Tony Hayward (BP) Testifying Before Congress
 

I don't know if any of you have been watching this on any of the news channels today, but I have taken an interest in this issue over the past few months so I'm trying to keep as up to date as possible.

What they're trying to do in 'Congress' today seems, to me, to be a little short of disgraceful.

Firstly since they are actually carrying out an investigation into this while it is ongoing, rather than after it has been stopped. And secondly that they're expecting Hayward to admit liability where there are no hard facts to back it up.

For an example they are repeatedly asking him if this disaster is down to BP's cutting of costs and time. How, if they can't actually establish what exactly failed and why, is he supposed to be able to answer that? Logic would suggest it's impossible, unless of course the facts don't matter, which is something I am increasingly inclined to think.

What kind of system is this? First we have the laws disregarded in the creation of this fund, and now this!

They are also repeatedly mentioning the fact that workers on the Gulf coast are out of work because of this disaster and, presumably, because of Tony Hayward's actions in cutting costs and time, which, again, are not backed up with proof at this point. Of course they are in fact out of work because the U.S. government decided to put them out of work! Another bright idea.

What is the actual point of this hearing if it isn't political point scoring with the public? To waste time and money?

I know people complain about systems in this country, but what kind of system is that! It certainly doesn't seem like democracy. An utter farse.

Been watching this myself, not sure who the committee man was but i'd like the MMS to be stood up there as well as BP :thumb:

I took the big song and dance about making BP pay as a sure fire indicator that the US is rather strapped for cash and having to pay for anything like this would leave them cleaned out and in trouble - even if it was only up front before they sued BP.

If I was Hayward I would have referred the Congressional Committee to their constant accusations of British Petroleum, and would have told them he is CEO of BP, and they have the wrong man.

After all this time, there feckwits can't even get the company name right.

Mind you, I'd be p1ssed as well.

As far as I know there is no immediate concrete plan that will deffo stop this leak... it could go on for months yet before the leak can be stopped!

He does strike me as a bit wet to be fair. I heard some of the questions on the way home tonight. He didn't say much of use and his knowledge of operations was rather (erm, how shall I say this).. lacking.

Its funny how Haliburton are involved in this little sh itstorm as well, but you don't seem to see their name headlining american news programmes

Omaha Beach is trying to deflect *blame* for this onto Johnny Foreigner to try to help the Democrats with the Nov. (Nov ??) elections. He doesn't seem to mention his own total inaction in the first month or so after the leak.

Dave

he should have got advice from Gorgeous George who literally tore his investigating committe a new ar5ehole

always worth a second view

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyyGo...eature=related

Regardless of whether you like him or not, that was brilliant. It's not court of law, it's a witch hunt, as anyone with a bit of common sense would see yesterday.

Id wind him up just to see him spouting , hes an actor ffs !



On another note , is it actually possible that Bp could be banned from american soil as a result of all this? :confused:

Takes the pi55 IMO.

The US is the main driver for the continued use of oil. You can't tell me that the US government along with oil companies don't deliberately hold back the development of alternative fuels to keep us all hooked on oil.

Then an oil company screws up and the US are all over them and IMO making BP sound like a terroist organisation. It flaming stinks.

It was basically akin to a public flogging in my opinion. :nono:

I agree with OP 100% and I, too, instantly thought of Geo Galloway!

dl

Then again, why would the CEO actually need to know technical details of how an oil rig works, or what specific procedures were undertaken at that particular well? Just because he represents the company, or is the person on whom responsibility is ultimately placed, doesn't suddenly make him an expert - that's what engineers and technicians are for.

IMHO it has more to do with the people of the US wanting to see someone blamed for damaging THEIR country. I was in Texas on 9/11 and the atmosphere surrounding the local people was scary... they were indignant that anyone would dare attack "the greatest country in the world" and wanted to go to war with anyone who could possibly be held responsible. I couldn't get home fast enough... :(

Last night on Mock the week someone joked about it being ironic because oil was actually invading America.

