Is BP being blamed too much for the recent environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?
Yes in the sense that they have responsibility for their own actions and some responsibility for the actions of their contractors.
But no in the sense that mankind’s (and America’s) hunger for oil is driving oil exploration into difficult places.
These are deep waters – literally.
Rhys Owen, London
BP are ultimately responsible for their contractors, and ensuring that sound technical and safety standards are followed. Transocean agreed to drill the well for a certain commercial value, and I assume BP expected them, and their subcontractors, to comply with legislation, in-house safety requirements, and BP’s standards.
Recent cost challenges from BP to suppliers to significantly reduce costs leads suppliers to want to beat the schedule, or cut corners in other areas. Also, legacy company cultures are also at play, so again people’s working practises may not be equal worldwide within BP.
BP have handled this very badly in terms of PR. So, in short, yes and no.
Anon, Aberdeen
If it is shown that BP told the operators to press on regardless of the risk and to cut corners to save time/money, then they should be blamed fully but I doubt the rig owners/operators are without any blame.
Phillip Haran, Ruislip, Middlesex
There were lots of other companies involved in the drilling, but if BP were making the critical decisions then the buck must stop with them. However the compensation fund seems out of all proportion, especially when compared to other industrial disasters like Bhopal.
Peter Walker, New Malden
BP is ultimately responsible for the Gulf of Mexico pollution and deserves all it gets. But let’s remember that it’s the developed world, all of us, that craves for energy and then governments on our behalf that authorise technically risky deep sea drilling for oil. So what’s the weak link that’s caused the disaster? The same as many other disasters – poor project controls, poor quality controls, poor attention to detail and ineffective control of contractors by top company people who don’t know enough about what their company is doing and how far it’s pushing the risks. The solution? More engineers at board level who have the power to say stop when the risk goes too far.
Phil Shepherd, Lydiard Millicent
Probably not! There can only be so much bad fortune and then you have to think that maybe they have brought it upon themselves. Certainly, the behaviour of the CEO has inflamed matters and calls into question his competence.
Richard Duffell, Kendal
Seems so but with not knowing how far they were involved with the rig’s operations, I’m not qualified to say.
Is it just a coincidence that the timing of Obama’s heavy criticism of BP ties in with the week he gave up smoking?
Simon Jackson, Harrow
No. If an enquiry finds them totally to blame then they should be made to pay. Their safety record in recent years is appalling. However, there is politics being played here, with BP being referred to as British and no mention of the American companies involved.
If as expected BP have put profits before good working practice then they deserve to be punished.
However, there should also be a certain amount of blame apportioned to the rig operators and manufacturers of the part that failed if it is found that they have been culpable.
Rob Newton, Woodbridge, Suffolk
BP should take a large portion of the blame, but are being made the scapegoat by the American government because the general public is not likely to have heard of the other companies involved and Obama wants to be seen as having an environmental conscience.
Shane Hawkins, Dadford, Buckingham
All BP have done is apologise and work tirelessly to correct problems caused entirely by subcontractors. It makes my blood boil that they have been found guilty without a trial when clearly blame should be spread out to all the parties involved.
Is it an environmental disaster or hyped up journalism. Shouldn’t we be dead from swine flu by now?
‘Anadarko’owns ¼ of the well that blew out through ‘Cameron’s’ Blow Out Preventer that ‘Halliburton’ failed to cement properly for ‘Transocean’. All whilst being pressured to ‘Drill Baby Drill’ by the US government. Andarko kept their heads down, Cameron blamed poor maintenance. Halliburton rushed out and bought a company that gets paid to clean up oil spills (Boots and Coots) and is making a fortune from BP. Transocean used an ancient maritime law to limit their liability and the US government took the political step of putting 100% of the blame on the one foreign sounding company that was actually prepared to try and fix the problem.
Richard Anderson, Stocksfield, Northumberland
From what I gather, the rig design was to industry standards, showing revisions are required. The explosion was a result of said design and poor practice. Neither factors entirely the responsibility of BP. In the handling of the resultant leak BP has appeared to be unresponsive and embarrassingly ineffective, it is for this that BP must hang its head in shame.
