BP Is Only Partly To Blame

Published in Company Comment on 8 September 2010

BP's report shows that the oil giant isn't wholly to blame for disaster in the Gulf.

BP (LSE: BP) has released its keenly awaited report into the events surrounding the explosion on 20 April of its Macondo oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

It's not just BP's fault

One problem with media coverage of this environmental catastrophe is that all blame was heaped on BP, despite the Deepwater Horizon rig being a joint venture between BP and US firms Halliburton and Transocean.

However, in a lengthy report written over four month by BP's Head of Safety and Operations and fifty internal and external specialists, BP refutes claims that it was solely at fault. In an announcement earlier today, BP summarised the report as follows:

"No single factor caused the Macondo well tragedy. Rather, a sequence of failures involving a number of different parties led to the explosion and fire which killed 11 people and caused widespread pollution in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year."

BP's soon-to-be-ex-CEO Tony Hayward adds:

"It is evident that a series of complex events, rather than a single mistake or failure, led to the tragedy. Multiple parties, including BP, Halliburton and Transocean, were involved." 

Hayward also added that it is unlikely that the well's design contributed to the incident, which is a relief for its architects.

A complex chain of defects

BP's report cites a number of contributory factors to the accident, including "...mechanical failures, human judgments, engineering design, operational implementation and team interfaces."

Among these factors were:

  • a failure of the cement slurry at the base of well to contain hydrocarbons within the reservoir;

  • incorrect acceptance of the results of negative pressure-test by BP and Transocean;

  • the Transocean rig crew failing to spot and act on the influx of hydrocarbons into the well until oil was rapidly flowing to the surface;

  • the well-flow was not routed to a mud-gas separator, allowing gas to be vented onto the rig instead of overboard;

  • this allowed gas to enter the engine rooms via the ventilation system, creating a potential for ignition; and

  • after the explosion, the rig's blow-out preventer did not operate and failed to seal the well.

We all know what happened next: this tragic accident led to the deaths of 11 men and created the worst oil spill in history, devastating the environment and communities along America's Gulf coast.

Here's your chance to guarantee your place on the next enrolment to Champion Shares PRO! For 2 weeks in September we will be opening our doors to new subscribers to join our remarkable, one-of-a-kind investing service. In order to keep our exclusivity, only a select number of our one million plus readership will be able to join us. This is your chance to guarantee your place! Click here to join the priority waiting list

BP isn't off the hook

The report's investigation teams recommends 25 steps aimed at preventing similar catastrophes, covering blow-out preventers, well control, pressure-testing, emergency systems, cement testing, rig audit and verification, and personnel competence. These are aimed at the entire oil-exploration industry and not just BP.

Of course, BP's harshest critics will undoubtedly argue that this report is a whitewash, having been produced by and on behalf of the oil giant. However, given the complexity of deep-water drilling and the number of work teams and companies involved, it was always highly unlikely that BP was solely to blame.

Thus, although BP was a convenient scapegoat, the true picture was always much more complicated than that painted by the US press and public. In addition, the company has apologised (incoming CEO Bob Dudley: "We deeply regret this event.") and has shouldered its responsibilities, paying around $8 billion to date in clean-up costs and compensation.

You can read BP's full report (and view a 29-minute accompanying video) here.

What about BP's owners?

It seems that BP is over the worst and its shell-shocked shareholders can start to rebuild their faith in the company.

First, the $20 billion escrow account to pay the remaining costs and claims is being handled by Kenneth Feinberg, the respected lawyer who presided over the 9/11 victims' compensation fund.

Second, CEO Tony Hayward -- seen as a weak leader during the crisis by BP's critics, especially in the US -- has announced his resignation, to be replaced by an American, Bob Dudley.

Third, BP's share price has bounced back from its stomach-churning lows below £3, when I identified it as a blow-out bargain. As I write, it is up 1.5% at 413p -- almost 40% above the lows of 25 June. Congratulations to all those investors brave (and contrarian) enough to buy when others talked of BP's imminent bankruptcy!

More from Cliff D'Arcy:

> For two weeks in September we will be opening the doors of our Champion Shares PRO newsletter service. In order to keep our exclusivity, only a select number of our readership will be able to join us. This is your chance to guarantee your place! Click here to join the priority waiting list.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

henrybenson 09 Sep 2010 , 1:22pm

It was fairly obvious from the start that BP's American partners were just as much to blame for the disaster as BP. But in the US, if they can blame a foreign person or company for their own failures, they will do it. It's the American way, after all.

Incidentally, American oil companies cause as much pollution ANNUALLY in the Niger delta but no one mentions that. It's the American way, after all.

And, by the way, just as Obama would never hire Hayward, I hope BP never hires Obama as a consultant after his 4 year term is up (he will never be re-elected unless he is up against someone like Bush). Having said that, Haliburton has done rather well out of Cheney, or is it the other way round?

Max878 09 Sep 2010 , 3:16pm

Not accusing anybody of anything, of course, henry, but perhaps a symbiosis?

chipshopcred 12 Sep 2010 , 1:19am

A lazy article. BPs partners are Andarko (25%) and MOEX Offshore (10%). BP has 65% and was managing the operation. Transocean and Halliburton are contractors not partners. BP signs off on the equipment and safety systems being acceptable before the job and control what work is done on the well and accept or reject it. Bad systems and work can be fixed unless they are accepted as OK. Wait for the rest of the reports and the court results. The Fool articles are becoming more adverts and appear less inciteful and trustworthy.

drillernic 13 Sep 2010 , 10:06pm

I'm a drilling supervisor, and looking at the data from the Macondo well that BP released to the US Senate enquiry months ago it was clear that the wellsite crew didin't recognise the indications that the well was flowing for nearly an hour before the explosion (flow out >> flow in while displacing and flow out continiung after the pumps were turned off really, really should have got the Driller's (a Transocean employee) attention!

And when the drill crew did recognise the well was flowing, they called the BP Sueprvisor and the Transocean Toolpusher (4 times!) rather than shut the well in...

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.