U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

77–914 2013

THE ROLE OF BP IN THE DEEPWATER HORIZON 

EXPLOSION AND OIL SPILL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 17, 2010 

Serial No. 111–137 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

BART STUPAK, Michigan, Chairman 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

Vice Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Ranking Member 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 28 

Hon. John Sullivan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 29 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 30 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 31 

Hon. Bruce L. Braley, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 32 

Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 33 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 34 

Hon. Parker Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama, opening statement .................................................................................... 35 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 36 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Hon. Mike Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 42 

Hon. Donna M. Christensen, a Representative in Congress from the Virgin 

Islands, opening statement ................................................................................. 42 

Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 43 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 44 

Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 45 

WITNESSES

Tony Hayward, Chief Executive Officer, BP PLC ................................................. 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Submission for the record by Mr. Scalise .............................................................. 136 

Letter of June 14, 2010, from the Committee to Mr. Hayward ........................... 228 

E-mail on BOP problems, dated November, 2009 ................................................. 242 

Transocean abnormality report on BOP, dated November, 2009 ........................ 244 

Transocean letter on BOP modifications, dated October 11, 2004 ...................... 247 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE ROLE OF BP IN THE DEEPWATER 

HORIZON EXPLOSION AND OIL SPILL 

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Stupak [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Stupak, Braley, Markey, DeGette, 

Doyle, Schakowsky, Ross, Christensen, Welch, Green, Sutton, Dingell (ex officio), Waxman (ex officio), Burgess, Sullivan, Blackburn, 

Gingrey, Latta, and Barton (ex officio). 

Also Present: Representatives Engel, Harman, Capps, Inslee, 

Gonzalez, Weiner, Melancon, Castor, Upton, Stearns, and Scalise. 

Staff Present: Phil Barnett, Staff Director; Bruce Wolpe, Senior 

Advisor; Greg Dotson, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; 

Michal Freedhoff, Counsel; Robb Cobbs, Policy Analyst; Caitlin 

Haberman, Special Assistant; Peter Kethcham-Colwill, Special Assistant; Dave Leviss, Chief Oversight Counsel; Meredith Fuchs, 

Chief Investigative Counsel; Alison Cassady, Professional Staff 

Member; Molly Gaston, Counsel; Ali Golden, Professional Staff 

Member; Jennifer Owens, Investigator; Scott Schloegel, Investigator; Ali Neubauer, Special Assistant; Derrick Franklin, Detailee; 

Karen Lightfoot, Communications Director, Senior Policy Advisor; 

Elizabeth Letter, Special Assistant; Lindsay Vidal, Special Assistant; Earley Green, Chief Clerk; Mitchell Smiley, Special Assistant; 

Alan Slobodin, Chief Minority Counsel; Mary Neumayr, Minority 

Counsel; Peter Spencer, Minority Professional Staff; Kevin Kohl, 

Minority Professional Staff; Garrett Golding, Minority Legislative 

Analyst; and Jeanne Neal, Minority Research Analyst. 

Mr. STUPAK. This meeting will come to order. We are going to 

ask the press to please clear. 

This hearing of the subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce 

Committee, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 

will commence. 

Today we have a hearing titled, ‘‘The Role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon Explosion and Oil Spill.’’ 

We have a number of Members present for this hearing who are 

not members of the subcommittee but are members of the full Energy and Commerce Committee. I welcome them, and I note that 

they will be allowed to submit written statements for the record 

but will not deliver verbal opening statements. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

In addition, after all subcommittee members complete their questioning, full committee members will be allowed to ask questions. 

Members who are not on the subcommittee or on the Energy and 

Commerce Committee are welcome to observe, but they will not be 

permitted to provide opening statements or ask questions, due to 

time constraints. 

The chairman, ranking member, and chairman emeritus will be 

recognized for 5-minute opening statements. Other members of the 

committee will be recognized for 3-minute opening statements. 

I will yield to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, 

for the first opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for holding this important hearing. 

And, Mr. Hayward, thank you for being here today. 

Yesterday, BP pledged to establish a $20 billion escrow account 

and to suspend its dividend payments for the rest of the year. I am 

sure these were not easy decisions for you, but they were the right 

ones, and I commend you for them. 

Congress has multiple committees examining the gulf oil spill. 

Some are evaluating the impact of the spill. Some are working on 

the reorganization of the regulatory agencies. And some, including 

Chairman Markey’s subcommittee, are drafting legislation to reform our oil exploration laws. 

You are testifying today before the Oversight and Investigation 

Subcommittee, and this subcommittee has a special role: to examine the facts and determine what went wrong and to make recommendations to prevent future spills. 

When it is time for questioning, I and other members of the subcommittee will ask you about a series of internal BP documents. 

They appear to show that BP repeatedly took shortcuts that endangered lives and increased the risks of a catastrophic blowout. And 

I sent you a letter in advance indicating that we are going to question you about those issues. 

But what is equally important is what is missing from the documents. When you became CEO of BP, you promised to focus ‘‘like 

a laser on safe and reliable operations.’’ We wanted to know what 

you had done to keep this promise, so we asked what e-mails you 

had received, what documents you had reviewed about the Deepwater Horizon rig or the Macondo well before the blowout. 

Deepwater drilling is inherently dangerous. As the entire country 

now knows, an uncontrolled blowout can kill rig workers and cause 

an environmental disaster. We wanted to know whether you were 

briefed about the risks and were monitoring the safety of the drilling operation. 

We could find no evidence that you paid any attention to the tremendous risks BP was taking. We have reviewed 30,000 pages of 

documents from BP, including your e-mails. There is not a single 

e-mail or document that shows you paid even the slightest attention to the dangers at this well. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

You are the CEO, so we considered the possibility that you may 

have delegated the oversight responsibility to someone else. We reviewed the e-mails and briefing documents received by Andy Inglis, 

the chief executive for exploration and production, and Doug 

Suttles, the chief operating officer for exploration and production 

and the person now leading BP’s response to the spill. 

According to BP, these are the senior officials who were responsible for the Macondo well. But they, too, were apparently oblivious 

to what was happening. We can find no evidence that either of 

them received any e-mails or briefings about the Deepwater Horizon rig or drilling activities at the well. 

BP’s corporate complacency is astonishing. 

The drilling engineer for the rig called Macondo a ‘‘nightmare 

well.’’ Other BP employees predicted that the cement job would fail. 

Halliburton warned of a ‘‘SEVERE gas flow problem.’’ These warnings fell on deaf ears. 

BP’s corporate attitude may be best summed up in an e-mail 

from its operations drilling engineer who oversaw BP’s team of 

drilling engineers. After learning of the risks and BP’s decision to 

ignore them, he wrote, quote, ‘‘Who cares, it’s done, end of story, 

will probably be fine,’’ end quote. 

There is a complete contradiction between BP’s words and deeds. 

You were brought in to make safety the top priority of BP, but 

under your leadership, BP has taken the most extreme risks. BP 

cut corner after corner to save a million dollars here, a few hours 

or days there, and now the whole gulf coast is paying the price. 

Today’s hearing will focus on BP’s actions, but we learned from 

our hearing earlier this week that the other oil companies are just 

as unprepared to deal with a massive spill as BP. We are seeing 

in the oil industry the same corporate indifference to risk that 

caused the collapse on Wall Street. 

And that is why reform is so urgently needed. Part of this reform 

must be legislation to put teeth into our regulatory system, but 

part must also be a transition to a clean energy economy. We are 

addicted to oil. This addiction is fouling our beaches, polluting our 

atmosphere, and undermining our national security. We can’t snap 

our fingers or transform our energy economy overnight, but we 

need to start down a path to a clean energy future. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today’s hearing. 

And, Mr. Hayward, I thank you for appearing and cooperating 

with our investigation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 77914A.001
5 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 77914A.002
6 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 77914A.003
7 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We will next go to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Barton of Texas. Mr. Burgess and I will do our openings after the 

chair and the ranking. 

Mr. Barton, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Hayward, for appearing before us. 

We have kind of a dual track under way, in my opinion. We obviously are trying to gather the facts of what happened in the oil 

spill in the Gulf of Mexico a month and a half ago, trying to find 

out the causes of that spill, what can be done to prevent it in the 

future. And we are obviously very concerned about the mitigation 

and the cleanup. 

We have a system in America, built up based on the British tradition over 200 years, of due process and fairness, where people 

that do bad things, in this case a corporation that is responsible 

for a bad accident, we want to hold them responsible, do what we 

can to make the liable parties pay for the damages. 

Mr. Stupak and Mr. Waxman are doing an excellent job, working 

with Dr. Burgess and myself, in conducting, I think, a very fair 

oversight investigation. We are going to get into a number of those 

issues in this hearing, and we are going to ask you some pretty 

tough questions. 

I am speaking totally for myself. I am not speaking for the Republican Party. I am not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives but myself. But I am ashamed of what happened in 

the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would 

characterize as a shakedown—in this case, a $20 billion shakedown—with the Attorney General of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right 

to do so to protect the interests of the American people, participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that is unprecedented in our Nation’s history, that has no legal standing, and 

which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future. 

If I called you into my office and I had the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Stupak, with me, who was legitimately conducting an 

oversight investigation on your company, and said, ‘‘If you put so 

many millions of dollars into a project in my congressional district,’’ 

I could go to jail and should go to jail. 

Now, there is no question that British Petroleum owns this lease. 

There is no question that BP—I am sorry, it is not ‘‘British Petroleum’’ anymore—that BP made decisions that objective people 

think compromised safety. There is no question that BP is liable 

for the damages. But we have a due process system where we go 

through hearings, in some cases court cases, litigation, and determine what those damages are and when those damages should be 

paid. 

So I am only speaking for myself. I am not speaking for anybody 

else. But I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where, any 

time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that, again, in 

my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize. 

But on this hearing today, I am with Mr. Waxman, with Mr. Stupak. There are questions that need to be asked, that are legitimate, 

because we don’t want another oil spill of this magnitude or of any 

magnitude in the Gulf of Mexico. And if this subcommittee can do 

things that make it much more difficult for this type of an incident 

to occur in the future, then we will have done our work for the 

American people. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 77914A.004
10 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 77914A.005
11 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 77914A.006
12 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 77914A.007
13 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 77914A.008
14 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Barton. 

I will do my opening statement now. 

Today is the 59th day of the BP oil spill that has devastated 

much of the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven men lost their lives the day the 

Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, and in the 59 days that 

have followed, countless people have lost their livelihood, as the oil 

spill closes fishing grounds and pollutes the shores of the three 

States. 

This is the third hearing the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee has held and the fifth hearing overall in the Energy and 

Commerce Committee. Our first hearing exposed problems discovered with the blowout preventer and several other factors that contributed to the disaster. Our second hearing was a field hearing in 

New Orleans where we heard from the widows of two men who 

died in the Deepwater Horizon explosion as well as shrimpers and 

other small-business owners who have suffered from the environmental catastrophe that followed. 

Our staff has spent weeks combing through hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, sitting through more than 50 hours 

of briefings by corporate, governmental, and academic experts, in 

an attempt to piece together what went wrong with BP exploration 

of the Macondo well. We have reviewed several questionable decisions made by BP in the days and hours leading up to the explosion, and what we have learned so far is alarming. 

We have learned that, time after time, BP had warning signs 

that this was, as one employee put it, a ‘‘nightmare well.’’ BP made 

choices that set safety aside in exchange for cost-cutting and timesaving decisions. 

For example: BP disregarded questionable results from pressure 

tests after cementing in the well. 

BP selected the riskier of two options for their well design. They 

could have hung a liner from the lower end of the casing already 

in the well and install a tieback on the top of the liner, which 

would have provided additional barriers to the release of hydrocarbons. Instead, they lowered a full string of new casing, which 

took less time and cost less but did not provide the same protection 

against escaping hydrocarbons. 

BP was warned by their cement contractor Halliburton that the 

well could have a ‘‘SEVERE gas flow problem’’ if BP lowered the 

final string of casing with only six centralizers instead of the 21 

Halliburton recommended. BP rejected Halliburton’s advice to use 

additional centralizers. In an e-mail on April 16th, a BP official involved in the decision explained, and I quote, ‘‘It will take 10 hours 

to install them. I do not like this,’’ end of quote. 

BP chose not to fully circulate the mud in the well from the bottom to the top, which was an industry-recommended best practice 

that would have allowed them to test for gas in the mud. 

BP chose not to use a casing hanger lockdown sleeve, which 

would have provided extra protection against a blowout from below. 

These are just a few of the issues that led to the disaster. Once 

the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank to the bottom of the sea, 

BP’s response to contain the leak and clean up the spilled oil was 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

equally as poor. They issued lowball estimates of the amount of oil 

flowing from the well, which may have led to a scaled-back response. 

We discovered that BP’s oil spill response plan was virtually 

identical to other oil companies’ plans. In a hearing Tuesday, 

ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson admitted that once the spills occur, 

he says, quote, ‘‘We are not well-equipped to handle them,’’ end of 

quote. All the other oil companies testified at Tuesday’s hearings 

that they would not have drilled the well as BP did. 

Our witness today, Mr. Tony Hayward, is the chief executive officer of BP. Shortly after Mr. Hayward took over as the CEO in 

2007, he held a town hall meeting with employees in Houston. At 

this meeting, he discussed the need for BP to be leaner, with fewer 

people in decision-making processes. 

This article—and I will ask you put up the Guardian article—an 

article from September 27, 2007, Guardian newspaper in London, 

entitled, ‘‘Hayward Says Oil Company Has Become Too Cautious,’’ 

reads, and I quote, ‘‘’Assurance is killing us,’ Mr. Hayward told 

U.S. staff, noting that too many people were engaged in decisionmaking, leading to excessive cautiousness, something that critics of 

its safety performance in the U.S. might question.’’ 

Let me put up these other notes from the same meeting. We received notes from BP of employees and their note-taking from this 

meeting. The employee notes summarize Mr. Hayward’s statements 

as follows: ‘‘I don’t think having all these layer of assurance reduce 

risk, and it can actually increase it. The best way to reduce risk 

is to have deep technical competence where we need it. Individuals 

need to be accountable for risk and to manage it,’’ end of quote. 

I find this cavalier attitude towards assessing risk unbelievable, 

given the fact that, at the time of these statements, BP had just 

been responsible for the largest oil leak in Alaska’s history on the 

North Slope, as well as the 2005 Texas City refinery explosion, 

which killed 15 workers and injured another 170. 

I must ask, Mr. Hayward, whether it was wise to adopt this leaner decision-making process with input from fewer people and a new 

approach to managing risk. 

Under the leadership of Bob Malone, the former chairman and 

president of BP America, BP created an independent office of the 

ombudsman, headed by Judge Stanley Sporkin. The ombudsman’s 

office was established because line workers reported fearing retaliation if they reported safety concerns to management. 

When the current chairman and president, Lamar McKay, took 

over, I met with him, and he suggested that he hoped to improve 

the culture enough to make the ombudsman office unnecessary so 

he could shut it down. I urged him not to eliminate the office because it serves a significant role in investigating employee complaints. 

I am more concerned now than ever about BP’s safety and the 

role they take in assuming risk. I am concerned that the corporate 

culture, from BPCEO Tony Hayward down to chairman and president of BP America, Lamar McKay, and Chief Operating Officer 

Doug Suttles, that there is a willingness to cut costs and take 

greater risks. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

I look forward to hearing Mr. Hayward answer the many hardhitting questions that our committee members will ask today. I 

hope we will hear honest, contrite, and substantive answers. 

Mr. Hayward, you owe it to all Americans. We are not ‘‘small 

people,’’ but we wish to get our lives back. For the Americans who 

live and work on the gulf coast, it may be years before they get 

their lives back. For the Americans who lost their lives on the rig, 

their families may never get their lives back. 

Mr. Hayward, I am sure you will get your life back, and with a 

golden parachute back to England. But we in America are left with 

the terrible consequences of BP’s reckless disregard for safety. 

I yield back my time and turn to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Burgess, for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stupak follows:] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 77914A.009
18 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 77914A.010
19 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Chairman Stupak. 

Today does open our third hearing, and a very critical hearing, 

into this subcommittee’s ongoing investigation into the tragic accident of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, which continues 24 hours a day to wreak economic and environmental havoc 

on our gulf coast. 

This hearing provides the subcommittee with an important opportunity to directly question the man who ultimately leads BP, 

Mr. Tony Hayward, the company’s chief executive officer. And BP’s 

role has been central to the causes of the incident and to the response. 

Over the course of our inquiry to date, committee investigators, 

working in a bipartisan fashion, have conducted numerous interviews and briefings and reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents. Our subcommittee staff has done an excellent job. And this 

subcommittee has been focused on gathering the facts, rather than 

rushing to judgment. 

