The vilification of BP (by Obama) due to oil well leak

Hayward: 'Sometimes you step off the kerb, and get knocked down by a bus'
Yesterday the curtain came down on Tony Hayward's chaotic tenure as BP chief executive. Sarah Arnott saw his final act

Tony Hayward's poorly chosen words in the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon rig blew up in the Gulf of Mexico have hastened his fall from grace.

But yesterday, on his final day as BP chief executive, he got it right.

"Sometimes you step off the pavement and you get hit by a bus," a stunned Mr Hayward told the media in London, neatly summing up the events that have brought to a close his 30-year stint in the oil industry.

Three months after explosion that killed 11 people and unleashed the worst oil spill in US history, Mr Hayward is to step down from his job as BP chief executive, to be replaced by a US colleague, Bob Dudley.

The announcement of the "mutual agreement" between Mr Hayward and BP came as little surprise after a series of gaffes left Mr Hayward branded "the most hated and clueless man in America". But there was no hiding his heartbreak, despite a severance package worth up to £12m and a non-executive place on the board of BP's Russian joint venture TNK-BP. After stressing that the loss of life in the rig disaster put all subsequent events into context, an exhausted-looking Mr Hayward said the announcement of his departure was "a very sad day for me personally".

"My entire career has been at BP. I love the company and everything it stands for," he said, describing the move as a "practical matter" after he was "demonised and vilified" in the US. "BP can't move on as a company in the US with me as its leader," he said. "I don't know if that will assuage the politicians or not but it is the right thing to stand down."

Mr Hayward made some huge PR errors in the aftermath of the disaster that has pumped more than five million barrels of oil into the Gulf and tarred beaches from Texas to Florida. The first sign of trouble was his early suggestion the environmental impact was likely to be "very, very modest". A later quip that he "would like his life back", and a day off to go yacht-racing with his son, were even worse. And at a mammoth grilling by the US Congress Energy Committee he was lambasted as evasive and difficult, with one committee member accusing him of avoiding his responsibility and "kicking the can down the road".

But despite his obvious deflation, Mr Hayward mounted an unapologetic defence of BP's "unprecedented" response to the disaster, saying it has been a "model" of corporate responsibility that "not many other companies could have contemplated, let alone done". He also pointed to the successes – the "extraordinary engineering feat" of the latest efforts to cap the well, the scale of the clean-up and the claims process for compensation. "Was I even close to perfect? Absolutely not. With the benefit of hindsight, would I have done things differently? Of course. But would I change fundamentally what BP did and the role I played? No," Mr Hayward said.

And he could not resist a final side-swipe at the US political establishment that has gone after him with such savagery. He will not be appearing at another Congressional hearing, on Thursday, to answer allegations that BP lobbied for the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi to help it win oil contracts in Libya. "I have a busy week so we are sending someone else," he said. US Senators consequently postponed the hearing, citing the refusal of key witnesses, including Mr Hayward, to appear.

..... The principle that the polluter pays has been upheld. BP has also ceased paying dividends and is selling $30bn of assets over the next 18 months to cover the expected bill. These are not measures any firm takes willingly. And the financial pain should be some incentive (if not an overwhelming one) for the company's management to place a bigger emphasis on safety in future operations.

Also, with Mr Hayward's departure, the principle of personal responsibility has been upheld. BP has removed its chief executive grudgingly and perhaps cynically. But it amounts to the acceptance of some sort of personal responsibility nonetheless. The contrast with the official treatment of the insolvent banks two years ago, when virtually no senior heads rolled, is stark.

Oil spill reaches 100 day mark, and here's what we know

By Curtis Morgan and Fred Tasker | Miami Herald

As the Gulf of Mexico oil spill hit the 100-day mark Wednesday, here are 10 big developments likely to influence future decisions on offshore exploration:

It doesn't all float: The massive slick has largely vanished — partly consumed by microbes and worked on by wind, waves and sun — but perhaps tens of millions of gallons may still be under water.

The discovery of vast deep sea plumes — thought to be the result of chemical dispersant reducing the gushing flow into tiny suspended droplets — has destroyed conventional wisdom about what happens when oil and seawater mix. Particularly when you add an unprecedented volume of chemical dispersants.

BP initially dismissed they were there.

