WAS GULF TRAGEDY AN ACCIDENT, OR CAUSED BY GROSS NEGLIGENCE?

SPECIAL POST

Information barely being covered in any press or media outlet is that BP/ARCO had certain environmental responsibilities when drilling and operating in the Gulf that they did not meet. It has already been pointed out, albeit briefly, that a rubber-skirted boom is supposed to be on hand in order to provide an immediate response to such an incident. The boom surrounds the leak and pumps then skim the oil off the top. Where was the barge with that equipment, and where was the response crew? Is it true that they were told they were not needed because BP/ARCO had already sealed the well?

When you drill, you pack special cement around the outer side of the casing at the top to prevent a blowout, where oil and gas pressure force their way up the outside of the casing and blow off the wellhead. It is possible that the company which provided that cap, (Haliburton), was misinformed by BP/ARCO (in an effort to cut costs?) as to the depth of the well and therefore poured too small a cement cap. Resulting pressure could blow that cap, destroy the automatic shutoff valves and create the resulting mess. Word seeming to support the possibility came late Friday that a huge methane bubble escaped from the wellhead and surfaced below the drilling rig, causing the instantaneous explosion and fire.

The White House was also slow to respond. Nine days passed before the Administration put into motion its emergency management response to the disaster. Although the President and Secretary of DHHS both insisted that the Administration was on top of things “from day one,” it was heard Friday and mostly unreported that BP/ARCO had called authorities and told them they had everything under control. That remark would tend to substantiate Obama’s early statement that the "experts," BP/ARCO, were on the scene and taking care of things.

Those who have followed BP/ARCO’s environmental and safety track record are very aware of its extremely poor performances, its stone-walling and its continued failure to meet its corporate responsibilities to the environment and to the countries where it operates. While accidents can and do happen, BP/ARCO’s accidents invariably involve negligence… usually gross negligence. Their CEO, Tony Hayward, bragged last year that, despite increased oil production in exotic deep waters, he had cut BP's costs by an extra one billion dollars a year. Was that all due to cutting safety corners? Does the fact that they were partners with Exxon in Alaska drilling operations when the Exxon Valdez ran aground tell you anything?

British Petroleum’s 1st Quarter profit in 2010 exceeded $6.1 billion. That’s $67 million per day operating profit. While three days worth of profits could more than adequately mitigate the remaining radioactive and other dangers at BP’s Yerington Anaconda Mine in Nevada, BP has continued to fight cleanup efforts every step of the way. In the meanwhile, downstream residents are facing increasing levels of uranium and arsenic in their domestic wells.

If I owned stock in BP/ARCO, I couldn’t bear to look at myself in the mirror every morning.