And from this intensive effort, we have begun to identify a number of serious questions about BP’s decision-making that led up to 

the disaster. Exploring these and related questions today will help 

us identify for Congress and identify for the country what went 

wrong on April 20th and the days thereafter. 

And while we are investigating, a picture of the chain of events 

leading to this incident is emerging. Mr. Chairman, you and Chairman Waxman recently outlined some critical questions that we 

hope Mr. Hayward will address. For example, you noted the investigation has identified questionable choices by BP engineers to use 

a particular well design over another one that would appear to 

have provided more built-in barriers to an uncontrolled gas discharge. 

There was the choice made by BP to move forward with what appears to be an inadequate cementing plan and the related failure, 

despite clear warnings to test that the cement was properly set and 

in place. And it appears there may have been a rush to move off 

this well. Whether there may have been economic or other time or 

performance pressures or some combination thereof, it is not clear, 

but that clarity needs to emerge today. 

The questions arising from our investigation outline the central 

role that BP’s decision-making appears to have had in this incident. We need to understand that decision-making, Mr. Hayward, 

what factors influenced it, whether the decisions reflected a management and an operational mindset that failed—failed to maximize safety in a challenging deep-sea environment. 

It is important to note that the picture developing from this investigation is not one of technological limits in deep-sea drilling. 

The construction of an 18,000-foot well was not pushing the envelope of engineering know-how, so far as we have identified. But the 

picture developing is one of unsafe industry practices. Although 

clear, more focused industry standards may be in order going forward, available evidence suggests that the use of best industry 

practices would have resulted in more cautious designs and more 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

testing, more safeguards, and ultimately no loss of control of the 

well. 

Rather, and quite clearly, the picture developing from our investigation is one of questionable decision-making, decision-making by 

people charged with designing and successfully drilling, constructing, and controlling a well that was a mile under water. It 

is a picture composed of a series of choices which, taken together, 

created an oil well particularly vulnerable to a blowout and of all 

the people who may have been distracted, unaware, or resistant to 

recognizing the problems around them. 

Documents show that BP was prepared to run a test on the quality of the cement job but chose not to. I can’t understand why, 

given the history of this particular well, with four previous well 

control incidents in the 2 months prior to April 20th. The rig personnel appear to have taken their eye off the ball. 

BP employees were the key decision-makers. Certainly, others— 

contractors, subcontractors, certainly Federal regulators—may 

have contributed to this incident. The role of the Federal Government especially, including the overall effectiveness of the response 

and the efforts to help those harmed by the incident, remains a 

critical piece that, Mr. Chairman, we must pursue at the level of 

this committee. And I am still disappointed that we have not done 

that. 

But it is BP’s decision-making about the well design, the cementing program, the preparation, the integrity test, or the lack thereof, 

or just the general lack of curiosity as to why these would be necessary, the failure to follow best practices, that our investigation to 

date is showing were critical factors in this incident. 

But this decision-making is difficult to square with avowed priorities of BP’s chief executive. Mr. Hayward, in an interview before 

you became chief executive, you described how the death of a worker in an operation that you were leading in Venezuela shaped your 

opinions. You said, and I am quoting, ‘‘I went to the funeral to pay 

my respects. At the end of the service, his mother came up to me 

and beat me on the chest. ’Why did you let it happen?’ she asked. 

It changed the way I think about safety. Leaders must make safety 

of all who work for them a priority,’’ end quote. 

Mr. Hayward, I respectfully request that you answer this question in your opening statement, if not for me, then for the two ladies who testified before our committee at the field hearing who 

lost their husbands on the Deepwater Horizon. You have been chief 

executive since 2007. You said safety is your number-one priority 

and you would focus like a laser beam on safety. 

As chief executive, one would expect your directives and priorities would be carried out by your employees. We have now learned 

from this investigation that BP employees made five critical decisions that may have contributed to well failure where well safety 

was traded off. In fact, it was not the priority. 

So, today, will you assert before this subcommittee that all decisions by BP employees related to the Deepwater Horizon reflected 

your priority—your priority—of safety first? 

Mr. Chairman, the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico shows the consequence of a series of unchecked bad decisions. We in Congress 

and the Federal Government must also be mindful of the conVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 Mar 04, 2013 Jkt 077914 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A914.XXX A914

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

sequences of bad decision-making. At a field hearing last week in 

Chalmette, Louisiana, the subcommittee heard some of the administration’s decisions are threatening the livelihoods of workers and 

families who depend upon the energy industry. We have killed half 

of their fishing with the Deepwater Horizon spill, and it looks like 

we are going to kill the other half of their economy with our moratorium. 

Our hearing today looks at the consequence of bad decisions and 

the lessons learned. May we have the wisdom and humility to take 

some of those lessons and apply them to ourselves. 

And I will yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 77914A.011
23 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 77914A.012
24 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 77914A.013
25 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 77914A.014
26 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 77914A.015
27 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 77914A.016
28 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Burgess. 

I would next like to turn to the chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and chairman of the Select Committee on 

Climate, Mr. Markey, 5 minutes for an opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

I want to begin by disagreeing in the strongest possible terms 

with what Mr. Barton said in his opening statement. 

Not only is the compensation fund that was created yesterday at 

the White House in an agreement reached between BP and President Obama not a slush fund and not a shakedown; rather, it was 

the Government of the United States working to protect the most 

vulnerable citizens that we have in our country right now, the residents of the gulf. It is BP’s spill, but it is America’s ocean and it 

is American citizens who are being harmed. 

We cannot wait, as unfortunately so many citizens who were victims of the Exxon Valdez spill had to wait years in order to see 

those families compensated. We can’t lose sight of the fact that the 

1984 Bhopal disaster and the lawsuits that were related to it were 

only settled last week. We have to ensure that the citizens of the 

gulf are protected. 

In a hearing which this subcommittee conducted in New Orleans 

last Monday, we heard from a fisherman who brought absolutely 

impeccable records which proved that he and his family had made 

$27,000 last May. And, after examining the documents, BP gave 

the family $5,000. 

The families in the gulf will be crushed financially unless this 

compensation fund is put into place. As each day and week and 

month goes by, the history of these families are going to be altered, 

and permanently altered, unless they are given the financial capacity to take care of their loved ones, their children, their families. 

That is why this compensation fund is so important. That is why 

it is not a slush fund. That is why it is not a shakedown. 

It is, in fact, President Obama ensuring that a company which 

has despoiled the waters of our Nation is made accountable for the 

harm which is done to our people—a company which said for the 

first week that it was only 1,000 barrels of oil per day, when we 

now know that they knew it was at least 1,000 to 14,000 barrels; 

a company which continues to deny that there are underwater toxic 

plumes; a company which has not been providing the proper protective gear for the workers in the gulf; a company which contended 

it could respond to a spill of 250,000 barrels per day. 

No, this is not a shakedown of their company. This is the American Government, President Obama ensuring that this company is 

made accountable and sending a signal to all other companies that 

seek to treat ordinary American families in a way that can destroy 

their entire family’s history. 

This is, in my opinion, the American Government working at its 

best. This is creating truly the kind of partnership between the 

public and private sector that can make sure that innocent victims 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

are not roadkill as a result of corporate plans that did not actually 

factor in the harm that can occur to ordinary families. 

So I just could not disagree more strongly. I think that this is, 

in my opinion, one of the most important hearings that this Congress will ever have, because it is sending a signal to any corporations out there, including the ones that testified on Tuesday that 

all admitted that they had no plans either to respond to the harm 

which could be done in the gulf if one of their rigs had the same 

kind of catastrophic event, that they will be made accountable. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

And I thank you, Mr. Hayward, because yesterday was the day 

where the page began to be turned and we moved to a new era 

where, in fact, your company is made accountable and the citizens 

of the gulf are made whole. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Markey. 

I next turn to Mr. Sullivan for an opening statement. Three minutes, please, sir. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Chairman Stupak, thank you for holding this 

hearing today. 

On April 20, 2010, a fire and explosion occurred on the British 

Petroleum-Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. This 

terrible disaster resulted in the loss of 11 lives and injured many 

more members of the 126-person crew. 

There is no question that the BP oil spill is a tragedy. In fact, 

it is the worst environmental disaster in our Nation’s history. I believe we must do everything in our power to cap the leak, find out 

what caused the explosion, and ensure nothing like this ever happens again. 

BP must bear the entire financial burden for this disaster, and 

the American taxpayer should not be on the hook for a dime. 

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 

there is mounting evidence that BP has one of the worst safety 

records of any major oil company operating in the United States. 

To this end, I am looking forward to examining with Mr. Hayward 

whether there is a deficient safety culture at BP that led to this 

disaster and other recent ones, including the BP refinery explosion 

in 2005 in Texas City, Texas, and a BP pipeline spill in 2007 which 

released 200,000 gallons of oil into the Alaskan wilderness. 

Mr. Hayward, why is BP’s record on safety so spotty? 

What is equally as important as our efforts to combat the spill 

is the knee-jerk legislative reaction from this Congress. Right now, 

the administration and their allies in the House are more focused 

on the politics of putting the oil and gas industry out of business 

than on solutions to the problem. 

Instead of working in a bipartisan way to push for rigorous safety standards on all offshore rigs, the administration is exploiting 

this disaster to advance this disastrous cap-and-trade energy policy, which won’t stop the well from leaking but, rather, will only 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

serve as a national energy tax on the American people, crippling 

our economy and making the unemployment lines longer. 

I believe Congress should work towards implementing rigorous 

safety inspection standards for all offshore rigs, but with nearly 30 

percent of our Nation’s oil and 11 percent of our gas reserves located offshore, a ban on offshore drilling will only put Americans 

out of work. And it will send energy and gas prices through the 

roof and increase our reliance on foreign, imported oil. 

We still have work to do to uncover exactly what went wrong, 

and many questions remain on the ongoing efforts to contain the 

leak. This tragedy should not be used as an excuse to roll back the 

gains we have made in finding new ways to develop our energy resources, as we will need more oil and natural gas to meet the crucial needs of our Nation. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. 

Next we would like to hear from the chairman emeritus of the 

Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell of Michigan, for 5 

minutes, please, sir. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this important hearing today. 

We sit here on day 59 of the worst environmental disaster in the 

history of this country. Eleven people are dead. The already-fragile 

economy of an entire region is in real danger of shattering. We will 

be feeling the environmental consequences for years to come. 

And God Almighty alone knows what the health and environmental effects of the containment and cleanup strategies will be— 

millions of gallons of chemical dispersants and controlled burns. 

Sadly, we can’t even get a decent estimate of the amount of oil and 

gas that is spewing out into the water. 

BP has been before this committee many times, and rarely has 

it been a pleasant meeting, because invariably they have appeared 

here to defend serious failures on the part of the company. The 

company has a history of cutting corners, apparently for the almighty dollar. 

Texas City, they paid there $50 million in criminal fines. Alaska’s North Slope, which was investigated by this subcommittee, 

where a pipe corroded, allowing 1 million liters of oil to spill. In 

each instance, we were hoping, but the assurances given by BP 

that this would not happen again have been, regrettably, untrue. 

In reference to a decision on how to secure the final 1,200 feet 

of the well, a single casing, or tieback, a BP engineer said, ‘‘Not 

running the tieback saves a good deal of time and money.’’ 

In reference to installing more centralizers, BP’s well team leader said, ‘‘It will take 10 hours to install them. I do not like this. 

I am very concerned about using it.’’ So, also, were we. 

On the same matter, BP’s operations drilling engineer said, 

‘‘Even if the hole is perfectly straight, a straight piece of pipe even 

in tension will not seek the center of the hole unless it has something to centralize it.’’ And I want you to listen to this. ‘‘But who 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

cares? It is done. End of story. It will probably be fine’’—and note 

the word ‘‘probably’’—‘‘and we will get a good cement job. I would 

rather have to squeeze than get stuck. So guard right on the riskreward occasion.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, the comments of our witness today reveal little 

sorrow for the events that have occurred. And here he said, ‘‘The 

Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and 

dispersant we are putting in is tiny in relation to the total water 

volume.’’ And then, ‘‘The environmental impact of the disaster is 

likely to be very, very modest.’’ I wonder if he wishes to stand on 

that statement today. 

When Mr. Hayward responded to the claims that cleanup workers were becoming ill because of oil fumes and such, he said this: 

‘‘Food poisoning is clearly a big issue.’’ 

And, finally, most famously, Mr. Hayward informs us he ‘‘wants 

his life back.’’ 

Last year, Mr. Hayward enjoyed a splendid 41 percent pay raise, 

even as BP’s profits dropped 45 percent. Now, I just happen to be 

a poor Polish lawyer from Detroit, but it seems to me that this is 

a curious response to a drop in profits. It makes me wonder what 

the compensation package of our witness will be this year. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for your diligence and hard 

work on this issue. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

today and look forward to working with you on this matter. Thank 

you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Next, Mrs. Blackburn for an opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and 

Ranking Member Burgess for holding the hearing today. 

Mr. Hayward, I thank you for your willingness to testify before 

this committee. 

You know, when news of the BP spill began and information 

about the well started to circulate, it seemed that there were problems not only with BP but also with the MMS bureaucracy and 

that maybe the problem lay there, rather than with anything that 

could have gone wrong with BP, that it was there with MMS. 

What we have learned and confirmed is that that is not correct, 

that the problem does lie with BP in what went wrong. And while 

there are many faults with MMS in doing its job on inspection and 

safety oversight, most of the data now points to wrong decisionmaking by BP’s management. 

And this is not the first time—and we have talked about that in 

several of our opening statements this morning—it is not the first 

time that you have been before this committee on safety problems. 

And, certainly, as recently as the Texas 2005 and Alaska 2007 incidents, which revealed insufficient protocols in BP’s management 

and safety hierarchy, there was this statement from BP that you 

all would, quote/unquote, ‘‘focus like a laser on safety.’’ 

And it is concerning to us that the appearance is, Mr. Hayward, 

that BP has not learned from previous mistakes. So it leaves us 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

asking the questions of you and of BP: Was this accident caused 

by negligence? It was caused by risk-taking? Was it caused by costcutting measures by BP decision-makers? 

And, unfortunately, for citizens, beaches, and wildlife all along 

the coastal region, they are paying a price for those misplaced decisions. BP cannot blame Mother Nature or equipment failure or 

even other subcontractors. Their actions have put at risk the livelihood of communities and businesses that depend on the gulf not 

only for seafood and tourism but also energy production that this 

Nation as a whole relies upon. 

In addition, the current administration also shares a significant 

portion of the blame for the oil spill. I mentioned MMS earlier. And 

the MMS officials approved inadequate spill response plans, and 

field inspectors rubber-stamped inspection papers submitted by oil 

companies. This is another area where we, as Members of Congress, in doing our due diligence, will ask you all and MMS why. 

But what is the most damaging is that the President and senior 

officials knew on day one the blowout preventer was not working 

and knew of the potential spillage. While BP shoulders much of the 

responsibility for this spill, the lack of effort by this administration 

to contain the spill has doomed the economy and wildlife of the gulf 

coast from an oil spill which could have been contained. 

And now, recently imposed drilling moratoriums will further devastate America’s energy production and will destroy hundreds of 

thousands of jobs in the gulf coast region. 

Thank you for being with us today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

We will next turn to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Braley, for an opening statement. Three minutes, please, sir. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, you are not going to get a lecture from me today, 

and you are not going to get an apology either, because we are here 

to get to the bottom of the decision-making process that BP followed, and I think, quite frankly, the people who live along the affected area of the gulf coast deserve those answers from you. 

We were in Chalmette, Louisiana, last week, and we had the opportunity to hear from a variety of individuals whose lives have 

been devastated by this oil disaster. And I use the word ‘‘disaster’’ 

specifically because I don’t think ‘‘spill’’ quite captures the magnitude of what is going on. 

The American people are frustrated because we were first told 

that this was a 1,000-barrel-per-day release, and then about a 

week later that was updated to 5,000 barrels per day, and then at 

the end of May it was adjusted upward to 15,000 to 19,000 barrels 

per day, and then this week we were informed that it could be as 

high as 60,000 barrels per day. That works out to 2.5 million gallons a day, 17.5 million gallons per week. And over the length of 

this disaster, it could be up to the level of the largest release of oil 

in the North American continent in history, unintended. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

One of the things I think we need to know about today is the decisions that your company made and who made them that led to 

this explosion and the subsequent disaster, what your company is 

doing to fix this enormous problem, and about your future commitments to all of the affected workers, families, and communities who 

have been devastated by this disaster. 