Scott Williams, Bracknell
I believe BP is not being blamed too much, but UK is. Remember that 11 people have died in this disaster, compared with 15,000 in Bhopal in a disaster caused by an American company who have contributed only a tiny fraction in clean-up costs compared with what BP have offered so far.
Regards, Simon Marshall, Loughborough
Yes I believe they are being blamed too much, there is huge pressure from shareholders (majority of who are American) to maximise profit and from oil hungry customers (mainly Americans again!) to keep prices low. Maintenance is seen as a necessary evil and budgets are squeezed! I was bemused to hear Barak Obama say the US needs to seriously look at how they produce energy... what about how they USE it?!
Scott Witting, Scunthorpe
No, but all of the oil exploration companies knew that these events were possible and should have had a proven mitigation capability ready to implement.
Roger Higgins, Derby
Yes BP are being blamed totally for the environmental disaster when their subcontractors drilling the well for them should be accepting their share of the blame and clean-up cost. These should be divided out based amongst the parties on their own capital values relative to BP's.
Rupert Clarke, Sevenoaks, Kent
As an individual company, possibly, and there is clearly some xenophobia involved in the blame apportionment. However (as it would be for a major incident in any industry) it would be interesting to know how BP's overall safety and environmental record benchmarks with the rest of the industry and whether there were significant precursor events, or an underlying trend in less serious events, that should have generated response in an organisation if it had robust safety and contingency management systems.
More seriously this again shows, as do various mining disasters and other pollution incidents, that a carbon based energy industry can be just as risk prone as the much maligned nuclear sector.
Phil Hinde, Etchingham, East Sussex
BP put profit before the environment, and for this alone they are entirely responsible and must pay the price. This should be high enough to encourage a safety first culture. Is it beyond Engineering to provide a disaster system which would contain any oil spill with a ring of deployable booms automatically when such a disaster struck?
Stephen Prior, Kingsbury, London
No criticism would be too harsh for this but blaming Britain as a whole is completely unjustified as BP is now an international company and no longer called "British Petroleum".
Robert Harris-Mayes, Ffarmers, Llanwrda
There is no doubt a lot of facts are not yet known about the causes leading up to the explosion and subsequent oil leak. Were the leak to remain out at sea and not hit (American) land, this would be a small story and then be forgotten about. It all seems to be propaganda to hit the big boy who can most afford to cough up, rather than work together to contain and seal the leak. The mud slinging and litigation can come later when things are looked at in the cold light of day. Yes, BP can probably afford the financial costs, yes, our pensions will eventually recover but I do sympathies with BP when early reports suggest a third party contractor may have been at fault here. Oh, and what about the African oil leaks that are far greater than this leak that go unnoticed?
Robert Rourke, London
Yes - The rig was on lease and there are US partners - how can it all be BP's fault? In the long run it seems likely that special companies will have to be formed for sub-sea drilling and then transfer ownership to an oil company once it is in production.
Daniel Roberts, Hanoi, Vietnam
It’s too early to tell. If the press is to be believed, and there have been short cuts in safety procedures, then no BP have not been unfairly blamed – if you take a risk you have to be able to accept the consequences (although try telling that to the banks). However the pressure to produce all is huge, and we all (especially the gasoline dependant Americans) have to take some blame for not focusing more on renewable options.
Phil Reynolds, Bedford
Probably – it should have exercised more oversight of its sub-contractors and applied European standards to the operation which I understand are more strict that US standards.
Richard Bossom, Creekmoor, Poole
It depends on the point of view.
For victims of the disaster, maybe BP is not being blamed excessively.
For BP, its shareholders and the people whose pensions depend on it, perhaps, BP is receiving too much blame.
In the interest of all concerned, however, the blaming should be suspended so that BP can concentrate fully on finding a solution to the urgent problem of containing the leak and cleaning up the affected areas.
Duc Pham, Cardiff
I do not seek to underplay the environmental impact, but it will diminish over time... eventually. However, we should not forget that 11 people died in the explosion. If BP is found culpable then, for that reason alone (and especially following the Texas City explosion) they absolutely deserve to have the book thrown at them.
Richard Long, Solihull
Firstly, I find it distressing that a finite resource, which took many thousands of years to create, is being allowed to be wasted in such a way.