Now, the plumes — likened to underwater clouds of mist — rank among the biggest cleanup concerns. Federal and academic researchers can't say for sure yet how big they are, what is likely to happen to them over time or whether the concentrations, which fade from strong around the well to barely detectable 40 miles away, are toxic to marine life.

When stakes are high, don't cut corners: BP played fast and loose with safety to save time and money, witnesses told a congressional subcommittee. Four days before the disastrous blowout, contractors told BP it needed 21 "centralizers" to stabilize the well before cementing it, but BP saved time and money by using only six. And in choosing the final piece of pipe for the ill-fated well, BP saved $7 to $10 million by using a "long-string" pipe that reached from the bottom of the well to the sea bottom, instead of a "liner tieback." The latter might have prevented gas from flowing up unchecked past the pipe, BP's own memos said.

Documents also said BP skipped a test to determine if cement had properly bonded to the well and rock formations, which would have been safer but taken 12 hours.

A little hustle would have helped: For weeks after the April 20 spill, BP was estimating the flow of oil at 5,000 to 20,000 barrels a day, and responded with a "top hat" containment device capable of sucking up only about 15,000 barrels a day. But by mid-June government scientists were saying the well was spilling 50,000 barrels a day or more, and the Obama administration demanded a bigger, faster response from BP.

BP finally started to hustle. Today it has 800 skimming boats, 4,300 other vessels, 114 aircraft, 3.4 million feet of boom and 24,800 workers. And it has unveiled the Ella G — a 280-foot-long supply vessel outfitted with four centrifuges capable of slurping up 800,000 gallons of oily water a day.

But now, of course, the well has been capped and there's relatively little oil to clean up.

It wasn't a heck of a job: The three-month oil spill may not wind up, as some critics charge, "Obama's Katrina." But the administration didn't exactly ace the Gulf Coast history tests either.

Like the Bush administration after the disastrous 2005 hurricane, the Obama administration was slow to grasp the scale of the spill and, in the first month, gave BP too much credit and leeway as the oil giant downplayed the threat and bumbled through failed attempts to plug the gusher.

NOAA, the lead science agency, also drew fire from many Gulf scientists, echoed by some congressional members. They contend the agency was slow to tap its expertise, slow to dispatch research vessels, and slow to push BP for flow-rate data that would have more quickly shown the blowout to be a disaster of historic proportions.

As the president's poll numbers plunged, the administration's multiagency Unified Command made tougher demands, drawing $20 billion damage pledge from BP and a dramatically expanded capping effort.

Give spill-killing efforts macho names: There was the "top kill" for plugging the leaking well with heavy mud and cement from the top. And the "bottom kill" for plugging it 13,000 feet beneath the seabed.

"Top hat" described the small, cone-shaped funnel attached to a riser line that BP lowered over the spewing well early on. It didn't capture enough oil, so it was discontinued.

Then there was the "junk shot." To the heavy mud they added shredded tires, golf balls and other pieces of fibrous material in hopes of clogging the crippled blow-out preventer. Experts warned the idea was "exotic" and might not work. They were right.

Next: A "bullhead kill." Now that the blown-out well has a secure cap on it, a bullhead kill will pump in heavy mud and cement through existing pipes on the blow-out preventer, making it easier to complete the relief well everyone sees as the final answer to the spill.

Linguists debate which of these handy new terms will make it into next year's Oxford English Dictionary.

The Gulf may heal itself faster than we thought: When we fool with Mother Nature, sometimes she fools us back. Experts say up to 50 percent of spilled oil — the most volatile, toxic part — can evaporate within a week as the oil slick floats toward shore. Another portion can be eaten by naturally occurring microbes, especially in warm Gulf waters. "Oil is a natural product. It's inherently biodegradable," said Terry Hazen, microbial ecologist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in California.

Even hurricanes can help. After the massive 1979 Ixtoc spill in Mexico's Bay of Campeche, Hurricane Frederic was credited with scouring tar balls off the Texas coast. Experts say a hurricane's egg-beater effect on the water might break up oil sheens into small oily particles more easily digested by microbes.

Even water's-edge marshes, crucial to sheltering juvenile shrimp and dampening the surge of hurricanes, have some self-healing abilities. Environmentalists visiting Louisiana's oil-soaked marshes already have spotted new green sprouts thrusting up through the black goo.