And I think it would be helpful for you and everybody in this 

hearing room to hear from the two women who testified at our 

hearing in Louisiana last week, because they raised some very 

pointed questions that were directed to your company, sir. And 

they were questions that were raised after they gave passionate 

testimony of wanting the oil and gas business to continue in Louisiana and the gulf coast region. 

So I would like to have you listen to their comments in the hearing. This is Natalie Roshto. 

[Video played.] 

Mr. BRALEY. These are now widows with small children to take 

care of, and they are the symbols and the faces of this disaster. 

And I look forward to your testimony. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

We will next turn to Mr. Gingrey from Georgia for a 3-minute 

opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to again express my sorrow to the families of those 

who lost their lives on April the 20th, 2010. 

Through all the hearings and legislative consideration, we must 

remember those lives and the lives of their families, as we just 

saw, that were forever changed on that fateful April day. And we 

certainly must continue to keep them in our thoughts and in our 

prayers. 

Further, we have an obligation, not only to those families but 

also to everyone affected by the aftermath, to get to the bottom of 

the causes of this accident and the failure to secure the situation 

and stop the devastation wreaked upon the gulf coast. 

Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity in this oversight hearing 

to ask questions that get to the facts of what happened. However, 

today’s hearing is incomplete. We can only ascertain half of the 

story today because we do not have anyone representing the administration, the Minerals Management Service, to discuss their 

oversight role and their responsibility in ensuring that an accident 

like this didn’t happen. 

Deep-ocean drilling is not new. In fact, we have been doing it for 

decades in the gulf coast. Why did this happen now? I have heard 

some assert that it was the lax oversight of the previous administration that led to this accident. Well, if that is the case, why did 

this not happen during the last decade? Why did this occur almost 

a year and a half into the current administration? 

We need to hear from our own Department of Interior and the 

Minerals Management Service. Certainly, Mr. Hayward should be 

prepared to answer for BP’s responsibility, but we will also need 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

answers from the administration so that we can demand accountability and implement prudent reforms to return us to safe drilling 

in our oceans. Because simply saying ‘‘no’’ to further and new drilling is not a realistic answer. 

I further realize there are some in this administration who have 

a penchant for not letting a crisis go to waste. But for a nation dependent on foreign oil, for a nation with unemployment hovering 

at 10 percent, we can’t just say we can’t do this. We can’t take our 

ball and go home, when the consequences mean a weaker America. 

Everyone dependent on foreign fuels are all too inclined, it seems, 

to let jobs leave this country. 

No, Mr. Chairman. We have to understand what happened on 

and leading up to April 20th. We need to answer those questions 

to determine if the rules or the agency oversight were insufficient 

or if this was purely an act of negligence or wanton disregard for 

sound regulations. Now, we can try to enact the perfect reform that 

ensures this never happens again, but it will not change the path 

or the toll upon the lives forever changed. 

Mr. Hayward, the responsibility to make these families whole 

falls to you and your company, BP. You have an obligation to right 

this wrong, and not only the public trust but also the belief in the 

free market and entrepreneurship demand it. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I await the opportunity to ask questions, 

with the hope that we will soon discuss these same matters with 

our own administration. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Gingrey. 

Ms. DeGette for an opening statement, 3 minutes, please. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, as this is an investigative hearing, 

I will submit my excellent opening statement for the record in 

order to have more time for questioning the witness. 

Mr. STUPAK. Very well. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette was unavailable at the 

time of printing.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Doyle, opening statement? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing 

today so we can begin to understand what went so tragically wrong 

on the Deepwater Horizon. 

We are now 59 days into this environmental and economic tragedy, and oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico. The estimates for how much oil spills into the gulf each day continue to 

rise, and we still have no way to cap the well in the near future. 

We sit helplessly as we wait for a relief well to be completed. 

As the details and facts about Deepwater Horizon come to light, 

it is clear to us all that the decisions made by officials at BP reflected bad judgment at best and criminal negligence at worst. 

Through this committee’s investigation, we have learned that, at 

nearly every turn, BP cut corners. In well design, the number of 

centralizers they used, whether to run a cement bond log, circuVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 Mar 04, 2013 Jkt 077914 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A914.XXX A914

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

lating drilling muds and securing the wellhead with a lockdown 

sleeve, BP took the path of least resistance. 

On Tuesday, colleagues and competitors from the oil and gas industry provided sworn testimony that they believed BP had delinquencies in well design and failed to follow the best practices of the 

industry. Now we learn that BP had several warnings about the 

Macondo well, with one of their own engineers calling it a ‘‘nightmare well.’’ But instead of treating the well with caution, it seems 

that BP’s only interest was in completing the well quickly and 

cheaply. 

Many questions still need to be answered. Were BP employees on 

the Deepwater Horizon given orders from BP officials to speed up 

the Macondo well? Were they told to slash costs wherever possible? 

Why would a team onboard the rig that tests the cementing of the 

well be sent home before performing the test? Surely if a cement 

bond log was ever necessary, it would be in a ‘‘nightmare well’’ situation. But sending the team home, BP saved $100,000 and 9 or 

10 hours of work. 

Mr. Hayward, I hope you are here today to answer questions 

about the decision made on Deepwater Horizon that led to this 

tragic and deadly blowout. Earlier this week, this committee sent 

you a letter with detailed information about topics we would like 

you to address today. In reviewing your statement submitted for today’s hearing, I am extremely disappointed in your avoidance of 

the requested topics. I certainly hope that you use the opportunity 

today to answer our questions openly and truthfully. 

I know BP has committed to clean up the gulf region, and I expect that commitment to be ongoing. I welcome your pledge to pay 

damages through a $20 billion escrow fund. But that is just the tip 

of the iceberg. Rebuilding the public’s trust in your company and 

your industry will take years and many serious changes in the way 

you do business. 

When you operate on our land and in our waters, you are only 

there because the public’s trust has allowed you to be there. You 

violated that trust in the worst possible way. 

Mr. Hayward, I look forward to your testimony. I look forward 

to your answers to our questions and your ongoing efforts to regain 

America’s trust. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Griffith for an opening statement, 3 minutes, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PARKER GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 

for calling this important hearing today and, Mr. Hayward, for taking time to come before our subcommittee to discuss what happened on the Deepwater Horizon. 

I know that, like us, your number-one priority is stopping the 

flow of oil. Congress and this committee owe it to the American 

people to do whatever we can to aid the unified command in reaching this goal. This is a time for engineering and action, and I hope 

you will let us know what we can do in Congress to be helpful. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

There are still many questions to be answered about what happened on the Deepwater Horizon, and unfortunately we do know 

that, from the documents that we are reviewing, it does not look 

good. 

My hope for our hearing today is that we will be able to put political public-relations shenanigans aside and focus on understanding why decisions were made and how BP and the industry 

can ensure that they learn from this incident so that drilling safely 

for our valuable resources can continue. 

And I might say this to you: You are never as good as they say 

you are or as bad as they say you are. So this hearing will go back 

and forth. 

The other thing I would like to remind the committee is that the 

greatest environmental disaster in America has been cigarettes. 

Sixty thousand Americans this year will die from cigarette-related 

cancer. So if we are going to talk about the environment, let’s be 

sure we don’t leave that out. I am a cancer specialist, by the way, 

by training, and I never fail to bring that up. 

So the environment is an important concept. We regret the loss 

of life. But there is much that we can do and we will put this in 

perspective. This is not going to be the worst thing that has ever 

happened to America. 

Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Ms. Schakowsky, 3 minutes opening statement, 

please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At this very moment oil is gushing from the Deepwater Horizon 

blowout at a rate between, we learned, 35,000 and 60,000 barrels 

a day, killing animals, destroying fragile wetlands, and wiping out 

entire populations of fish, and along with it the jobs of hundreds 

of thousands of people. 

Most upsetting about this travesty is that it could have been 

avoided. As the ongoing investigation by this committee has already discovered, BP executives created an atmosphere where safety concerns were ignored in order to ensure that the company’s already staggering profits this year, approximately $93 million a day 

in the first quarter, continued unabated. This appalling disregard 

for the Gulf Coast and its inhabitants is without question one of 

the most shameful acts by a corporation in American history. 

Sadly, the Deepwater Horizon spill is just the most significant 

example of BP’s disregard for the environment and the well-being 

of its workers. A report published by the Center for Public Integrity 

found that between June 2007 and February 2010, BP received a 

total of 862 citations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Of those, a staggering 760 were classified as being 

egregious and willful, compared with 8 at the 2 oil companies tied 

for second place. 

Inexcusably this pattern of behavior continued in the spill’s aftermath. I hold in my hand a document called Voluntary Waiver of 

Release that BP made unemployed fishermen sign before they 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

could be hired for spill cleanup. The waiver states, I hereby agree 

on behalf of myself and my representatives to hold harmless and 

to indemnify and to release, waive and forever discharge BP Exploration Production, Inc., from all claims and damages that I or my 

representatives may have with regard to my participation in the 

spill response activities. 

I know that you said this was an early misstep and that this was 

just a standard document, but this was a first response that you 

had to people that were hired. And outrage does not begin to express my feeling. These are people who are unemployed because of 

the recklessness of BP, forced to take jobs cleaning up BP’s mess 

in order to survive, yet to qualify for those jobs they had to hold 

BP harmless for any further damages that they may suffer in BP’s 

employ. This from a company that made $93 million a day. 

Fortunately, a court trumped your fancy lawyers who wrote this 

document, but still it begs the question, how could you do that? 

I am glad that you are here, Mr. Hayward. I expect you to explain why your company has operated in such a wholly unacceptable manner. In the final analysis, the simple fact remains that if 

BP had thought more about the residents, as these widows said, 

and the workers, as these widows said, rather than the already exorbitant profits of its shareholders, we would not be here today. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Latta for an opening statement, 3 minutes, 

please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Burgess. I want to thank you for holding this subcommittee hearing on 

the role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and the 

ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

First and foremost, I also want to extend my heartfelt condolences to the families of those who have lost loved ones and to 

those who have been injured. The unprecedented scale of the spill 

and its increasing harmful impact on the gulf economy and environment demand a thorough investigation of BP’s actions and inactions, as well as BP’s current and future plans. 

The flow of oil must be stopped. Every day anywhere from 35,000 

to 60,000 barrels are spilling into the gulf, and only 15,000 barrels 

a day are being captured. The environmental effects on the oil spill 

are harming shorelines and coastal wetlands, fisheries and fishery 

habitat, as well as marine mammals and sea turtles. What is 

worse, we will not fully know the ecological ramifications of the oil 

spill until years down the road. Furthermore, local businesses suffering great losses, including jobs and revenues that are dependent 

on tourism, are being threatened. 

The NOAA announced a revised commercial recreation fishing 

closure in the oil-affected portions of the Gulf of Mexico, accounting 

for 33 percent of the Gulf of Mexico’s exclusive economic zone. As 

oil continues to flow, this area is sure to enlarge, further exasperating the economic damage. A recent economic impact study by 

the American Sportfishing Association indicated that the entire 

Gulf Coast will close to recreational fishing from May through AuVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 Mar 04, 2013 Jkt 077914 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A914.XXX A914

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

gust. The region will lose $1.1 billion in revenue, which supports 

2.5 billion in total sales, 1.3 billion value added, 811.1 million income and 18,785 jobs. This potential economic damage is devastating to an area that has already suffered greatly from the 

aftermath of natural disasters. 

Americans continue to be frustrated at the lack of management 

and solutions from all parties involved, and I am interested to hear 

more about the coordinated efforts between BP and the administration. The economic and environmental magnitude of this disaster 

necessitates a clear understanding of what went wrong, and BP 

needs to be held accountable for the disaster. 

I also look forward to having MMS and the Department of Interior before this subcommittee to also—for them to answer some 

tough questioning. 

I look forward to hearing Mr. Hayward’s testimony, and I yield 

back the remainder of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thanks, Mr. Latta. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 77914A.017
40 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 77914A.018
41 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 77914A.019
42 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Ross, 3 minutes opening statement, please, sir. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Chairman Stupak, for holding today’s 

hearing to examine BP’s actions and decisions that directly led to 

the tragic explosion and oil spill that continues to gush and wreak 

havoc on the Gulf Coast at a rate up to over 1,700 gallons per 

minute. In fact, Mr. Hayward, since this hearing began a little over 

an hour ago, up to 112,847 gallons have been dumped into the gulf. 

On day 59 of this environmental and economic disaster, with up 

to 60,000 barrels a day spilling into the gulf, I continue to be frustrated and downright angry by BP’s response and lack of a clear 

and productive plan to stop the leak or efficiently clean up the oil 

that is destroying the ecosystems that surround the gulf. 

Reports have surfaced revealing that in the days and weeks before the explosion, BP knowingly made a number of decisions that 

increased the danger of an explosion and spill occurring. It seems 

apparent that BP put profit before safety. Many people are dead; 

millions of gallons of oil continue to spew into the gulf. I am hopeful that Mr. Hayward can explain today why these decisions were 

made, how his company’s actions led to this disaster, and what 

they are doing to remedy it. 

As oil floats into the marshes and onto the beaches, as shrimping 

vessels sit tied to docks, as restaurants and businesses during their 

peak season remain without tourists and customers, and as homeowners see their property values plummet, the people and wildlife 

of the Gulf Coast wait and wonder about how extensive the damage 

to the ecosystem or the economy will be. 

This spill is not only affecting the Gulf Coast, the jobs and economies of the surrounding States are hurting as well. My State of Arkansas borders Louisiana, and many of my constituents, people I 

know in my hometown, work on offshore rigs. These jobs are also 

at risk, and I hope BP will take responsibility for all those who are 

affected by this spill, regardless of where they live, and work to 

help pull them through this disaster as well. 

This bill is a wake-up call that must result in better government 

oversight, more advanced technology, stronger response plans and 

improved safety standards not only by BP and every oil company 

in America, but also by our government. Above all, this disaster is 

a learning experience that will help us prevent a tragedy like this 

from ever happening again, and I am hopeful this hearing can provide the answers and solutions necessary to begin that process. 

Mr. Hayward, I truly hope that you will give us open and honest 

answers today and not those prepared by your legal team. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. I would next like to call on Mrs. Christensen of the 

Virgin Islands for an opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this important hearing. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

The explosion on the Deepwater platform and the subsequent 

outpouring of hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into one of the 

most sensitive and important bodies of water in their country is indeed a tragic accident which caused 11 deaths, many injuries and 

will have deep, longlasting, debilitating and expensive repercussions. The people of this country need to know what happened and 

who is responsible. 

All that has transpired since April 20 says to me that not only 

BP, but no company that is drilling anywhere in our Outer Continental Shelf is prepared to deal with a spill at this depth. They are 

all there applying the best efforts, using the best available technology, and still 59 days later an end is not in sight. This is not 

acceptable. 

What has also become clear is that while BP repeatedly used 

shortcuts, they were warned not to, which may have turned out to 

have caused the explosion, the deaths, injuries and the devastating 

spill. They are not the only ones at fault. They could not have cut 

some of those corners without the complicity of employees at some 

of the responsible government agencies who did not do their job. 

We are all appalled that lives are lost by decisions made apparently in the interest of cutting costs, but also by the lack of adequate preparation for this worst-case scenario that we are facing 

today. 

The fact that the industry did not ensure that response technology kept pace with deeper drilled wells lays blame at all of their 

feet, but we still cannot ignore the decisions made by BP, which, 

if they had been different, 11 people might still be alive today. 

We as a Congress, along with our President, who has had more 

than his share of crises that are not of his making, have some 

major challenges and critical decisions ahead. I hope in the name 

of the 11 who died, the many more who were injured, the affected 

families, and those who now depend on OCS platforms for their 

livelihood that this and all of the hearings will help us to go beyond 

a knee-jerk reaction to do the right thing for the region and our 

country; that BP and any other responsible party will be held fully 

accountable and responsible; and that the petroleum and natural 

gas companies learn important lessons to ensure this does not happen again. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Hayward, for being here. I look forward 

to your full testimony and the answers to the questions we will ask 

on behalf of the people of the region and on behalf of the American 

people. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Mr. Welch, opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, in the 59 days since the Deepwater Horizon explosion caused this extraordinary environmental catastrophe and economic catastrophe, we have heard time and again from BP that 

this was an aberration. The facts regrettably tell a very different 

story. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

In 2005, when BP’s Texas City operation blew up, 15 workers 

lost their lives. In 2006, a BP oil pipeline in Texas ruptured and 

spilled 200,000 gallons of crude oil. In 2007, the year you became 

CEO, the BP Corporation settled a series of criminal charges—not 

civil charges, criminal charges—and paid $370 million in fines. 

And according to RiskMetrics, independent organization, BP has 

one of the worst health, environment and safety records of any 

company in the world. And in only 1 year, the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration, OSHA, found more than 700 violations 

at BP’s Texas City refinery, and BP paid a record $87 million in 

fines. 

