what is going to make the other companies decide to install acoustic switches and drill a relief well when they drill the main well?

  9. Slarti:

    I didn’t say a BP oil man. Based on their overall performance on other properties in Alaska, it might be fair to give them the heave ho on doing business in the US.

    This is a big problem because of the depth of the water. I don’t know if the suction idea would work, it might but I doubt you could recover all the oil or even a fraction that would make it worthwhile. Anyway how much suction do you need to raise a column of oil 5000′ given it weighs about 55 lbs per cubic foot? How fast can the pump(s) draw? How fast can the separators process a gallon of oil/water? Can a tanker support a 5000′ pipe string, how many diesel engines would be needed to run the pump(s), does a large enough pump even exist that could capture all that oil, can the tanker stay on location during the pumping? How long does it take to position and set the tanker up? How long would it take to retrofit a tanker to do this task? And probably a hundred other questions that I don’t even know exist.

    How long would it take to figure all of this out?

  10. Byron,

    I want men who have spent 30 years in offshore drilling working with highly trained PhD’s and I don’t want BP to have the final decision (they’ve already proven that they put their interests first). I want to know WHY sucking up oil with a tanker is not feasible or not practical (given that there is apparently an underwater plume of oil that is many miles across, I don’t buy the ‘there’s too much stuff around the leak site’ excuse. BP should be required to conduct their affairs in this matter with nothing less than total transparency – they clearly don’t deserve any trust or benefit of the doubt.

  11. Lottakatz:

    Those 2 guys are not “old oil field hands” the guy on the left is a alternative energy guy and the guy on the right is an investment banker.

    Their reference to blowing up the well and saying that is how Red Adair used to do it made me laugh. Adair’s company used explosives to “blow” the fire out not to seal the well head.

    Based on that statement I would say that everything else they have said is most probably BS.

    This is only one example of the misinformation being thrown around about this tragedy.

    You need people who have spent 30 years plus in the oil field not a couple of morons with an ox to gore and certainly not the Navy except for their expertise on deep recovery techniques and then only as consultants. Give me one good oil man vs. all the Harvard and Yale trained PhD’s the Obama Admin. can muster.

  12. Buddha,

    Hopefully we can use the outrage about the Deepwater Horizon to make it politically impossible to oppose regulation of industry (at least the offshore drilling industry) – especially for politicians who have taken large sums from BP. The clearer the links between corporate money and the prevention and dismantling of regulations can be shown, the better the chance of real reform. A vote against regulation needs to be seen by the public as a vote for the oil spill (or the financial meltdown or the Upper Big Branch mine explosion…). It’s up to us to make sure that something good comes out of this disaster (and others) caused by greed and to make sure that they can never happen again. It seems like the ball has been at least partially dropped on financial reform – let’s hope that as the true scope of this disaster unfolds it provides a real impetus for reform and lessening our dependance on oil.

  13. Who knew a politician could be purchased as cheaply as the price of a mid-size family sedan? (rhetorical)

  14. And there is this . . .

    “The Center for Responsive Politics ranks BP as one of the top donors to political campaigns over the twenty years having given in excess of $6 million to congressional and presidential campaigns. The ten biggest recipients of BP contributions still in Congress are Rep. Don Young ($73,300), Sen. John McCain ($44,899), Sen. George Voinovich ($41,400), Rep. John Dingell ($31,000), Sen. Mary Landrieu ($28,200), Rep. Joe Barton ($27,350), Sen. Jim Inhofe ($22,300), Sen. Mitch McConnell ($22,000), Rep. John Culberson ($20,950) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison ($19,500).

    BP has focused a good portion of their campaign contributions on the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. The committee is scheduled to begin hearings on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Wednesday. Since 1989, BP has contributed a total of $195,550 to the current 51 members of the committee. Rep. Barton is the ranking member of the committee. Rep. Dingell is chairman emeritus and was recently deposed as chairman by Rep. Henry Waxman. Other top recipients include Rep. Ralph Hall ($14,500), Rep. Fred Upton ($13,100) and Rep. Roy Blunt ($12,500).

    While BP made investments in Congress with their wide reach of contributions, some lawmakers made investments in BP. At least 17 lawmakers reported holding stock in BP in their most recent personal financial disclosure filings. Rep. James Sensenbrenner holds the largest amount of stock in BP with a value between $100,001 and $250,000. One member of the Energy & Commerce Committee, Rep. Upton, also holds stock in BP valued between $16,002 and $65,000.

    The lobbying team assembled by BP also provides the company with reach into both Congress and executive branch. Twenty-five of the thirty-seven lobbyists listed in 2010 first quarter lobbying disclosures as being hired by BP have previous government experience. This includes two former top aides to Sen. Landrieu, a former aide to the Energy & Commerce Committee, former congressman Jim Turner and 15 others with congressional experience.” from http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/05/04/connections-in-congress-may-aid-bp-lobby-effort/

  15. Any questions as to why Obama is coddling these criminals now?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A20100505

    “BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees – $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

    On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

    During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

    In Congress, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who last week cautioned that the incident should “not be used inappropriately” to halt Obama’s push for expansion of offshore drilling, has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of BP’s largesse. Her comments created some blowback, with critics complaining that she is too blasé about the impact of the disaster, even though she was among the first lawmakers to call for a federal investigation into the spill.

    As the top congressional recipient in the last cycle and one of the top BP cash recipients of the past two decades, Landrieu banked almost $17,000 from the oil giant in 2008 alone and has lined her war chest with more than $28,000 in BP cash overall.”

    The story then goes on to tell how Landrieu isn’t impacted by who gives her money, which having been at some of her and her brother’s fund raising events in the past I’ll tell you is a flat out lie.

    Corporations should have ZERO say in politics. And the only way to give them that is to remove their ability to participate in any form or fashion.

  16. I think Marvin speaks for all of us again (like he always did), “Mercy, Mercy, Me,” “What’s Going On?”

  17. Didn’t take the first time- another try:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDGAoU1H2gM&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

  18. There may be good reason BP has been so parsimonious with coverage of what is going on under the water. These industry men postulate that there is more than one leak from the oil well and also call BS on BP’s rational that tankers pumping oil/water out of the gulf at the well and plumes would not work due to the crowded conditions on the water and the many lines and pipes from the surface to the well. They say tankers should have been the centerpiece of the effort form day one and everything else should have been working with and around them. This is a Dylan Rattigan interview and it’s about 10 minutes long but well worth the time it takes to view it.

  19. “I suggest the terms “kleparchy” and “kleptocracy” instead of “corporatocracy”. We really need some terms of abuse for the rich and powerful carrying as heavy a load of negative connotations”

    CM,
    I agree with you that your terms are better, but still in my mind not enough. I’ve been racking my brain for years trying to figure one out for the reasons you gave. Corporatocracy and the Bush Crime Family are decent, but don’t quite do the job. We need this, as you say, in order to offset the disparaging vocabulary these
    loathsome people have honed to evil perfection.

Comments are closed.