Regulators shouldn't sleep with industry: It took an epic environmental catastrophe to do what scathing government investigations, years of bipartisan criticism, sex-and-gifts scandals and a $10-billion bureaucratic bungle could not: force the dismantling of the federal agency that regulates the offshore drilling industry.

The once obscure Minerals Management Service had two main missions: To enforce drilling safety rules and to collect billions in royalties form the $1-trillion-a-year petroleum industry. It did neither well, costing taxpayers billions in unclaimed royalties and allowing the industry to largely set its own safety standards — a hands-off attitude that enable BP's disastrous blowout.

In one notorious case, two MMS employees were literally found in bed with the industry: There were cited, after an internal investigation, for having brief sexual relationships with oil company officials. The executives plied 19 employees in an MMS royalty office with gifts, booze, and golf and ski trips.

The agency is being broken up in the wake of the spill. The Obama administration promises to mend regulatory loopholes and end cozy relations — pledges that history suggests will be difficult to fulfill.

Healthy waters mean healthy wallets: From empty hotel rooms along the Panhandle's sugary sands to empty shrimpers' nests in Louisiana, there were endless examples of how much Gulf Coast economies depend on clean beaches, wetlands and waters.

"This is part of our culture, people have got to understand. We're part of the whole chain. We consume the food, out little kids are playing in the Gulf," said Marylee Orr, executive director of the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper. "We absolutely have to learn from this."

Environmental groups are using the spill to press President Obama to follow through on a pledge to restore a Gulf Coast plagued before the spill by pollution, declining fish stocks and disappearing wetlands. Three of them — the Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation — called for BP to pay a $5 billion "downpayment" to help restore the fast-shrinking Mississippi Delta.

"Every time we stop paying attention, this coast comes back and bites us," said Paul Kemp, vice president of Audubon's Louisiana Coastal Initiative.

A tin ear is no friend in a crisis: Even with his distinguished British accent, BP boss Tony Hayward couldn't get away with such gaffes as calling the Gulf oil disaster a "tiny" spill into a "very big ocean." Or griping that he, too, wanted the spill to end because "I want my life back." Or setting Facebook and Twitter ablaze by taking a Saturday off to attend a luxury yacht race around England's Isle of Wight to cheer on his own boat, "Bob."

It'll give him something to mull over during those long, dark nights at his new post — BP's digs in Russia.

It doesn't all float: The massive slick has largely vanished — partly consumed by microbes and worked on by wind, waves and sun — but perhaps tens of millions of gallons may still be under water.
The discovery of vast deep sea plumes — thought to be the result of chemical dispersant reducing the gushing flow into tiny suspended droplets — has destroyed conventional wisdom about what happens when oil and seawater mix. Particularly when you add an unprecedented volume of chemical dispersants.

BP initially dismissed they were there.

Now, the plumes — likened to underwater clouds of mist — rank among the biggest cleanup concerns. Federal and academic researchers can't say for sure yet how big they are, what is likely to happen to them over time or whether the concentrations, which fade from strong around the well to barely detectable 40 miles away, are toxic to marine life.

Environmental groups are using the spill to press President Obama to follow through on a pledge to restore a Gulf Coast plagued before the spill by pollution, declining fish stocks and disappearing wetlands. Three of them — the Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation — called for BP to pay a $5 billion "downpayment" to help restore the fast-shrinking Mississippi Delta.

Even with his distinguished British accent, BP boss Tony Hayward couldn't get away with such gaffes as calling the Gulf oil disaster a "tiny" spill into a "very big ocean." Or griping that he, too, wanted the spill to end because "I want my life back.

BP boss Tony Hayward has been forced to step down over the disaster

He sparked outrage in the US when he suggested that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was nothing but a drop in the ocean.

And he was hounded out of his job for overseeing one of the world’s worst oil disasters as pictures of dying seabirds floundering in oil dominated the front pages of the US press for weeks on end.

But now, 16 days after the leak was finally stopped, scientists are coming forward to suggest that perhaps BP boss Tony Hayward may have been right after all.

Oil from the well is clearing from the sea surface much faster than scientists expected.

Indeed, some are asking whether the original threat was actually exaggerated.

And just over 100 days after the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers, the water around the Gulf is almost entirely clear.

The backtracking by the US media in particular stands in stark contrast to the way in which they pursued Mr Hayward in the wake of the spill.

Time Magazine, The Washington Post, the New York Times and Vanity Fair have all now raised the prospect that the much-maligned ex-BP boss may have been right after all.