An independent review panel charged BP with putting profits before safety, and earlier this year a BP refinery in Toledo was fined 

$3 million for willful safety violations, including the use of valves 

similar to those that contributed to the Texas City blast. 

And finally, of course, we have the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, and the more evidence that comes in, the more it’s clear 

that that event was foreseeable, and it was avoidable. After the explosion, the BP said there was no oil leaking. Then it said there 

was 1,000 barrels a day leaking. Then it went to 5,000 barrels. We 

are now up to 60,000 barrels. 

For 59 days, Mr. Hayward, BP has told the American people that 

this was an aberration, that it was a singular occurrence, and that 

it wouldn’t happen again. Mr. Hayward, it’s not an aberration. For 

BP, regretfully, this is business as usual, it’s de ́ja` vu again and 

again and again. 

And the question I think many of us have is whether a CEO who has presided over a company that has incurred $370 million in 

criminal fines; whose company, according to independent assessors, 

has one of the worst records in the world for safety and consistently puts money ahead of safety; whose peers, including Mr. 

Tillerson from Exxon Mobil, who testified from where you are 2 

days ago they never—Exxon never would have drilled a well the 

way it did at BP Deepwater Horizon; and who, as CEO, has presided over the destruction of nearly $100 billion in shareholder 

value and the suspension of an annual $10 billion dividend; does 

that leader continue to enjoy and have a valid claim on the trust 

and confidence of his employees, his shareholders, the public regulators and, most importantly, the families and small businesses of 

the Gulf Coast, or is it time, frankly, for that CEO to consider to 

submit his resignation? 

I thank you and yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Mr. Green for an opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, I appreciate your testimony and your being here 

this morning. And most people on this committee know I am a big 

supporter of Outer Continental Shelf drilling and domestic energy 

production. And I understand from your testimony and our other 

hearings we have held and meetings with the administration that 

efforts to cap the well are going as expeditiously as possible. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

However, like many of my colleagues here, I am frustrated. I am 

frustrated that it has been almost 2 months, and we still have 

thousands of barrels of crude oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. 

I am frustrated by the threat of this disaster’s impact on our wildlife and coastline. And I am particularly frustrated this single incident, one well out of thousands of successful wells of this type have 

been drilled, is threatening my constituents’ livelihoods and the 

livelihoods of most of the communities on the Gulf Coast, literally 

from Alabama all the way back to Brownsville, Texas. 

This disaster has caused the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of 

Mexico to shut down. Even if the moratorium does not last 6 

months, it will be too late for many of these folks. But these people 

are not the ones to blame. They are the hardworking people with 

a work ethic like none other that take their responsibility on these 

rigs seriously. 

However, according to the investigation of this subcommittee has 

conducted, it’s obvious that several BP officials on and off the 

Deepwater Horizon rig did not take their responsibility of this rig 

seriously. Halliburton and many others warned BP officials that 

the decisions they were making were bad ones that could lead to 

serious trouble. And now people were losing their jobs because of 

a moratorium on drilling that could have been prevented if BP had 

not chosen expediency over safety, which brings me to my next 

point. 

Whether it was the Alaskan pipeline disaster or the Texas City 

refinery fire where 15 people died, time after time it has been 

shown that BP chooses expediency over safety. Yet, Mr. Hayward, 

in your testimony you write that none of us knows why it happened. However, this subcommittee has uncovered five areas where 

BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the 

company time and expense. 

I added up the hours that these extra precautionary actions 

would have taken, and it comes to about 3 to 4 days. That’s assuming that many of these actions would not have occurred simultaneously, which they know they could have. For an extra 3 days of 

work, men’s lives would have been saved, and an industry record 

of safe and responsible production in the Outer Continental Shelf 

would still be in place, which brings me to my last point. 

In your testimony, Mr. Hayward, you say that this incident calls 

into question whether the oil and gas industry can explore for oil 

and gas in safer and more reliable ways and what the appropriate 

regulatory framework for the industry should be. Mr. Hayward, the 

decisions made by a handful of BP individuals called this into question, not this accident, and you should take the responsibility for 

the workers who did nothing wrong and are now losing their jobs. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Green. 

Ms. Sutton for an opening statement, 3 minutes, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Chairman Stupak. 

It’s been nearly 2 months since the explosion of the Deepwater 

Horizon drilling rig resulted in the deaths of 11 workers and inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 Mar 04, 2013 Jkt 077914 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A914.XXX A914

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

jured additional workers. Since that time we have witnessed the 

worst environment disaster in our Nation’s history, a disaster that 

continues to pour an estimated 60,000 barrels of oil a day into the 

Gulf of Mexico, a disaster that has led to over 66,000 victims filing 

claims to receive compensation. 

Through this subcommittee’s work, several alarming decisions by 

BP have come to light, decisions that were made to save money 

and time. It’s unconscionable when companies pay more attention 

to their costs and their profits than to their own workers’ safety 

and to our environment. 

At our last hearing one witness from Transocean testified that a duplicate blowout preventer system cost roughly $15 million, a system not used on the Deepwater Horizon rig. BP also utilized a 

more risky option for steel tubing, saving at least $7 million. BP 

also did not fully circulate drilling mud or secure casing hangers 

between pipes of different diameters. And critical signals were 

brushed aside. When standard methods were not followed to center 

the steel pipe in the drill hole, one of BP’s operations drilling engineers remarked in an e-mail, quote, ‘‘Who cares? It’s done. End of 

story.’’ 

But these cut corners have been anything but the end of the 

story. As the workers and volunteers from around the country help 

clean up the oil from the disaster, many are becoming ill. Between 

April 22 and June 10, 485 of BP’s own workers have been injured. 

The Louisiana Department of Health is reporting 109 illnesses in 

cleanup workers, and the money and time BP tried to save has 

long been lost as they have already paid $81 million in claims. 

Mr. Hayward, like many Americans, I feel physically sick when 

I see the clips of the oil gushing in the gulf, witnessing the devastation of our waters and our coast and the wildlife, thinking about 

the lives of the workers killed, and hearing and seeing the pain in 

the faces and the hearts of the people, the families, the small businesses, the fishermen and others in the gulf, all consequences of 

this catastrophe. 

This culture of carelessness and taking shortcuts to maximize 

profits at the expense of safety, this ‘‘come what may, we will cross 

that bridge when we come to it’’ attitude is unacceptable. It’s outrageous. 

BP must be accountable for the consequences of that approach, 

and we must take actions necessary on behalf of the American people to make sure that such a reckless approach will be forever 

abandoned. The risks and costs to our environment and to the 

workers in the Gulf Coast, to the workers throughout our economy, 

are simply too great to allow otherwise. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Ms. Sutton. 

That concludes the opening statements of all members of our 

subcommittee. 

As I noted in the opening, as I noted in the opening, we have 

members of the full committee here. I would like to recognize them. 

They will be allowed to ask questions by order of seniority. 

Mr. Inslee is here, a member of the committee; Ms. Castor is 

here; Mr. Gonzalez; Mrs. Capps; Ms. Harman; Mr. Weiner; Mr. 

Melancon; and Mr. Scalise. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

I would like to comment that Mr. Melancon and Mr. Scalise are 

members of our committee. They also hosted us when we had a 

field hearing, the field hearing in New Orleans a few weeks ago, 

last week. And we had nine Members go down, one of the largest 

field hearings we have ever had. So you can see the interest in 

here. 

I should also note that Ms. Jackson Lee is with us, not a member 

of the committee. She will not be allowed to ask questions, but we 

welcome her, and I know she has sat in on previous hearings we 

have had. 

So let’s move on with our first witness. Our first witness is Mr. 

Tony Hayward, who is the chief executive officer of BP PLC. 

Mr. Hayward, it’s the policy of this subcommittee to take all testimony under oath. Please be advised that you have a right under 

the rules of the House to be advised by counsel during your testimony. Do you wish to be represented by legal counsel? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I do not. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. The committee also asks if you would have a 

technical person with you so you could consult if we have some 

questions that you want to run it by your technical person. Do you 

have a technical person with you? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I do. 

Mr. STUPAK. Could you state his name and position for the 

record, please? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Mike Zangy, drilling engineer. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. At any time during the questioning, if you want 

to consult with that individual, please let us know. We will give 

you a moment to do so before you answer, but you would be the 

only one who could answer that question. Is that clear? 

Mr. Hayward, I am going to ask you to please rise, raise your 

right hand and take the oath. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Let the record reflect the witness answered in the 

affirmative. 

Mr. Hayward, you are now under oath. We would like to hear an 

opening statement from you. You may submit a longer statement, 

if you will, for the record. 

But if you would, please, begin your opening statement, and let 

me state again, on behalf of all members of the committee, we appreciate your willingness to appear here today. 

STATEMENT OF TONY HAYWARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

BP PLC 

Mr. HAYWARD. Chairman Waxman, Chairman Stupak, Ranking 

Members Barton—— 

Mr. STUPAK. If you will suspend, please, sir. 

[Disturbance in hearing room.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Before we begin with Mr. Hayward, let me again 

just mention those of you in our audience, emotions run high on 

this issue, but we have a hearing to conduct here. We are going to 

conduct our hearing; it’s going to be done with proper decorum. 

Mr. Hayward, when you are ready, we are going to start the 

clock over. You may begin. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

Mr. HAYWARD. Chairman Waxman, Chairman Stupak, Ranking 

Member Barton, Ranking Member Burgess, members of the committee, I am Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP. 

The explosion and fire of the Deepwater Horizon and the resulting oil spill resulting in the Gulf of Mexico—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Excuse me, Mr. Hayward. Could I ask you to pull 

that up? Some of the Members are having trouble hearing, probably over the clicking of the cameras. But if you could just pull it 

a little closer. Thank you. 

Mr. HAYWARD. The explosion and fire aboard the Deepwater Horizon and the resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico never should 

have happened, and I am deeply sorry that it did. When I learned 

that 11 men had lost their lives, I was personally devastated. 

Three weeks ago I attended a memorial service for those men, and 

it was a shattering moment. I want to offer my sincere condolences 

to their friends and families. I can only begin to imagine their sorrow. I understand how serious this situation is. It is a tragedy. 

I want to speak directly to the people who live and work in the 

gulf region. I know that this incident has had a profound impact 

on your lives and caused great turmoil, and I deeply regret that. 

I also deeply regret the impact the spill has had on the environment, the wildlife, and the ecosystem of the gulf. 

I want to acknowledge the questions that you and the public are 

rightly asking. How could this happen? How damaging is the spill 

to the environment? Why is it taking so long to stop the flow of oil 

and gas into the gulf? 

We don’t yet have all the answers to these important questions, 

but I hear and understand the concerns, frustrations and anger 

being voiced across the country, and I know that these sentiments 

will continue until the leak is stopped and until we prove through 

our actions that we are doing the right thing. 

Yesterday we met with the President of the United States and 

his senior advisers. We discussed how BP could be more constructive in the government’s desire to bring more comfort and assurance to the people of the Gulf Coast beyond the activity we have 

already done. We agreed in that meeting to create a $20 billion 

claims fund to compensate the affected parties and pay for the 

costs to Federal, State and local governments of the cleanup and 

environmental mitigation. We said all along that we would pay 

these costs, and now the American people can be confident that our 

word is good. 

I have been to the Gulf Coast. I have met with fishermen, business owners and families. I understand what they are going 

through, and I promised them, as I am promising you, that we will 

make this right. After yesterday’s announcement, I hope that they 

feel we are on the right track. 

I am here today because I have a responsibility to the American 

people to do my best to explain what BP has done, is doing, and 

will do in the future to respond to this terrible accident. 

First, we are doing everything we can to secure the well and in 

the meantime contain the flow of oil. We are currently drilling two 

relief wells. We believe they represent the ultimate solution. We 

expect this to be complete in August. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

Simultaneously we have been working on parallel strategies to 

minimize or stop the flow of oil. While not all of them have met 

with success, it appears that our latest containment effort is now 

containing about 20,000 barrels a day. By the end of June, we expect to have equipment in place to handle between 40- and 50,000 

barrels a day, and, by mid-July, between 60- and 80,000 barrels a 

day. 

Second, I have been clear that we will pay all necessary cleanup 

costs. We have mounted what the Coast Guard has recognized as 

the largest spill response in history. We have been working hard 

on the leadership of the unified command to stop the oil from coming ashore, and while we are grateful these efforts have reduced 

the impact of the spill, any oil on the shore is deeply distressing. 

We will be vigilant in our cleanup. 

Third, as I have made clear from the beginning, we will pay all 

legitimate claims for losses and damages caused by the spill. Those 

are not just words. We have already paid out more than $95 million, and we have announced an independent claims facility headed 

by Ken Feinberg to ensure the process is as fair, transparent and 

rapid as possible. 

Fourth, we need to know what went wrong so that we as a company and we as an industry can do better. That is why, less than 

24 hours after the accident, I commissioned a nonprivileged investigation. I did it because I wanted to know what happened, and I 

want to share the results. 

Right now it’s simply too early to say what caused the incident. 

There is still extensive work to do. A full answer must await the 

outcome of multiple investigations, including the Marine Board. 

To sum up, I understand the seriousness of this situation and the 

concerns, frustrations and fears that have been and will continue 

to be voiced. I know that only actions and results, not mere words, 

ultimately can give you the confidence you seek. 

I give my pledge, as the leader of BP, that we will not rest until 

we make this right. We are a strong company, and no resources 

will be spared. 

We and the entire industry will learn from this terrible event 

and emerge stronger, smarter and safer. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Hayward. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayward follows:] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 77914A.020
51 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 77914A.021
52 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 77914A.022
53 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 77914A.023
54 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 77914A.024
55 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 77914A.025
56 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 77914A.026
57 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 77914A.027
58 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 77914A.028
59 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 77914A.029
60 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 77914A.030
61 

Mr. STUPAK. One of the bad parts about conducting a hearing, 

we get interrupted every now and then by votes, and we have three 

votes pending right now. There’s, I think, about 10 minutes remaining on this vote. 

I would suggest, instead of trying to get into questions, we take 

a break right now. Let’s stand in recess for 30 minutes. Let’s come 

back at noon and continue this hearing. We will start with questions from all the Members. 

OK. This committee will be in recess until 12 noon. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. STUPAK. The committee will come back to order. 

When we left off, Mr. Hayward had finished his opening statement. We would begin with questions. I will begin. 

Mr. Hayward, when we heard about the explosion in the gulf, the 

immediate company that popped into my brain was BP, and that’s 

because the last number of years from Texas City where people 

died and 170 people were injured; the North Slope, the problems 

we have had there; and BP’s own 2007 report on the management 

accountability project in which it stated there was a culture that 

evolved over the years that seemed to ignore risk, tolerate noncompliance and accepted incompetence. So I wasn’t surprised when 

we heard about the explosion in the gulf and BP was part of it. 

Since then this committee, the oversight and investigations committee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have methodically looked at this issue, and I know you have and your company 

has also. On May 12, we had a hearing in which we looked at a 

number of things that went wrong. On May 25, our committee, 

Chairman Waxman and myself, put out a memo. It was based on 

BP’s preliminary report, and I am sure you are familiar with that 

report; are you not, sir? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am. 

Mr. STUPAK. And then on June 14, Chairman Waxman and I 

sent you a letter, 14 pages, where we talk about the crazy well and 

the nightmare well. Quite frankly, BP blew it. You cut corners to 

save money and time. 

And as the chief executive officer of BP, as I stated in my opening, you called for a leaner decisionmaking process. You called for 

fewer people in the decisionmaking process. You stated, individuals 

need to be accountable for risk and to manage risk. Therefore, BP’s 

leadership managed their risk in this well. 

Did you manage the risk properly? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Since I have been the CEO of this company, I 

have focused on safe, reliable operations. 

I have set the tone from the top by making it very clear to everyone in BP that safe, reliable operations are our number one priority. Of course, this is about more than words. Safety is about 

three things. It’s about plants, it’s about people, it’s about process. 

In the last 3 years, we have invested more than $14 billion in plant 

integrity. 

Mr. STUPAK. But then what happened here? I mean, the June 14 

letter we put out the other day went through five major areas. The 

head of—the CEOs of the oil companies who were before this committee Tuesday all said you did it wrong. They never would have 

done a well this way. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

You made decisions, whether to do a casing or the string with 

the tie-back, which everyone said the tie-back would have been 

safer; the lockdown sleeves; centralizers, instead of doing 21 as was 

recommended, you only do 6. That defies the safety emphasis; does 

it not? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We launched an investigation, which we have 

shared with yourself, Mr. Chairman, and all of your Members, 

which has identified seven areas. It’s identified areas around cements, casing, integrity pressure measurements, well control procedures, and three areas around the blowout preventer which failed 

to operate. An investigation is ongoing. It’s not complete. 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. But you are CEO of this company. You said 

you were here to answer the questions of the American people. You 

were an exploration manager, exploration manager with BP. You 

were the director of BP’s exploration. You were vice president of 

BP’s exploration and production. You hold a Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh. 