Secondly, we are all responsible, we want cheap fuel and energy but we don't want to pay the real price as it gets more difficult to find and extract. No wonder somebody takes a disastrous shortcut.
Charles Simmons-Jacobs, Faversham, Kent
If the lawyers allow time will tell who is a fault, unfortunately for BP whatever the outcome they are responsible and what is obvious, those running the company never understood the risk.
Richard Tomlins, Farnham, Surrey
Yes, as I understand it they did not own, employ or technically control the Rig that failed causing the spill and therefore there are other parties to blame for this leak - even if they hold the majority of the responsibility. The live congress Q&A Session appeared to be nothing more than the opportunity for Senators to distance themselves from the disaster or score points. I would be surprised if a full investigation could have been carried out so quickly, and if an investigation has not been fully carried out, what good is the Q&A Session?
Simon Schofield, Nottingham
The short answer is yes. The US administration and in particular the Mineral Management Service also deserve criticism. They are far too close to the Oil industry and allow drilling without the necessary disaster management plans in place. That said BP need to be held accountable if it is shown that they took short cuts with safety
Phil Barker, Stourbridge
I think BP deserves the blame, but not the witch hunt which has ensued. The world’s insatiable lust for oil is a major factor in all decisions of a financial nature involved in the energy industry but it seems they got their risk model all wrong. Now, because this has happened in the US they are being dragged through congressional hearings in front of the world. Remember Bhopal – still no one from Union Carbide has had to answer to the Indian courts!
Robert Davidson - Aberdeen
The accident severity is Catastrophic which requires an incredible equipment failure rate. Blame also rests with the oil industry regulators to mandate safety analysis. BP presumably must only be part of the plan to extract the oil, so only takes part of the blame. Who is Number One?
Roger Bostock, Stockport
It is difficult to defend BP’s apparent inability to deal with this situation. However, for Engineers to decide whether better mitigation or contingency plans could have been in place, the exact train of events which led to the failure would need to be published by an independent, officially recognised body.
Phil Osborne, Northampton
Declaration of interest: I work in the E&P industry. Ultimately BP and its partners in the well must be accountable; the buck stops with the Operator who approves all design and operational decisions regarding the well and is expected to take due care that it is operated in accordance with the ALARP risk-management principle. However, the political pressure on BP to guarantee a compensation fund before any financial liability has been assessed is against all normal business principles, and appears at odds with past US government attitudes to similar and worse incidents. Unfortunately we’ll never know if this response would have been different if it were a recognisably domestic-US operator which suffered the first major deepwater incident in the Gulf of Mexico.
Simon Glover, Kingston-upon-Thames
No. The company I work for handles sensitive information on behalf of our customers. If this sensitive information was leaked, someone would be down on the company like a ‘barrel of oil’.
Richard Charles, St Helens, Merseyside
Sadly for BP, how do you get an American to run a small company - give him a big one then wait! Given the poor US leadership and ensuing blame culture this catastrophe was always going to get worse sooner than better! Where are BP's equally negligent Deepwater Horizon partners in all of this?
Sid McFarland, Edinburgh
Whilst it is a disaster, it is the demands of large scale oil use in countries like the USA that force BP and others to take on ever more difficult ways to extract the oil. Obama's rhetoric regarding making BP 'pay' falls flat when, surely at the end of the day, it is the consumer that will pay through increased oil prices.
Paul Osborne, Poole, Dorset
In answer to your question, I am led to believe the drilling platform was on contract to British Petroleum from an American company, the drilling staff are all American born, and the oil was bound for the United States to prop up their incessant demand for more fuel.
To me this is simply President Obama appeasing his country by saying what they want to hear, that a British and successful British company has caused the disaster, and we must pay, no mention of American investors, American involvement, or American responsibilities, and even less about the lives of those lost in the explosion and following fire.
America wanted deep sea drilling they now have the biggest environmental disaster on their doorstep.
Will they now stop their greed for more oil at any cost or will they return to safe locations of extraction?
I hope BP can claw back some of the money they will lose in fines, and funding the cleanup process from the companies they contracted the work to.
It is always alarming when production of any material causes pollution but it is one of the chances we take, every day, to have the lifestyles we all want.
Robert Landragin, Enfield, Middlesex