Lubchenco, a marine scientist, said the oil was not sinking to the bottom.

‘As far as we can determine it is primarily in the water column itself, not sitting on the seafloor,’ Lubchenco said.

She also said the oil beneath the surface appears to be biodegrading very quickly, which she called a good sign.

Dr Simon Boxall, an expert in marine pollution and dispersion at the National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, said it is not the size of the leak which matters, but where it occurs and what type of oil is involved.

He told the Telegraph: ‘When Tony Hayward said it was a drop in the ocean, it might have been the wrong thing to say at the time, but it was the truth.

‘This spill is the equivalent of less than a drop in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. For all but a tiny bit of the Gulf, it will be back to normal within a year.

Oil Spill Legislation Passes House

MATTHEW DALY | 07/30/10 07:38 PM | AP


WASHINGTON — The House approved a bill Friday to boost safety standards for offshore drilling, remove a federal cap on economic liability for oil spills and impose new fees on oil and gas production.

Democratic leaders hailed the bill as a comprehensive response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and said it would increase drilling safety and crack down on oil companies such as BP. Companies with significant workplace safety or environmental violations over the preceding seven years would be banned from new offshore drilling permits.

Republicans and some-oil state Democrats opposed the measure, calling it a federal power grab that would raise energy prices and kill thousands of American jobs because of the new fees and liability provision.

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the bill's main sponsor, said the legislation would be a tribute to the 11 oil rig workers who were killed when the BP well exploded in April by creating strong new safety standards for offshore drilling, ending the revolving door between government regulators and industry and holding BP and other oil companies accountable for accidents.

"While we may not know the exact cause of the incident, we clearly know what contributed to it. A culture of cozy relationships that had regulators interviewing for jobs on the same rigs they were supposed to be inspecting," said Rahall, who is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

The legislation, which passed 209-193, has yet to be taken up in the Senate, where partisan disagreements will likely delay final consideration of a joint House-Senate bill until after the August congressional recess.

The House bill includes a provision sponsored by Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., that would modify a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, so that some drilling permits could be approved on a rig-by-rig basis if the Interior Department determines a rig meets new safety requirements. The drilling moratorium imposed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar would remain in effect, and Salazar would retain power over whether to approve a permit.

The bill also would remove the current $75 million cap on economic damages to be paid by oil companies after major spills and increases to $300 million the financial responsibility offshore operators must demonstrate in most cases. And it would create new "conservation" fees on oil and natural gas extracted from land or water controlled by the federal government.

Those provisions prompted sharp criticism from Republicans.
Story continues below

"In typical Democrat fashion, this bill overtaxes, over-regulates, and costs American jobs," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla.

Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington state, the top Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, said removing the liability cap could devastate small and medium-sized drillers.

Hastings called the new fees on oil and gas production a "$22 billion energy tax" that would cost jobs and raise energy prices. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the $2 per barrel fee on oil and a similar fee on natural gas could bring in $22.5 billion over the next decade.

Earlier Friday, the House approved a separate bill to extend whistleblower protections to oil and gas workers who report hazardous conditions or other problems. The whistleblower bill will be added to the oil spill legislation when it is sent to the Senate.

"A whistleblower may be the only thing standing between a safe workplace and a catastrophe," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the bill's sponsor. "No worker should ever have to choose between his life and his livelihood."

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said the bill setting new drilling standards and removing the liability cap was the least Congress could do to respond to such a major catastrophe.

Rahall said the legislation would end a "trust-but-don't-verify" attitude about safety where drilling plans were rubber stamped by federal regulators and industry often wrote its own rules.

The bill would put into law actions already taken by the Obama administration to break Interior's former Minerals Management Service into three parts, separating safety enforcement and regulation from economic activities such as issuing oil leases and collecting royalties.

Since the BP spill the agency has been renamed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation, and a new director, Michael Bromwich, has been appointed.

Associated Press writer Frederic J. Frommer contributed to this story.

arjay wrote:
I suggest if you don't post it, I won't feel the need to respond to it.

Finally, IF I was to wear my moderator hat, I might suggest that a little more focus on topic titles might not go amiss, along with a lot less political sniping.