Based on our May 12 hearing, the May 25 memo, our June 14 

letter to you, based on all those facts, are you trying to tell me you 

have not reached a conclusion that BP really cut corners here? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think it’s too early to reach conclusions, with respect, Mr. Chairman. The investigations are ongoing. They have 

identified seven key areas, and when they complete—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Every one of those seven key areas, sir, dealt with 

saving time and saving money and accepting the risk. So if we use 

your own words, if you are going to hold BP accountable, then we 

have to manage the risk. 

Should leadership at BP be held accountable here? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There is no doubt that I have focused on safe, reliable operations. We have made major changes in everything we 

do over the last 3 years. We change people—— 

Mr. STUPAK. What changes have you made since April 20 when 

the BP Deepwater Horizon exploded? What changes were made 

then? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Based on what we know so far, we have made 

changes with respect to the testing and evaluation of blowout preventers. We have made changes with respect to ensuring that people who are likely to be dealing with well control are up to date 

and fully validated for well-control procedures. And as we learn 

more about what happens here, we will continue to make changes. 

Mr. STUPAK. My time is just about up. I am going to try to hold 

Members quickly to our time because we want to get through at 

least one more round. 

Let me just ask you this: The last 5 years I have been up here, 

your safety record, you have 26 people dead, more than 170 injured. You have the largest spill ever in Alaska, and you now have 

the largest environmental disaster to hit the United States with no 

end in sight with this disaster. 

Do you believe the U.S. Government should continue to allow 

companies that have poor safety records, poor environmental 

records, to explore minerals or oil exploration in our country? 

Should there be a ban on companies that have miserable safety 

and environmental records? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

Mr. HAYWARD. In the 3 years that I have been CEO, I have focused on improving dramatically our safety and environmental performance. At the price of this accident, that has indeed been the 

case, and that is why, amongst all the other reasons, I am so devastated by this accident. 

Mr. STUPAK. I agree, and under your tenure, you said you had 

the 2007 report that was scathing of BP’s culture. We still have 

problems with Alaska. You said you are going to hold people accountable. Who are we going to hold accountable here? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We have engaged in a systemic change at BP over 

the last 3 years. We have begun to change the culture. I am not 

denying that there isn’t more to do, but we have made dramatic 

changes in the people we had in our organization, the skills and 

capabilities they have. We have invested heavily into that. We have 

changed significantly the processes that we use to manage our operations, and, most importantly perhaps, we have made safe, reliable operations the core of the company. It is the thing that I talk 

about every time I talk internally and every time I talk externally 

about BP. 

Mr. STUPAK. In your opening statement you said as long as you 

were CEO of BP, these things would occur. Do you expect to be 

CEO of BP much longer? 

Mr. HAYWARD. At the moment I am focused on the response. I 

think everyone here believes that the highest priority is to stop the 

leak, continue on on the surface and clean it up. That is what my 

focus is. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Burgess for questions. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The highest priority is stopping the leak. Let me ask, Mr. Hayward, is your presence here today in any way interfering with that 

number one task of stopping the leak? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is not. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you. 

Let me just ask you—or let me just make a statement for clarification. I am not going to apologize for you. It was, after all, BP 

executives who were on that rig, BP executives who ultimately 

could have made the call to stop operations when things became 

unsafe, and ultimately you are the person at the top, and you are 

responsible. 

We lost 11 men on that rig. Transocean and other companies lost 

11 men on that rig. I don’t feel that apologies are in order. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I do have serious questions about the setup 

of this fund that we heard about from the White House yesterday. 

And I hope this committee will stay engaged in the oversight of 

that activity as well. It’s still disturbing to me that we have not 

had anyone from the Federal regulatory side. We have brought a 

ton of other people in here and questioned them, but really we need 

Mr. Salazar here. We need whoever the minerals management people were who approved that exploration plan that BP submitted 

that was woefully inadequate. 

Shame on you, Mr. Hayward, for submitting it, but shame on us 

for accepting it with simply a rubber stamp. 

Now I have got some questions I do need to ask. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

BP, unfortunately, it’s not the first time you have been in front 

of our committee. And in 2006, although you were not CEO that 

year, I pulled the transcript last night and looked through it again. 

The Big Oil spill in Alaska had to do with not proper maintenance 

on the pipelines. And when you came in, you said you were going 

to focus like a laser beam on safety, and certainly that had to be 

welcome news after Texas City, after the North Slope accident. 

So what safety briefings do you get as your office’s chief executive officer, and who provides them to you? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The basis of management of safety performance 

is through something that we call our group operating risk committee. It’s a committee that I set up, I chair. It involves the heads 

of all of the business streams, and we meet upon a bimonthly basis 

to review the safety performance across the company. That process 

is mirrored down through the company. 

Mr. BURGESS. And what type of safety directives then, or what 

types of directives do you issue in terms of safety as a result of 

those meetings, and perhaps would you be willing to share some 

of that information with the committee as we go forward? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We can certainly share that information with the 

committee. They range from changes to procedures to requirements 

of—to have people where there are issues with safety to come and 

present to us. 

Mr. BURGESS. But somebody records minutes during those meetings, and then your directives that come as a consequence of those 

briefings are written down and delivered to the appropriate managers on the ground? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There are minutes of those meetings. 

Mr. BURGESS. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There are minutes of those meetings. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me ask you this. Mr. Stupak already alluded 

to the fact that should we allow someone who is perhaps not following the best practices, drilling practices, continue to drill. 

Is there any other well, to your knowledge, in the Gulf of Mexico 

that has been done in the same manner as this well that was 

drilled under the Deepwater Horizon? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There are many wells in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. BURGESS. Are there any other wells where you haven’t put 

the proper number of centralizers in? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There are many wells in the Gulf of Mexico that 

have the same casing design. There are many wells that have been 

drilled where the same cement procedure has been—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Now, have the Minerals Management Service people been there and looked over those with a fine-tooth comb? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Everything that we do is subject to regulatory 

oversight. 

Mr. BURGESS. Are you changing your procedures of those wells 

as a result of things that you have encountered in your investigation—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. I apologize, sir. As we learn from our investigation, we will make appropriate changes, as I have already indicated. 

Mr. BURGESS. Are there any of those changes that are ongoing 

right now? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

Mr. HAYWARD. The ones that I have talked about are ongoing. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, let me ask you this. Now, the question came 

up about centralizers, and someone said that they would rather 

push more cement or squeeze more cement than getting something 

stuck. I am not technically savvy enough to know exactly about 

that, but if that’s the statement, and you are going to push cement 

and deal with a fewer number of centralizers to hold this thing 

steady in the center of the column, is there any way to find out 

that, in fact, that cement went where you intended it to do, and 

that rod didn’t, in fact, get off to one side or the other? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I wasn’t part of the decisionmaking process on 

this well. I have looked at the material—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Yes. That’s not the question I asked you. Was there 

a procedure that could have been followed that would have actually 

given that information? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I can’t answer that question. I am not a cement 

engineer, I am afraid. 

Mr. BURGESS. There is, and those people were available, and for 

whatever reason they decided not to do that. Do you think that 

might have made a difference in the ultimate story of the Deepwater Horizon? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not prepared to speculate on what may or 

may not have made a difference until such time as the multiple investigations that are ongoing are concluded. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, but prior to April 20, when the well blew up, 

were you briefed on the progress of the drilling of the Macondo 

well? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The only knowledge that I had of the Macondo 

well occurred in April when it was evident to the team drilling it 

that we had made a discovery, and they notified myself that we 

made a discovery. 

That was my only prior involvement in the well. 

Mr. BURGESS. Who briefed you? Who briefed you on that discovery? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The person who would have briefed me would 

have been the chief executive of exploration and production. 

Mr. BURGESS. Were you privy then to any other information, the 

difficulties that they had had the multiple gas kicks, the losing the 

tools down the hole, the length of time they have been over the 

hole, the decisions to move quickly because we had spent too much 

time over this well? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I had no prior knowledge. 

Mr. BURGESS. Who would have had that information? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Certainly the drilling team in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. BURGESS. But you are the CEO of the company. Do you have 

any sort of technical expert who helps you with these things who 

might have been there? 

Mr. HAYWARD. With respect, sir, we drill hundreds of wells a 

year all over the world. 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, I know. That’s what is scaring me right now. 

Did you have a technical expert who was advising you there on 

this well, because we have heard from other people that there were 

problems, it was a bad well, it was a dangerous well; gas kicks, and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

the mud was not degasified or whatever the procedure was. So did 

you have a technical expert advising you? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I had no prior knowledge or involvement in the 

drilling of this well, none whatsoever. 

Mr. BURGESS. But who was? If you are the CEO of the company, 

if I were a shareholder of BP, which I am not, but if I am, how 

can I have comfort that the CEO knows what’s going on as far as 

safety on the rigs, or is it true it’s just all about profit? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There was a drilling team providing oversight of 

this well. 

Mr. BURGESS. There was a drilling team. 

Mr. STUPAK. We will go to Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, when you became CEO 3 years ago, you said that 

safety was going to be your top priority; you would focus on it like 

a laser. Your Website said, safe and reliable operations are integral 

to BP’s success. 

I want to ask you whether you think that BP met that commitment that you made when you became CEO? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Since I became CEO, we have made a lot of 

progress. We have made it very clear to everyone in the company 

that safe, reliable—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Have you met that commitment that you made? 

Mr. HAYWARD. And we made major changes. We made major 

changes to our—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. You made major changes, but now we see this disaster in the gulf. Does that indicate that you didn’t keep that commitment? 

Mr. HAYWARD. And one of the reasons that I am so distraught. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Could you answer yes or no? I don’t want to know 

whether you are distraught. I want to know whether you think you 

have kept your commitment. 

Mr. HAYWARD. We have focused like a laser on safe and reliable 

operations, that is fact, every day. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Well, let me follow up on that. We had a hearing earlier this week with CEOs from the other oil companies. They 

were unanimous in their view that you made risky decisions that 

their companies would not have made. And in particular they criticize your decision to install a long, single string of casing from the 

top of the well to the bottom on April 19, the day before the blowout. They said this well design choice provided an unrestricted 

pathway for gas to travel up the well in the annulus space that 

surrounded the casing, and, of course, it blew out the seal. 

How do you respond to their criticism? Did BP make a—a fundamental misjudgment in selecting a single string of casing? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I wasn’t involved in any of that decisionmaking. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I want to know your view of it, now that you 

know about it, now that you know what your company did. Pursuant to your laser request that they be attuned to safety, do you 

think that that was a mistake? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The original well design was to run a long string. 

It was approved by the MMS. There was only discussion in the 

course of the drilling of the well whether a long string or a 7-inch 

line that would be most appropriate. That is what I understand 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

based on having looked at the documents and listened to our investigation team. 

The decision to run a long string, at least in part, was to do with 

the long-term integrity of well. 

Mr. WAXMAN. But let me be fair to you, because I am asking you 

to look with hindsight as to what happened and the decision that 

was made. 

But your own engineers warned in advance that this was a risky 

approach. And I would like to put on the screen what’s called a 

planned review that your engineers prepared in mid-April warning 

against the long string of casing. As you can see, your engineers 

said that if you used a long string of casing, that it is unlikely to 

be a successful cement job. You would be unable to fulfill MMS regulations, and there would be an open annulus to the wellhead, and 

I have that on the screen. 

Now, those are serious risks, a failed cement job, a violation of 

MMS safety regulations, an open pathway for gas to travel to the 

top of the well. The same document says that if you use the liner 

and tie-back approach, which is what Exxon Mobil and other companies said you should have used, you would have avoided or lessened these risks, and here is what the plan review said: If you used 

the liner, there would be less issue with landing it shallow. There 

would be a second barrier to gas in the annulus and a higher 

chance for a successful cement job. 

Now, you said that BP is supposed to be focused like a laser on 

safety. Yet BP apparently overruled the warnings of its own engineers and chose the more dangerous option. How can you explain 

that decision by BP? Why were the safety recommendations of your 

own engineers ignored? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I wasn’t involved in any of the decisionmaking. 

It’s clear that there was some discussion amongst the engineering 

team, and an engineering judgment was taken. 

Mr. WAXMAN. It’s clear to me that you don’t want to answer our 

questions, because isn’t it true that you have served your life in 

BP? You have only recently become the CEO, but haven’t you been 

in this business most of your professional life? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I have been in this business 28 years. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Twenty-eight years. So you should have some 

knowledge about these issues. And I sent you a letter in advance 

asking you—we were going to be asking these questions and to be 

prepared to answer it. 

How can you explain this decision where you ignore—not you, 

yourself, but people who work for you who should have known that 

it was your directive to be a laser on safety. How could they have 

ignored these warnings from people right within your company? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There was clearly a discussion between the engineering team as to what was the most appropriate course of action 

to take. An engineering judgment was taken that involved longterm integrity—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. It was more than an engineering judgment, because April 15th there is a document, which is 5 days before the 

blowout, that said that using the safer liner will add an additional 

7- to $10 million to the completion cost. The same document calls 

it the single string of casing, the best economic case for BP. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

And the conclusion I draw from these documents is that BP used 

a more dangerous well design to save $7 million. What do you 

think about that? What is your response? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe that document also highlights that the 

long-term integrity of the well will be best served by a long string. 

The long string is not an unusual well design in the Gulf of Mexico. 

As I understand it—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Say that again. 

Mr. HAYWARD. The long string is not an unusual design in the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. WAXMAN. As I understand it from Halliburton’s witness that 

was interviewed by our staff, that only 2 to 10 percent of those 

wells might use this particular string. 

Now, ExxonMobil and other CEOs said they wouldn’t proceed 

this way. It appears to me that BP knowingly risked well failure 

to save a few million dollars. And even drilling 18,000 feet below 

the sea, if you make mistakes, the consequences of those would be 

catastrophic and, in fact, it turned out to be catastrophic. Don’t you 

feel any sense of responsibility for these decisions? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I feel a great sense of responsibility for the accident. We need to allow—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. How about for the decisions that made the accident more likely? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We need to determine what were the critical decisions and—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Did you get my letter and did you review it? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I have read your letter, Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you realize in the letter that we asked you to 

be prepared to discuss these issues? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I said, I have seen the documents following 

your letter, and I cannot pass judgment on those decisions. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Even though you have worked 28 years in the oil 

industry, you are the BP CEO, and you said like a laser you are 

going to—safety is the biggest issue and you have people under you 

making these kinds of decisions and now you are reviewing them. 

Do you disagree with the conclusion that this was riskier to use 

this particular well lining? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not prepared to draw conclusions about this 

accident until such time as the investigation is concluded. 

Mr. WAXMAN. This is an investigation. That is what this committee is doing. It is an investigatory committee. And we expect 

you to cooperate with us. Are you failing to cooperate with other 

investigators as well? Because they are going to have a hard time 

reaching conclusions if you stonewall them, which is what we seem 

to be getting today. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not stonewalling. I simply was not involved 

in the decisionmaking process. I have looked at the documents. 

And until the investigations are complete, both yours and others—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. That is somebody else’s conclusion. What is your 

conclusion? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I haven’t drawn a conclusion, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I see. My time has expired and I am just amazed 

at this testimony, Mr. Hayward. You are not taking responsibility. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

You are kicking the can down the road and acting as if you had 

nothing to do with this company and nothing to do with its decisions. I find that irresponsible. 

Mr. STUPAK. Along those lines, do you disagree with the conclusions of Chairman Waxman’s June 14th letter, the one Mr. Chairman and I sent you? Do you disagree with those five conclusions, 

five areas we hit, the conclusions we reached? Do you disagree with 

it? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think there are very legitimate issues for concern, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. They are very what? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Legitimate areas for concern. 

Mr. STUPAK. So we reached legitimate conclusions that people 

could then base the decision, cut corners to save money and we had 

this accident, correct? 

Mr. WAXMAN. It doesn’t appear you are very concerned about 

them, are you? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am very concerned that we get to the bottom of 

this incident and understand exactly what happens such that we 

can be sure that it never happens again. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Easy to say. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, just a request, please. If Mr. 

Hayward could move the microphone a bit closer. I am having difficulty hearing. 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. I think we all are. Pull it a little closer if you 

could, please. 

Mr. Sullivan for questions, please. I should note Mr. Upton is 

here from Michigan, a member of the full committee and so is Mr. 