Complete hypocrites:

"On 1 May this year a ruptured ExxonMobil pipeline in the state of Akwa Ibom (Nigeria) spilled more than a million gallons into the delta over seven days before the leak was stopped. Local people demonstrated against the company but say they were attacked by security guards. Community leaders are now demanding $1bn in compensation for the illness and loss of livelihood they suffered. Few expect they will succeed. In the meantime, thick balls of tar are being washed up along the coast.

A 2009 report by Amnesty calculated that at least 9m barrels of oil had been spilled over the years. These figures suggest that, every year, an equivalent amount to that lost in the Gulf of Mexico so far is spilled in the Niger delta".

Don't see any US environmentalists coming up with that stuff...

If that's true that's amazing!

Exactly. He actually had a technical adviser there that he could consult if necessary, but the questions he was being asked were basically in an attempt to get him to admit liability. And they repeatedly asked him about whether costs and time saving contributed to this. Now it may have done, but surely until hard facts are established and they know what caused this, they cannot possibly confirm or deny anything? Any comments made on the matter would be purely speculation and have no place in any sort of legal proceedings?

We all know what this is about. It's about immediately branding someone a scapegoat and diverting attention away anyone else in the run up to these elections over there. Most of the members of the committee had something to gain by being there yesterday.

Totally outrageous. 'Stonewalling', as they put it, was Hayward's right, and he certainly did the right thing yesterday. I only hope he can keep it up.

funny how yanks never want to take the blame for there own greed which american department signed the agreement and which american company who just coincidently have a bad record for safety ran the rig funny how there not in the lime light :Suspiciou:Suspiciou

Yes, incidents like that are pretty much ignored by the media over there I would imagine. Surely the American public don't want to read that their companies are anything but angelic? Of course it's also forcibly ignored by the U.S. Government. There are no legal proceedings there you'll notice.

I'm not getting on my moral high horse btw. I can't say I'd be that affected if it was a British company responsible for polluting some third world country, but I certainly wouldn't be hypocritical enough to want the British government to take action like the U.S. government are taking now if our own country was affected by something like this.

I am amazed you are amazed quite frankly

I know - I'd be furious if there was millions of gallons of oil washing up here but I like to think that we'd be attacking the corporates responsible not a nation.

Corporates responsible here are Transocean and Halliburton (both US) and BP ultimately as the field owner and producer. Not hearing much about the 2 US companies despite them being the actual rig operators...

Having said all that, the strange thing here is that the Blow Out Preventer which every oil well uses has multiple failsafe lock outs, all of which seem to have been ineffectual at the same time, which is pretty unprecedented as far as I can make out. I suspect that's nothing to do with "shoddy maintenance" as BP is being accused of, but is some fundamental catastrophic failure that no oil company in the world would have been catering for. The joke is that the US companies in the Gulf are allegedly far more lax at ongoing maintenance and safety than any of the Uk or European companies according to some friends who work in the industry and have spent many years in the Gulf on many differnet platforms.

Hayward stonewalled alright but it wan't a convincing performance - he probably knows he's done for so it must be hard to muster up the required vigour

Watching this on the News reminds me of why I hate those smug smarmy ****s we call Americans. Any other nation would have my sympathy but its so hard to feel anything but hate for such a self righteous nation of fat ****s.

the intelligent ones are ok unfortunately there are very very few of them

I listened to an hour or so last night and some technical details were discussed. They rated the oil well at 11,000 psi and had a blow out preventer rated at 15,000 psi - which is the highest rated on the market. The (American) company who makes them is reportedly "hurriedly" designing a 20,000 psi blow out preventer.

I reckon they got some maths wrong and simply f*cked it up... which in turn overloaded everything else in the chain and caused the explosion on the surface.

I'll put a fiver on it (says the internet bloke who doesn't know what he's talking about)!

echo echo echo ...

that will be yet another american company then

lol. I've never seen that before, good on him :thumb:

i wonder if the idiots that chanted drill baby drill at the Florida presidential conventions regret it - or see the irony of it

be careful what you wish for

don't forget to watch part 2