Over and out.

arjay wrote:Gets quite interesting doesn't it. Some descrepancies with Cookie's long quote from the McClatchy blog or the The Miami Herald above:

It doesn't all float: The massive slick has largely vanished — partly consumed by microbes and worked on by wind, waves and sun — but perhaps tens of millions of gallons may still be under water.
The discovery of vast deep sea plumes — thought to be the result of chemical dispersant reducing the gushing flow into tiny suspended droplets — has destroyed conventional wisdom about what happens when oil and seawater mix. Particularly when you add an unprecedented volume of chemical dispersants.

BP initially dismissed they were there.

Now, the plumes — likened to underwater clouds of mist — rank among the biggest cleanup concerns. Federal and academic researchers can't say for sure yet how big they are, what is likely to happen to them over time or whether the concentrations, which fade from strong around the well to barely detectable 40 miles away, are toxic to marine life.

Environmental groups are using the spill to press President Obama to follow through on a pledge to restore a Gulf Coast plagued before the spill by pollution, declining fish stocks and disappearing wetlands. Three of them — the Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation — called for BP to pay a $5 billion "downpayment" to help restore the fast-shrinking Mississippi Delta.

Even with his distinguished British accent, BP boss Tony Hayward couldn't get away with such gaffes as calling the Gulf oil disaster a "tiny" spill into a "very big ocean." Or griping that he, too, wanted the spill to end because "I want my life back.

--versus-- The Daily Mail's:

BP boss Tony Hayward has been forced to step down over the disaster

He sparked outrage in the US when he suggested that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was nothing but a drop in the ocean.

And he was hounded out of his job for overseeing one of the world’s worst oil disasters as pictures of dying seabirds floundering in oil dominated the front pages of the US press for weeks on end.

But now, 16 days after the leak was finally stopped, scientists are coming forward to suggest that perhaps BP boss Tony Hayward may have been right after all.

Oil from the well is clearing from the sea surface much faster than scientists expected.

Indeed, some are asking whether the original threat was actually exaggerated.

And just over 100 days after the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers, the water around the Gulf is almost entirely clear.

The backtracking by the US media in particular stands in stark contrast to the way in which they pursued Mr Hayward in the wake of the spill.

Time Magazine, The Washington Post, the New York Times and Vanity Fair have all now raised the prospect that the much-maligned ex-BP boss may have been right after all.

Lubchenco, a marine scientist, said the oil was not sinking to the bottom.

‘As far as we can determine it is primarily in the water column itself, not sitting on the seafloor,’ Lubchenco said.

She also said the oil beneath the surface appears to be biodegrading very quickly, which she called a good sign.

Dr Simon Boxall, an expert in marine pollution and dispersion at the National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, said it is not the size of the leak which matters, but where it occurs and what type of oil is involved.

He told the Telegraph: ‘When Tony Hayward said it was a drop in the ocean, it might have been the wrong thing to say at the time, but it was the truth.

‘This spill is the equivalent of less than a drop in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. For all but a tiny bit of the Gulf, it will be back to normal within a year.

Whilst Obama was quick and over-zealous in kicking arse Cookie, I don't suppose he'll be as quick to kiss arse, if he's made a mistake or over-reacted, eh Cookie??

Missing Gulf Coast Oil Appears To Be Welling Up Under Barrier Island Beaches

According to WVUE correspondent John Snell, local officials dispatched a dive team to a barrier island off of southeastern Louisiana's Plaquemines parish to scan the sea floor for oil. The team, however, could barely see the sea floor, due to the current murky state of the area waters. But when the divers returned to shore, they made a rather remarkable discovery: tiny holes that burrowing Hermit crabs had dug into the ground effectively became oil-drilling holes. When the divers placed pressure on the ground near the holes, oil came oozing up.

So, basically, questioning where the oil has gone is the exact same thing as looking at the shoes attached to the ends of your legs and wondering if your feet have disappeared.

The extent of the spill was confirmed on Monday as US government experts announced the rate the oil had been pouring out was 62,000 barrels a day -- more than 12 times faster than BP originally admitted.

This was higher than any previous official estimate and meant 4.9 million barrels of crude -- more than 205 million gallons -- had spewed into the Gulf in the 87 days it took to cap it, making it the biggest accident spill ever.

If BP is found guilty of negligence, the flow rate means it could face up to 17.6 billion dollars in fines. The firm has also set up a 20 billion dollar fund to pay claims from individuals and businesses hit by the disaster.

"The end to the leak is good news, but the damage has been done," Yerkes said.