Engle. They want to ask questions, they can at the appropriate 

time. Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, according to the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, there is mounting evidence that BP is one of the 

worst—has one of the worst safety records of any major oil company operating in the United States. 

Is there a deficient safety culture at BP that led to the Deepwater Horizon and other disasters like the refinery explosion in 

Texas City, Texas, and the Alaskan oil pipeline spill? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think we acknowledged in 2005 and 2006 that 

we had serious issues, and as a consequence set out to implement 

systematic change in the culture and safety of BP. I set the tone 

from the top by saying very clearly, safe, reliable operations were 

our number one priority. We have invested billions of dollars in the 

integrity of that plant. We have recruited many thousands of engineers and technologists into our company, including many from 

other industries such as the nuclear industry and other parts of the 

chemical and oil and gas industry, and we have changed fundamentally our whole approach to the management of our operations through the implementation of significant changes to our 

processes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It doesn’t seem like that. If you look at the reports 

of what happened on the Deep Horizon, it doesn’t look like many 

safety procedures have changed much at all. And, Mr. Hayward, do 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

you feel that your safety record compared to other major oil companies is comparable? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I said, it is clear that we had some serious 

issues to deal with in the 2005–2006 time frame and we have 

worked hard to improve our safety performance since that time for 

it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It doesn’t seem to be changing Mr. Hayward; your 

safety performance doesn’t. Here are some highlights of your safety 

procedures. BP had 760 safety violations and you paid millions of 

dollars, 373 million in fines to avoid criminal prosecution for manipulating the propane markets. 

Also, if you look at other industries, sir—let us take some of your 

competitors, for example. Sunoco—you had 760 violations in 5 

years. Sunoco had 8 safety violations. ConocoPhillips had 8 safety 

violations in the same time you had 760. Citgo had 2 safety violations at the same time you had 760. And ExxonMobil had 1 safety 

violation in the same time period you had 760. How in the heck 

do you explain that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I said, we acknowledged the problems we had 

in 2005 and 2006. The vast number of those things that you refer 

to date from that time period and we have made major changes in 

the company over the last 3 to 4 years. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Do you think the changes you made in that time 

period you are talking about when you were CEO—I understand 

why you are saying that—do you think that they were using those 

measures and protocols on the Deepwater Horizon? 

Mr. HAYWARD. To my best knowledge, they absolutely were. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. You don’t think they short-cut anything on the 

Deepwater Horizon? You are CEO of a major company. Do you, in 

fact, looking back, sir, do you think that they cut corners? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe we should await the results of the investigations before we draw conclusions. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, you had to have looked at some of the results—your internal investigation. Internally, your investigation, 

did it show any kind of breakdown, something that you—with your 

protocols you said you put in place, were any of those short-cut? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The investigation is still ongoing as you know. It 

has identified seven areas: the cement casing, the integrity pressure well control procedures, and three failures of the blowout preventer. And when the investigation is concluded we will make a 

judgment. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I would say that this problem is with your organization and your safety and the culture of your company’s safety 

culture, and not a culture of our domestic oil and gas producers. 

As we can see, they haven’t had the kind of problems you have had 

with cutting corners on safety. They have a lot of redundancies, 

contingency plans. I venture to say that this may not have happened if one of these other companies was operating that rig. 

Would you say that would be true? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t think I can make that judgment. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Do you think the other companies have different 

or stricter or—stricter guidelines with their safety and spend more 

money on it? Because you probably compare yourselves to other 

companies, I am sure. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

Mr. HAYWARD. I cannot make that comparison, but I can clear 

what we have done. We have invested billions of dollars, we have 

recruited thousands of people, and we have changed significantly 

our process, systems, and procedures in the course of the last 3 

years. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Before Mr. Dingell begins questions, we have votes on the floor 

again. There is less than 10 minutes remaining. So I am going to 

at least get through Mr. Dingell’s questions and then we will recess. 

Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, you had two choices, using single casing or 

tieback. The risks are substantial associated with single casing, 

which is what BP chose. 

Please answer yes or no. Can you assure us, under oath, that 

that was not a decision made to save time and money? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I wasn’t part of that decisionmaking process. I 

was not part of that decisionmaking process. So I cannot possibly 

know the basis on which that decision was taken. 

Mr. DINGELL. How much money was saved by using the single 

stream casing? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe the documents refer to a sum of I think, 

I think 7- to $10 million, and they also refer to the fact that the 

casing would have longer-term integrity as a long stream. 

Mr. DINGELL. Please submit that for the record. 

How much time was saved? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t recall the time that was saved. Would 

there have been some time saved? 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit that for the record, please? 

Now, you had the option of using a number of centralizers to 

keep the casing in the center of the bore hole. Halliburton recommended 21. You ultimately chose to use 2. Could you tell us 

under oath that the decision to use 6 centralizers instead of the 

recommended 21 was not made to save time and money? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I was not involved in that decision, so it is impossible for me to answer that question. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. Could you tell us how much money BP 

saved by not using the proper number of centralizers? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am afraid I cannot recall that. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit that for the record? 

How much time was saved? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t recall that either, I am afraid. 

Mr. DINGELL. Please submit that for the record. 

You and BP decided not to conduct a cement bond log, an acoustic test to find out whether the cement was bonded to the casing 

and surrounding formations. Despite Mineral Management Service 

regulations, can you state under oath to the committee that BP did 

not decide to—against using the cement bond log to save time and 

money, yes or no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. My understanding from what I have read—again 

I was not involved in the decisionmaking—is that the team on the 

rig, the transition team, the BP team and the Halliburton team, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

concluded that they had sufficient evidence that the cement job 

was good and therefore decided not to use the cement bond log. 

Mr. DINGELL. Does that mean yes or no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It means I cannot answer your question in that 

form. 

Mr. DINGELL. How much would this test have cost BP? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I cannot recall that number, I am afraid. 

Mr. DINGELL. Please submit it for the record. 

How long would the test have taken? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Probably a number of hours, I believe; but I am 

not certain. 

Mr. DINGELL. Please submit that for the record. 

You were supposed to engage in circulating drilling mud on the 

well bottom when the casing is on the bottom and before cementing. This is referred to as ‘‘bottoms up.’’ Did BP fully circulate the 

mud, yes or no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t believe the mud was fully circulated. The 

process that the team on the rig were following was in line and approved by the MMS. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Can you assure us, under oath again, 

that the decision not to fully circulate the mud was not made to 

save money and time? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I cannot answer that question because I wasn’t 

there. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. How much money did avoiding this 

procedure save? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am afraid I cannot recall. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit it for the record, please? 

How long would the fully circulating of the mud have taken? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am afraid I cannot recall that either. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you submit that for the record, please? 

Now, BP made the decision not to install a casing hanger 

lockdown sleeve. Can you assure the committee under oath that 

the decision not to install such lockdown sleeve was not made to 

save time and money? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That was a decision I was not a party to. 

Mr. DINGELL. How much did the installing of the lockdown sleeve 

save BP? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t know. 

Mr. DINGELL. How much time did installing the lockdown sleeve 

save? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am afraid I don’t know that either. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, you have received a letter from the chairman 

of the subcommittee and the full committee asking a series of questions. When will the committee have the response to that letter? 

Mr. HAYWARD. You will get it as soon as we can make it available to you. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, did BP have an emergency response plan in 

the event of a failure at the well? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We had a response plan which we have—— 

Mr. DINGELL. What was the date of that response plan? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The response plan was approved, as I recall, in 

June of 2009. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

Mr. DINGELL. Please submit to us the date of the response plan 

and the number of times which it was updated and who it was that 

did the formulation of the plan. Please inform us for the record 

whether or not that plan was approved by the Mineral Management Service and on what date? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to seeing those answers in the record. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. To let members know, we 

are going to stand in recess for 1 hour. We have six votes plus a 

motion to recommit. The good news is when we come back—these 

are the last votes of the day—we will be able to finish the hearing 

then. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayward has brought up a 

point about he followed the procedures of MMS. Once again it is 

so critical that we get the Federal regulatory agencies in this committee to ask them questions. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Burgess, as you know—— 

Mr. BURGESS. The fact that we haven’t here, after all these hearings, is really disturbing to me. 

Mr. STUPAK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Burgess. As you know, we 

have a methodical method we have been using in this investigation. We have gone through it very methodically. You know we 

have at least two more hearings. One was scheduled for Tuesday, 

but at your request and my request we moved it back a little more. 

There will be at least two more hearings. We will do our job. We 

will have all parties here before this committee at the appropriate 

time. 

Mr. BURGESS. Clearly, Mr. Hayward is not prepared to answer 

the questions and we need to get MMS in here to do that as well. 

Mr. STUPAK. MMS isn’t going to help Mr. Hayward answer the 

questions. Mr. Hayward has to answer the questions himself. 

Mr. BURGESS. I would just submit that with the depth—— 

Mr. STUPAK. We are in recess until 2 o’clock. 

Mr. BURGESS. Any one of us could do his job. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. STUPAK. The committee will reconvene. 

Mr. Hayward, during the last series of votes, I was approached 

by several members of the committee who are extremely frustrated 

with your lack of candor and your inability to answer their questions. We initially wanted to have this hearing last week. However, 

your staff pleaded with the committee to give you an additional 

week so you could be adequately prepared for this hearing and we 

agreed. In addition to the extra week, we allowed you to prepare, 

Chairman Waxman and I sent you a 14-page letter outlining five 

issues you should be prepared to address in today’s hearing. 

You did not address any of those issues in your opening statement. And thus far, you have responded to our questions with little 

substance and many claims of not knowing or not being part of the 

decisionmaking processes. 

You first accepted responsibility for actions to your staff in town 

hall meetings, and yet you have not yet provided us with direct answers or taken responsibility thus far today. I sincerely hope that 

you will reconsider your approach to these questions. I hope you 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

will be more forthcoming and less evasive with your answers for 

the remainder of this hearing. 

We are done with votes, so we should be able to get through the 

rest of this hearing; and we will probably go a second round because members do want to push you on some of these issues. You 

are the CEO. Great experience. You have got a Ph.D. You have 

been head of exploration. You know what is going on. We would 

hope that we would have more candid responses to our questions. 

With that, let me turn it to Mrs. Blackburn for questions. Five 

minutes, please. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And indeed, Mr. 

Hayward, we are a little bit frustrated with hearing you say you 

were not a party to certain decisions or were not in that chain of 

command or that you can’t comment because of ongoing investigations. So I am going to try a little different tactic because I do want 

to get some answers and get some items—get some of these questions answered. 

I want to go back to the safety issues. I mentioned that in my 

opening statement to you. I am one of those individuals that grew 

up down on the Gulf Coast and then moved away. I am familiar 

with people working offshore, if you will. 

And what I would like to know from you, have you been briefed 

on the safety issues and the safety concerns; and then if you were 

a part of the decisionmaking process on what would be considered 

the best operating practices, were you a part of the chain of command, and what is the chain of command for dispute resolution 

when there is a difference about how to approach safety? 

Go ahead. I would love your response. 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I have said, I wasn’t involved in the decisionmaking on the day—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let us do this, then. If you were not involved 

in the decisionmaking of how safety is approached on these rigs 

and platforms, would you submit to us in writing for the record a 

description of what that chain of command is and what the process 

is when there is a difference of opinion on how you approach rig 

safety? Would you be willing to submit that? And I will ask you 

and your team to submit that to us for the record. 

In addition, since becoming CEO, have you been briefed on the 

significant safety incidents that have occurred in BP’s explorations, 

Alaska and production facilities over the past year? Have you been 

briefed? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I had discussed those issues at the group operating risk committee. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. As a result of these briefings, did you authorize any changes to BP policies and practices for dealing with the 

safety? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We took actions in Alaska to change both the organization and some of the processes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. Since the Deepwater Horizon incident, have you made changes? And what are those? Will you submit those to us for the record? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We have made changes to our testing procedures 

on BOPs. We have made changes to the intensity with which wellsite leaders are aware of well control procedures and a variety of 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

other interventions that are predicated on what we have learned 

from the incident so far. And as we learn more, we will make more 

changes as we deem appropriate. 

And I would be very happy to submit to you, Congresswoman, 

the changes that we have made. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. Did you ask other companies for 

help in cleaning up the BP oil spill? Last week for the hearing, we 

had several different companies. Did you all approach other companies or other countries and ask for their help and their expertise 

in plugging that leak and in participating in the cleanup? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We sought help from both our immediate peers 

and competitors in the Gulf of Mexico, and globally from around 

the world and across America. There are several hundred entities 

involved in the effort. All of the major operators in this country, 

major operators from elsewhere in the world such as Petrobras, 

many of them major academic institutions in this country. Some of 

the greatest minds in the country are involved in trying to deal 

with this problem. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Did they participate at your invitation or the 

government’s invitation? 

Mr. HAYWARD. They participated, in the first instance, at our invitation; and subsequently the Federal authorities brought some of 

the great academic institutions in this country to bear. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Are you currently—is BP currently working on 

industry efforts to look at rig safety? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We have made recommendations to the MMS 

with respect to the things that we have learned so far, particularly 

with respect to blowout preventers. And we will continue, as we 

learn what the realities of this accident are, to make our recommendations to the relevant authorities. And I believe that in the 

course of the coming months, the industry will work together to determine what is the best way forward. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We hope that you are working together because I hope you understand our frustration. You have stated before safety would be a priority for BP. And we expect you all to 

take action on lessons learned. And when you tell us that you are 

taking that action and then you return because of what has occurred, Mr. Hayward, I cannot even begin to tell you how disappointing it is to us that you are saying—and you mentioned actions and words in your testimony. But, sir, you are giving the 

rhetoric. What we want to see going forward is the action that indeed you have learned these lessons, that BP has learned these lessons and that you are going to share these best practices with the 

industry. That would be very helpful. 

Thank you for being before us today. I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Hayward, you indicated that you made recommendations on 

the blowout preventer your company has. Would you provide those 

to this committee? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We certainly can, Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Next I will turn to Mr. Markey for questions, 

please. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

Mr. Hayward, the existence of large clouds or plumes of oil suspended deep beneath the ocean surface are of concern because the 

toxic oil and dispersants can poison the aquatic plants and animals, and they also consume oxygen, potentially asphyxiating marine life. 

On May 30th, you stated that your samples showed no evidence 

of such plumes. On June 7th in a response to my letter, BP again 

denied the plumes existed, citing a BP document saying that there 

is no coherent body of hydrocarbons below the surface. 

Even after NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco confirmed the 

plumes’ existence on June 8th, your COO, Jeff Suttles, went on national television and continued to deny their existence. 

These are photographs presented to us on the committee by Dr. 

Samantha Joy of the University of Georgia, who has sampled the 

deep water of the gulf and found such plumes. On the right there 

is a filter with oil clearly present from water from within a plume 

as it passed by. 

Now, it isn’t just university scientist data. I have here up on the 

screen as well from EPA’s Web site entitled, ‘‘Subsurface Plume 

Detected.’’ It was prepared using BP’s data. There are 17 red dots 

indicating that your own data shows evidence of subsurface 

plumes. This is your data, Mr. Hayward. 

Are you now once and for all prepared to concede that there are 

plumes or clouds of oil suspended deep beneath the surface of the 

ocean? Yes or no, Mr. Hayward. 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I understand the data, Chairman, it indicates 

that there are—there is oil in very low concentrations, 0.5 parts per 

million distributed through the column. The detailed analysis that 

NOAA conducted in three locations around the spill show that in 

one location, 0.5 parts per million, clearly attributed to this spill. 

Mr. MARKEY. Are there plumes of oil beneath the ocean’s surface? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There are concentrations of oil about 0.5 parts per 

million in the water column. Some of it is related to this spill. 

Other samples from been typed to other oil. 

Mr. MARKEY. So you do not define that as a plume? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not an oceanographic scientist. What we 

know is that there is—— 

Mr. MARKEY. I am going to take it as a continuing ‘‘no’’ from you. 

And your testimony continues to be at odds against all independent 

scientists. Yesterday at the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee 

on Health, during the hearing the director of the National Institute 

of Occupational Health and Safety told me in answer to my question that he has asked BP for a roster of all workers multiple times 

and BP has failed to give him that information that is critical to 

tracking chemical exposure. 

Representative Eshoo and I were both outraged at BP’s failure 

to take such a straightforward step to protect the health of their 

workers. 

Mr. Hayward, will you commit to immediately provide the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety and the Centers 

for Disease Control with all of the information that they need to 

evaluate health impacts and to protect these workers? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

Mr. HAYWARD. We have endeavored to provide all information requests as quickly as possible, and we will endeavor to do that as 

well. 

Mr. MARKEY. The head of the National Institute of Occupational 

Health and Safety testified yesterday that you are not doing that. 

