Journalism in the Public Interest

Oil Spill Commission’s Missing Document Adds Insight to Gulf Investigation

A new document uncovered last week might help to clear up some confusion over comments made earlier this month by the Oil Spill Commission’s chief counsel. 


Fred Bartlit, chief counsel of The National Oil Spill Commission, presents preliminary findings on the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout and resulting spill during a two-day public hearing in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 8, 2010. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

A new document uncovered last week might help to clear up some confusion over comments made by the President's Oil Spill Commission earlier this month when its chief counsel, Fred Bartlit Jr., said, "To date we have not seen a single instance where a human being made a conscious decision to favor dollars over safety."

Bartlit's comments made a big splash because they appeared to indicate that the commission was exonerating BP of the allegation that it cut corners on safety in favor of saving money -- seeming to fly in the face of what the press and other investigatory bodies had lately uncovered. Even the Wall Street Journal blogged that Bartlit "all but acquitted BP of the gravest charge."

Bartlit and the commission later backtracked, saying the media reached "overarching conclusions" about his presentation, but that wasn't enough to prevent a group of 60 scientists from publicly challenging the statement.

A new document, however, shows that the commission has in fact been considering harsher conclusions. The report, obtained by Greenwire, highlights 11 potentially time-saving (and ultimately cost-saving) decisions made by BP, Transocean and Halliburton that increased the overall risk of the operation.

The document was mistakenly posted to the commission's website earlier this month and quickly taken down, which has led to claims that the commission might be trying to stifle the cost-cutting claim within its own ranks.

But the commission says that's not the case and that the document actually does align with the commission's findings, which are more critical of the companies than has been reported. The only reason the document was removed was that it hadn't yet been viewed by all seven members of the panel, commission spokesman Dave Cohen told ProPublica.

"We stand behind the document 100 percent," he said, adding that it will likely be presented formally at the commission's meetings this week. Cohen said Bartlit felt "extremely misunderstood" after his earlier comments and that he was only trying to avoid blaming the 11 workers who died on the Deepwater Horizon.

"He was trying to be extremely respectful to the men who lost their lives and the fact that they could not speak for themselves," Cohen said. "And in his view, everything he saw was that they were doing their jobs well, and it wasn't their fault."

Here's more of Bartlit's statement (you can view an archive video here), which he made as part of a two-day presentation on Nov. 8 and 9.

"It won't surprise you to learn that the out-of-pocket, all-in cost to somebody like BP of running one of these rigs is about $1.5 million a day, and of course if you're taking four or five days running drill strings up and down to do work, that's a cost. Now I'm going to say something now, I'll say it again at the end: To date, we have not seen a single instance, where a human being made a conscious decision to favor dollars over safety. I'll talk more about that later but it's important you keep that in your mind as we go. There's been a lot said about it. ... We have not found a situation where we could say a man had a choice between safety and dollars and put his money on dollars, we haven't seen it. And if anybody has anything like that, we of course welcome it."

The point was also highlighted in the panel's preliminary findings: "No evidence at this time to suggest that there was a conscious decision to sacrifice safety concerns to save money," reads the preliminary report.

The new document, though, explicitly lists decisions -- such as "not waiting for more centralizers" -- as risky, unnecessary and less time consuming.

Bartlit, 78, has been criticized by environmental groups because his firm, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, has represented Halliburton in past litigation. He also represented George W. Bush in Florida in the 2000 election dispute versus Al Gore.

Cohen defended Bartlit, noting that even though the panel lacks subpoena power, Bartlit was able to persuade Halliburton to provide documents showing the company knew the cement used in the Macondo well had problems. Bartlit has other experience in offshore investigations; he played a major role in the investigation of the 1989 Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea, where 167 people were killed.

Cohen insists the panel is not trying to exonerate any of the companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

"We only ask that people judge us by the final report that is due out January 11," Cohen said. "The fact of the matter is that this commission has serious doubts about some of the decisions made by all three of the companies that were involved in the Macondo well."

There is so much that is being covered up on this thing. It reeks of corruption. I personally know people on the ground in the gulf and what is not being told is truly the crime of the century. MSM is absolutely worthless. Right now, this world is f#$ed up beyond recognition and until the idiots are moved out of power and the plutocracy is brought under control, there is little if no hope at all of resolving anything in a sane and proper manner.

Daniel Robert Snodgrass

Nov. 30, 2010, 7:52 p.m.

I wish Tony Hayward was still in charge…at least then BP would be under the microscope.

What I want to know is: What happened to the oil that is deep in the ocean, that got away from the recovery efforts so far? What is going to be done with this problem before it comes back to bite us in the behind at a time in the future?

John Que 3000

Dec. 2, 2010, 9:01 a.m.

Does anyone really expect any different decision than a full clearing of BP?

Now the focus should turn to the illegal dealings Ken Feinberg is committing while acting as chief negotiator for the BP recovery fund. He is seen laughing and joking after each town hall meeting, while he denies valid claims causing harm to Gulf Coast State Businesses and families.
If anyone were to look to a Jew to model Hitler after, Feinberg is the man. He is a vile & evil man that makes all Jews look bad.

Truth Seeker

Dec. 2, 2010, 5 p.m.

What about the now “disappeared” BP database of disaster mitigation ideas? What happened to that and did the commission look into that? Why didn’t the Coast Guard release this database for review by other scientists and journalists?

This article is part of an ongoing investigation:

Gulf Oil Spill

The BP oil disaster in the Gulf has had untold health, economic and environmental effects.

Get Updates

Our Hottest Stories