Will you provide all of the information that they have requested of 

you? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are endeavoring to provide all of the information requested that we receive, and we will certainly do it for that 

one. 

Mr. MARKEY. Again, the equivocation in your answer is something that is not reassuring to those workers who potentially have 

been exposed to these chemicals in ways that can impact on their 

health. BP has dumped 30,000 gallons of drilling mud in the ocean. 

Drilling mud is often made using synthetic oils and other chemicals, and in this case also may have used significant quantities of 

antifreeze which is toxic. 

Mr. Hayward, will you commit to disclosing the ingredients of 

the drilling mud? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Yes, we will. I believe that all of the mud that has 

gone into the ocean is water-based mud with no toxicity whatsoever. 

Mr. MARKEY. Will you also commit to disclosing all other measurements you have made related to chemical, oil, and methane concentrations in the water immediately? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Those are being published, as we make them, on 

a variety of Web sites. And we will continue to do that. And we will 

make them available in whatever form is available to all of you. 

Mr. MARKEY. And you will give us all of the measurements which 

you have made? 

Mr. HAYWARD. All the measurements we have made have been 

made available and we will continue to do that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Mr. Gingrey for questions, please. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Hayward, as demonstrated by the number of 

cameras in this room, interest in this hearing is at a fever pitch. 

The anger at BP and the anger at our administration is palpable. 

You just look at the polls. And we members of this committee have 

an obligation to get to the bottom of this to address the frustrations 

of the American people. 

The chief executive of ExxonMobil testified just yesterday at the 

Energy and Environment Subcommittee of this committee that, 

quote, We would not have drilled the well the way they did, end 

of quote. 

In addition, the president of Shell, John S. Watson, stated, and 

I quote, It is not a well that we would have drilled in that mechanical setup and there are operational concerns, end of quote. 

Mr. Hayward, my profession before Congress was the practice of 

medicine, obstetrics and gynecology. If I had delivered a baby that 

resulted in a bad outcome, a seriously bad outcome, and two of my 

friendly competitors, well-respected peers, said that Dr. Gingrey in 

this instance practiced below the standard of care, I would be in 

a serious world of hurt. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

Reflecting on the fact that two of your major competitors admitted that BP drilled the Macondo well in a nonstandard way, in retrospect what is your opinion of BP’s design plan for the Macondo 

well? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I tried to explain, there are clearly some issues 

that our investigation has identified. And when the investigation is 

complete, we will draw the right conclusions. 

Mr. GINGREY. With all due respect, you have had 59 days and 

you are not exactly moving with fever pitch here. Do you believe 

BP was drilling the well following the best safety practices you 

were focused on reinvigorating when you were promoted to the position of CEO a couple of years ago? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I have no reason to conclude that wasn’t the case. 

If I found at any point that anyone in BP put cost ahead of safety, 

I would take action. 

Mr. GINGREY. Do you believe that the decisions made regarding 

Deepwater Horizon on and leading up to April the 20th, such as 

a decision to use only 6 centralizers instead of 21, the decision to 

not run a cement bond log, do you believe those decisions reflect 

the normal decision making process at BP, or would you characterize those decisions as an exception to normal operating procedures? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There is nothing I have seen in the evidence so 

far that suggests that anyone put costs ahead of safety. If there 

are, then we will take action. 

Mr. GINGREY. Let me put it this way, Mr. Hayward, in the remaining time that I have left. If you had been physically present 

on that rig, along with the 11 men that were killed, would you 

have made the same decisions as were made? Would you have approved the decision to use only 6 centimeters, despite the recommendation to use 21? Would you have made the decision to not 

run a cement bond log if you had been standing on that Deepwater 

Horizon rig? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not the drilling engineer, so I am not actually qualified to make those judgments. Better people than I were 

involved in those decisions in terms of the judgments that were 

taken. And if our investigation determines that at any time people 

put costs ahead of safety, then we will take action. 

Mr. GINGREY. With all due respect, Mr. Hayward, I think you are 

copping out. You are the captain of the ship, and it has been said 

by members on both sides of the aisle of this committee, we had 

a President once that said, the buck stops on my desk, a very distinguished President. And I think the buck stops on your desk. And 

we are just not getting, I don’t think, the answers from you that 

need to be presented to this committee in a forthright manner. It 

is a little frustrating for all of us and it seems like your testimony 

has been way too evasive. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back at this time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Braley for questions, 

please. 

Mr. BRALEY. I want to follow up on my friend from Oklahoma’s 

questions about the culture of safety at BP, Mr. Hayward, because 

you have stated repeatedly since you took over as CEO of BP, that 

safe reliable operations are a number one priority, correct? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is correct. 

Mr. BRALEY. And you have been CEO for the past 3 years, correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Correct. 

Mr. BRALEY. Then explain to us why between June of 2007 and 

February of 2010, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration checked 55 oil refineries operating in the U.S.; 2 of those 55 

are owned by BP, and BP’s refineries racked up 760 citations for 

egregiously willful safety violations accounting for 97 percent of the 

worst and most serious violations that OSHA monitors in the workplace. That doesn’t sound like a culture of safety. 

Mr. HAYWARD. We acknowledge we had very serious issues in 

2005 and 2006. 

Mr. BRALEY. I am not talking about 2005 and 2006. I’m citing 

from an OSHA study between June of 2007, on your watch, and 

February of 2010 where OSHA said BP has a systemic safety problem. And of those 760 that were classified as egregious and willful, 

it is important to note that that is the worst violation that OSHA 

can identify. And their definition is a violation committed with 

plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety 

and health; 97 percent of all of those egregious violations at U.S. 

refineries on your watch were against your company. 

That doesn’t sound like a company that, to use your words, is 

committed to safe, reliable operations as your number one priority. 

There is a complete disconnect between your testimony and the reality of these OSHA findings; do you understand that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I understand what you are saying. 

Mr. BRALEY. So we also had Mr. Barton earlier make this comment about what happened at the White House yesterday. Were 

you there for that conference with the White House? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I was. 

Mr. BRALEY. Do you think that BP was shaken down by the 

Obama administration to come up with this $20 billion compensation fund? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We attended the White House at the invitation of 

the government to form a way forward and try and work together 

to deal with the leak, the response to the leak, and to make a return of the Gulf Coast to its past. And that is what we are going 

to do. 

Mr. BRALEY. I realize that we speak the same language, but it 

is not always the same language when we speak English in the 

United States and English in Great Britain. So I want to make 

sure I am clear on this. Here in this country, the word ‘‘shaken 

down’’ means somebody in a position of disadvantage is forced to 

do something against their will. Is that how you viewed these negotiations at the White House yesterday? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I said, we came together to figure out a way 

of working together to resolve what is clearly a very, very serious 

situation. 

Mr. BRALEY. And the reason you came together, sir, is because 

it was not only in the best interest of the United States taxpayers 

and the citizens of this country, it is also in the best interest of BP 

to try to get this problem solved so that it can move forward; isn’t 

that true? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is undoubtedly true. We would like to resolve 

this issue, as would everyone else. 

Mr. BRALEY. When the ranking member referred to this compensation fund—which I applaud as a positive step forward—as a 

slush fund, I want you to know that in this country that implies 

a very negative connotation as something illegal, below the surface 

of what is acceptable. 

Did you consider this compensation fund for people who had lost 

their lives, lost their businesses, lost their environment, lost their 

ability to—did you consider that to be a slush fund? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As we said yesterday, the fund is a signal of our 

commitment to do right; to ensure that individuals, fishermen, 

charter boat captain, small hotel owner, everyone who has been impacted by this is kept whole. That is what I have said from the 

very beginning of this and that is what we intend to do. And as 

I said in my testimony, I hope people will now take—see that we 

are good for our word. 

Mr. BRALEY. Can we take that as a ‘‘no’’ in response to my question, sir, that you did not consider this to be a slush fund? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I certainly didn’t think it was a slush fund, Congressman. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. I will yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Latta for questions, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being with us, Mr. Hayward. Earlier in the morning, our ranking member, Mr. Burgess, had asked a question and 

you responded by—if I wrote it down here correctly, that everything we do is subject to regulatory oversight. And who is that 

when we are talking about regulatory oversight? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The regulatory oversight of the deepwater drilling 

operations is the Minerals Management Service. 

Mr. LATTA. But here in the Federal Government, who would be 

out on the rig for that oversight? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is the inspectors of the Mineral Management 

Service, I believe. 

Mr. LATTA. I am sure there are records out there. When was the 

last time that the MMS would have been on the rig? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am afraid I am not aware of that date. But I 

imagine it was relatively shortly before the incident. 

Mr. LATTA. Do you know of any citations that were issued during 

the time they were on the rig? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not aware of any citations, no. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask this question. I know I have talked to 

quite a few Members from the Gulf Coast and also from these reports, and there have been many, many cases out there where they 

are talking about it takes almost 5 days for a turnaround time and 

once it starts—I came from local government. So the chain of command out there for local government, the State Government and 

depending what is the chain is out there, but they are saying over 

and over and over it takes about 5 days. A lot of times they say 

they have to go talk to BP. 

And I was just wondering—because knowing that time is of the 

essence out there because of all of these critical matters that are 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

happening, why is this, that they say they have to go ask BP and 

this turnaround time takes so long? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I don’t 

know. 

Mr. LATTA. Could you get that information for us? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We can, yes, sir. 

Mr. LATTA. I guess the next question, you will probably have the 

same response. The question is: Who set the procedure up this way 

that we would have a situation where it would take a 5-day turnaround time? Do you have any knowledge of that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am afraid I don’t know. 

Mr. LATTA. After the disaster occurred, have you had direct contact with the White House, and do you have a direct person at the 

White House that you have been dealing with when problems arise 

that you can get things turned around quickly? 

Mr. HAYWARD. My primary contact through all of this has been 

with Admiral Thad Allen who is the National Incident Commander. 

And he and I talk on a very regular basis. 

Mr. LATTA. When you say ‘‘on a very regular basis,’’ how often 

would that be? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Typically once a day, often more than once a day. 

Mr. LATTA. Again, as the lady from Tennessee, we have a kind 

of frustration level on getting some responses. But with that, Mr. 

Chairman, I am going to yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Latta. Ms. DeGette for 8 minutes, 

please. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, in your initial testimony, you testified that BP has 

drilled hundreds of wells around the world. How many of them are 

deepwater wells? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t know the precise number, but we drill a 

lot of deepwater wells in various parts of the world. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. You don’t know how many. Do you think that 

BP wells—irrespective of where they are drilled—should be drilled 

to the highest industry standards? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe that is what we try to do. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So your answer would be yes? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Uh-huh. 

Ms. DEGETTE. As this well was being drilled, were you informed 

as CEO of the company, of the progress of the well? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I was not. 

Ms. DEGETTE. You were not. 

Before I continue, I know you had difficulty answering some of 

the technical questions members have asked you, so I know you 

brought a technical expert with you, Mr. Zanghi. Would you like 

us to swear him in so he can help you answer some of my technical 

questions? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think that depends on the question. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Let’s see how it goes. Mr. Hayward, you said that 

you received the chairman’s June 14th letter to you which talked 

about five decisions that compromised the safety of this well: well 

design, centralizer, cement bond log, mud circulation and lockdown 

sleeve. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

I want to ask you in my question about one of those issues and 

that is the cement bond log. First thing I want you to do, if you 

can take that notebook that is to your left, open it up. In the front 

flap there is a memo which was written from Brian Morel to Richard Miller on Wednesday, April 14th. And that memo says, This 

has been an nightmare well, which has everyone all over the place. 

Did anybody inform you as CEO of the country—company—in 

April of this year that this was a nightmare well? 

Mr. HAYWARD. They did not. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Did you consequently see this memo? Have you 

seen this memo? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I saw this memo when it was raised by your committee. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And that is the first you ever heard of it? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is the first time—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Is that the first you ever heard it of being a nightmare well? 

Mr. HAYWARD. When I first saw this—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, let us talk for a minute about the cementing 

job because all of the testimony that we have had in this committee 

through our hearings, also in the Natural Resources Committee 

through their hearings, indicates that the choices that BP made— 

and its subcontractors—in order to save money led to blind faith 

in a successful cementing job. Let me just walk through it first so 

that you can understand. 

First of all, BP chose a riskier well design and the chairman, 

Chairman Waxman, talked about this for a moment. The best practice would have been to use a liner and a tieback which provides 

four barriers to prevent the flow of dangerous hydrocarbons to the 

wellhead. Instead, BP as the chairman said, chose a long-string approach which has only two barriers. 

An internal document of the company warned that this approach 

was not recommended because, quote, cementing simulations indicate it is unlikely to be a successful cement job. And you can look 

at Tab 6 of the notebook you have in front of you to see that, Mr. 

Hayward. It says, Cement simulations indicate it is unlikely to be 

a successful cement job due to formulation breakdown. 

This is an internal BP confidential document from mid-April. 

Have you seen this document before? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I saw it as a consequence of the letter that—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. But you did not see it at the time? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I did not see it at the time. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But there were BP folks who saw it, correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There were certainly BP people who saw this. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So the document says there would be a potential 

need to verify with the bond log and perform a remedial cement 

job, but BP chose the riskier approach. 

Secondly, BP chose the riskier centralizer option. Experts have 

told us in testimony to this committee that the best practice would 

have been to use 21 centralizers, but BP only used 6. If you take 

a look at Tab 8, it says on Page 18, it says you did this even though 

your cementer, Halliburton, said this would create a, quote, severe 

risk that the cement job would fail. It says based on—it says that 

it would be a severe risk. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

And BP’s operations drilling engineer wrote about this decision: 

Who cares, it’s done, end of story; will probably be fine and get a 

good cement job. 

Were you aware of that document at the time, Mr. Hayward? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I was not aware of any of these documents at the 

time. 

Ms. DEGETTE. When did you learn about that memo? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That memo was, again, when I was made aware 

of it by your committee. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But you wouldn’t deny that BP employees and supervisors were aware of that document at the time, correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There were people in BP who were aware of that 

document. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Would you say it is the best business practices to 

say, Who cares, it is done, end of story, will probably be fine and 

we will get a good cement job? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think that is, you know, a cause for concern. I 

would like to understand the context in which it was sent. And as 

I have said a number of times, if there is any evidence that people 

put costs ahead of safety, then I will take action. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I understand. Let me finish with the cement bond. 

Now, BP failed to perform the most effective test that was known 

to determine whether the cement was properly sealed, and that is 

the cement bond log test. There was a contractor, Schlumberger, on 

board, hired to perform this test, but they were sent away 11 hours 

prior to the explosion. This test was described by Halliburton’s 

chief safety officer, Tim Porbert, as quote: The only test that can 

really determine the actual effectiveness of the bond between the 

cement sheets, the formation and the casing itself. 

Now, the committee has consulted an independent expert who 

said that cement bond loss should always be used. Another expert 

said it is unheard of not to perform this test. He called your decision, and I am quoting, horribly negligent. 

So I want to ask you a question. Do you think, as CEO of this 

company, it was a mistake not to conduct the cement bond log test? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is what our investigation will determine. As 

I—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. So your answer would be, yes, it was a mistake, 

correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not able to answer ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ until the 

investigation is complete. When we finish—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Have your lawyers told you not to or what? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Simply because I wasn’t involved. I am sorry. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. But you just said you think that all the evidence shows it was a mistake, correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is not correct. That is not what I said. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Do you think it was all right not to conduct 

it? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think we need to complete the investigation—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Well—— 

Mr. HAYWARD [continuing]. And determine whether running a cement bond log or not would have created a major difference to what 

happened here. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Let me ask you this: Are you aware of the 

fact that it would have cost about $128,000 and taken 9 to 12 hours 

to complete the cement bond log test? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am aware of that fact, yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. OK. 

OK, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Mr. Doyle for questions, please. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, in your testimony, you said that some of the best 

minds and the deepest expertise are being brought to bear on the 

oil spill and that it is difficult to imagine the gathering of a larger, 

more technically proficient team in one place in peacetime. Now, I 

know that is meant to reassure us that everything possible is being 

done, but it does make me wonder who was making these key decisions before the accident. 

Now, one of these key decisions was which type of pipe to insert 

in the well, a single tube from the top or a two-piece liner with a 

tieback set-up. Now, the second design offers more barriers to unintended gas flow. And, on Tuesday, the other oil companies that we 

talked to told us they would have chosen that design. 

Looking back, the decision that BP made appears to have had serious consequences. Mr. Hayward, were you involved in that decision? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I was not involved in that decision. 

Mr. DOYLE. Were you aware of that decision? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I was not involved or aware of any of the decisions around this well as it was being drilled. 

Mr. DOYLE. We asked your representatives, who are the senior 

BP executives who are responsible for the Macondo well. They told 

us it was Andy Inglis, the chief executive for exploration, and Doug 

Suttles, the chief operating officer for exploration. 

Can you tell me, was Andy Inglis involved in this decision? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am afraid I can’t answer that question. I genuinely don’t know. I would be very surprised. 

Mr. DOYLE. What about Doug Suttles, was he involved in the decision? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I would also be very surprised if Mr. Suttles was 

involved in any decision. 

Mr. DOYLE. So we have reviewed all of their e-mails and communications. We find no record that they knew anything about this 

decision. In fact, we find no evidence that they ever received briefings on the activities aboard the Deepwater Horizon before the explosion. These decisions all seem to have been delegated to much 

lower-ranking officials. 

Well, Mr. Hayward, then, who was the one who made the decision to use a single tube of metal from the top of the well to the 

bottom? Who did make that decision? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not sure exactly who made the decision. It 

would have been a decision taken by the drilling organization in 

the Gulf of Mexico. They are the technical experts that have the 

technical knowledge and understanding to make decisions of that 

sort. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

Mr. DOYLE. But you can’t tell this committee who that person 

was? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I can’t, sitting here today, I am afraid. 

Mr. DOYLE. You can get this information to our committee? I 

mean, I think it is pretty amazing that this is the decision that had 

enormous consequences and you can’t even tell the committee who 

made the decision on behalf of your company. 

And the reason I am asking you these questions is because your 

industry is different than many. You are not the CEO of a department store chain where it is fine to leave decisions about running 

the store to branch managers. You know, if a department store 

middle manager makes a mistake, there are no life-or-death consequences. 

What you do is different. You are drilling far below sea level into 

a region that is more like outer space than anything else. The consequences of that drilling are huge. If a mistake or misjudgment 

is made, workers on the rig can get killed and an environmental 

catastrophe can be unleashed. 

The best minds in the senior leadership of a company should be 

paying close attention to those risks. But it didn’t happen here. 

And now we are all paying the consequences because those of you 

at the top don’t seem to have a clue about what was going on on 

this rig. 

Now, I am sitting here thinking I could be a CEO of an oil company. I hear it pays a little bit better than being a Member of Congress. Because I have watched you in front of this committee; you 

are not able to give us much information on anything here. 

I want to ask you one last question while I have some time. You 

told us that you are doing everything possible to stop this well from 

leaking, but it seems to me that what we are left with now is waiting for this relief well to be drilled. And that is going to happen 

sometime in August. 

So, you know, today is June 17th. Now, back in 1979, the Ixtoc 

I took over 9 months to cap after drilling several relief wells. And 

that well was only 160 feet down into the ocean, while the Macondo 

well is over 5,000 feet below the surface of the ocean. 

Can you tell us today, have you abandoned any other efforts to 

kill this well? Are we at the point now where BP is doing nothing 

until the relief well gets down there? Or are you trying some different technology or some other way to kill the well, you know, before you get a relief well down there? Is there anything else on the 

horizon? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am afraid there are no other options to kill this 

well other than from the well at the base of the reservoir. As you 

are all aware, we tried to kill the well from the top, using the Top 

Kill operation, and the pressures in the well are such that it is not 

possible to do that. So we have to rely on the relief wells. 

In the interim, we are continuing to contain as much of the oil 

we can. And that operation is currently containing 20,000 barrels 

a day. By the end of this month, we will have the ability to contain 

between 40,000 and 50,000 barrels a day and, by the middle of 

July, between 60,000 and 80,000 barrels a day. 

Mr. DOYLE. I will ask you the same question I asked other oil 

executives on Tuesday. Why wouldn’t you just drill relief wells 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

when you drill the main well, so that if something like this happened, instead of us waiting 2, 3 months and watching millions of 

barrels of oil come into the ocean, destroying our ecosystem and 

our way of life on the gulf coast, that you could kill that well in 

a short period of time? 

I understand the extra relief well would cost you a little bit more 

money, but it seems to me, in this case, it would have saved you 

billions of dollars. What are your thoughts on drilling relief wells 

along with main wells? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think we will need to look at all of the options 

available to us going forward with respect to deepwater exploration. 

Mr. DOYLE. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. 

Ms. Schakowsky for questions, please. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to focus on the mindset of BP when it comes to its 

workers. You said in your opening statement that you were personally devastated, you attended a memorial service for those men. ‘‘It 

was a shattering moment. I want to offer my sincere condolences 

to their friends and families. I can only imagine their sorrow.’’ 

Probably not as devastated as the widows that testified before 

our committee. And I asked them: What about BP, what kind of 

contact have you had with BP since the incident—letters, phone 

calls, visits? And Natalie Roshto said, ‘‘Two BP men attended 

James’s services, and they never extended a hand, a hug, never extended a ‘we’re sorry,’ their condolences. The only words that came 

out of their mouth was where they were to be seated, and I never 

saw them after that.’’ 

I asked, ‘‘What about you, Mrs. Kemp?’’ ‘‘Two BP men came to 

Wyatt’s services, and one extended his hand. I shook it. He told me 

he was very sorry for my loss. He asked if he could hug me; he did. 

The other gentleman extended his hand, told me who he was. And 

they sent two plants to the service. And that is the extent of my 

conversation or any dealings with BP.’’ 

That’s it. Do you feel that you owe something more to those 

women, just in terms of expressing something and some—and 

more? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I said, I am devastated by the accident, absolutely devastated. And I feel great sorrow for the people who have 

been impacted by it. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, they haven’t heard anything. 

Mr. HAYWARD. The people who were killed in the accident were 

not BP employees. They were employees of Transocean and another 

contractor. And both of them made it very clear that they wanted 

to deal with the families. We have provided support to both 

Transocean and—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I guess I was talking about human beings—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. And we have made it clear that we will provide 

all and every need for the families, but the—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK, let me ask another question. There were 

BP personnel on the rig, and we read that oil workers from the rig 

were held in seclusion on the open water for up to 2 days after the 

April 20 explosion while attorneys attempted to convince them to 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

sign legal documents stating that they were unharmed by the incident. 

The men claimed that they were forbidden from having any contact with concerned loved ones during that time and were told that 

they would not be able to go home until they signed the documents 

they were presented with. After being awake for 50 harrowing 

hours, Stephen Davis caved in and signed the papers. He said most 

of the others did, as well. 

Do you think this is an appropriate way to treat people that experience that? And since you are executives, you had people on the 

rig, what was their feeling about that, what is your feeling about 

that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think it is inappropriate, and it was nothing to 

do with BP. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I see. And BP had no comment on it and had 

no opportunity—I mean, did the company know about it? Was 

there any—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t believe we were aware it was taking place, 

but it was certainly nothing to do with BP. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. Well, I did mention during my opening 

statement this document that basically says, ‘‘Such voluntary effort 

shall be at my own risk,’’ that people were made to sign. And there 

were two court appearances that were needed to finally get BP to 

take responsibility. 

But what I understand is that BP continued to fail to provide 

adequate protective gear to the fishermen. And on May 16th, 

OSHA issued a detailed directive on the training requirement for 

specific tasks to responders and stated that OSHA had officials 

monitoring the training and observing the cleanup. 

But, according to testimony we heard in Louisiana, still, BP 

failed to provide respirators to the workers exposed to the crude oil, 

and the workers experienced health impacts. The workers were 

afraid to speak up due to the potential to lose their jobs. Those 

fishermen who attempted to wear respirators while working were 

threatened to be fired by BP due to the workers using the respirators. 

Do you know anything about that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not aware of that. What we clearly are endeavoring to do is to ensure that anyone involved in the response 

is appropriately provided with whatever safety equipment is required. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Endeavoring to provide? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, we—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Are the workers currently provided with what 

they need? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Absolutely. In every case, we are trying to make 

certain that people do not put—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You are trying to make certain, but is all the 

equipment there and are all these workers protected? 

Mr. HAYWARD. To my knowledge, yes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

We will next turn to Mr. Ross for questions, please. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Hayward, since my opening statement, up to 416,666 

gallons of oil have leaked into the gulf. That was about 4 hours 

ago. 

In our opening statement 4 hours ago, I asked you to be open 

with us and honest with us in your responses. And, instead, it 

seems as though we are getting statements memorized by you and 

provided by your legal counsel. 

I don’t know if BP quite understands how angry the American 

people and the world is at them. I can tell you it is rare that you 

see Democrats and Republicans on this panel agreeing with one another, and yet it has been pretty consistent today, with a few major 

exceptions, the level of discontent and anger and frustration at BP. 

I also watch this on the news, and it seems to me that BP has 

not been honest with the American people, it has not been honest 

with our government, and it seems as though you are trying to 

hide something. 

Sir, it is hard to hide 2.5 million gallons of oil a day pouring into 

the gulf. We want answers. We want you to be honest and open 

with us. And we want to finally see the kind of transparency that 

you have been talking about. 

I have a few questions for you. 

BP is currently in the process of drilling two relief wells to stop 

the flow of oil that may or may not work, which you have said will 

be finished by August. 

After these relief wells are finished and the leak has been 

stopped, what does BP plan to do with these wells? Do you plan 

to put these wells into production to make a profit off of them, or 

do you plan to shut them down after the situation has been resolved? 

Mr. HAYWARD. They will be shut down after the situation has 

been resolved. The first relief well, we will pump mud down the relief well to kill the well, to kill the current well that is flowing, and 

then cement it up. 

Mr. ROSS. A recent article in the New York Times reported that 

the cleanup effort thus far has created over 250 tons of solid waste 

and 175,000 gallons of liquid waste that are now being carted away 

from the gulf coast and shipped off to landfills. 

BP executives have stated that had this waste, which is admittedly hazardous and destructive to our ocean environment, is perfectly safe to dump in our Nation’s landfills. You have polluted our 

coast and our air with this tragic spill, and now you are shipping 

the waste you collect and dumping it near our homes and our 

water sources. 

I want to know where this waste is going. And are you shipping 

it throughout the country? How can we be sure it has been treated 

and is safe? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t know the details of that, but I can assure 

you that we will do the right thing to ensure that it is treated in 

the proper and appropriate way. 

Mr. ROSS. Can you provide me and this committee with a response? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We certainly can. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

Mr. ROSS. Let me try this, in the time I have left. This has been 

asked several times, and I don’t think we have gotten an answer 

yet. 

We all know about the e-mails from BP employees expressing 

their concerns about the casing procedures, including an April 15th 

e-mail from your drilling engineer, Brian Morel, who described the 

well as, quote, ‘‘a nightmare well.’’ 

How much were the drilling engineers consulted in the decision 

to use the single string casing? Was this a bottom-up decision in 

which the people actually connected to drilling the operation had 

some influence, or did it come from the top down? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I understand it from the discussion with our 

investigation team and from the review of the documents, there 

was a discussion taking place amongst the drilling engineering 

team responsible for this well. And that is how the decision and the 

judgments were taken. 

Mr. ROSS. So would you call that a bottom-up decision or a topdown decision? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I would say it was a decision taken by the right 

experts with the right technical knowledge to make the decision. 

Mr. ROSS. In your testimony, you note that you are currently 

drilling two relief wells which will ultimately stem the flow of oil. 

In previous testimony from BP and Transocean, we have heard 

that there are numerous redundancies built into all of your equipment and in all of your personnel procedures to ensure that your 

company does the very best it can to ensure that tragedies like the 

one we have seen unfold over the past 59 days don’t occur. 

My question is this: Do you view these relief wells as an on-off 

switch? When these wells are complete, are they going to stop the 

flow of oil into our ocean? If so, why didn’t you predrill emergency 

relief wells prior to this whole mess? It has been asked before; we 

are still waiting for a good answer. 

Did you do cost-benefit analysis and determine that it was cheaper to drill one well, spend years rolling in profits from the oil you 

managed to capture, and then potentially pay a massive sum to 

clean up an inevitable tragedy? Which was it, sir? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We believed that the blowout preventer was the 

ultimate fail-safe mechanism. That clearly was not the case in this 

instance. 

It failed on three separate indications: It failed when it was activated on the drilling rig at the time of the incident. It failed to operate when the drilling rig separated from the blowout preventer, 

as it should have done. And it failed to activate when we had submersible robots at the blowout preventer within 24 hours of the incident. 

That was the fail-safe mechanism. 

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Ross. 

Mrs. Christensen for questions. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, you have pledged $20 billion for a trust fund, 

which I see is a commitment to meet BP’s obligation—and not a 

slush fund, just for the record. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

My question is, are health payments such as for any illnesses 

that residents or workers may develop as a result of the spill covered in your statement to cover all legitimate claims? And what 

about Federal and local government outlays of health and other 

personnel, are they covered under that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Claims of that sort are covered under the fund. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Several individuals and organizations have called for more people and more expertise to assist in fighting what is increasingly 

being called a war. General Honore calls it World War III and calls 

for it to be fought as such. 

What is not part of the effort that needs to be? What is missing? 

And do you feel that you need more hands, more people to effectively fight this so-called war and prevent the oil from creating any 

more damage? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We have been fighting a battle on three fronts 

since the very beginning: to eliminate the leak, to contain the oil 

on the surface, and to defend the shore. 

And it is now the task now of the incident commander, the national incident commander, Thad Allen, to determine what further 

resources are required. It is a conversation that he and I have on 

a regular basis, to try and ensure that we have the right resources 

in the right place at the right time to deal with the incident. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So, as of your last conversation with Admiral 

Allen, the sense was that you had all that you needed and all of 

the people that you needed? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are continuing to work the issue of defending 

the shore, to try and mitigate to the maximum extent possible the 

amount of oil that comes onshore. That is where we can still do 

more to defend the beaches. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Thank you for your answer. 

You state in your testimony that the events of 4/20 were not foreseen by you. But in light of the several areas of concern that have 

been raised, shouldn’t someone have foreseen and been able to prevent the explosion? 

For example, I understand that there is supposed to be a policy 

where any one person on a rig can shut it down if they perceive 

a problem. Is this a real policy that is enforced and reinforced in 

training, or is it something just on paper? Because that didn’t seem 

to happen in this instance, even though some Transocean, some 

Halliburton, and even BP employees reportedly had serious concerns. 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is a policy that is real. And if anyone at any 

time believes that what they are doing is unsafe, they have both 

the right and the obligation to stop the task. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And are you surprised that no one, given 

what we are hearing—and I know the investigation is not complete—that no one made that decision to shut the rig down? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think, in the light of what we now know, it is 

of course surprising that someone didn’t say that they were concerned. And I think that is to the heart of the investigation, to understand exactly what the events were and why there was not a 

different decision taken with respect to the event, particularly in 

the last 5 or 6 hours on the day of the incident. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. There was a company that was supposed to 

do the—I think it was Schlumberger, that was on the rig at the 

time and left. Now, when we were in New Orleans, we were told 

in the hearing that they left because of concern for safety, but 

other reports said that they left because they were told they 

weren’t needed. What is, in your analysis, the correct reason? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe it is clear that they left the rig because 

they had completed the task, or the task that they had anticipated 

to do was not required. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. So, as far as you know, it was not that 

they felt unsafe, as we were told in New Orleans? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It was nothing to do, I don’t believe on the basis 

of anything that I have seen, that it was anything to do with safety. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. My last question: In your testimony, you 

say, and I am quoting, ‘‘BP is a responsible party under the Oil 

Pollution Act,’’ and you distinguish that terminology from any implication of legal liability, which is still being investigated. 

When you say ‘‘a,’’ do you think that you are the sole responsible 

party? Or might there be others? And, if so, who? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The government has named four responsible parties. They are BP, Transocean, Mitsui, and Anadarko. They have 

all been named as responsible parties in this incident. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. The last two were? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Mitsui, Anadarko, Transocean, and BP. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen. 

Next for questions would be Mr. Welch. He is not here. 

Next would be Mr. Green for questions, please. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, the day before yesterday, Mr. Tillerson from 

ExxonMobil testified Tuesday that, in the aftermath of the Exxon 

Valdez accident, ExxonMobil launched a full-scale, top-to-bottom 

review of their operations and implementing far-reaching actions 

that today guide every operation decision they make on a daily 

basis. 

Have there been any specific reforms that BP has implemented 

following the Alaska pipeline accident and the Texas City refinery 

disaster? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We have implemented major, major change following the incidents in 2006 and 2007. We have implemented 

changes to our people, in terms of the skills and capabilities we 

have. We have implemented changes to the training that they get 

and the expertise that they develop. And we have implemented significant changes to all of our operating practices, including the implementation of an operating management system that covers all 

of the company’s operations. It has been a root-and-branch review, 

from top to bottom. 

Mr. GREEN. I guess my concern is, having followed both the Alaskan pipeline and the Texas City refinery disaster, those reforms 

haven’t worked. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

What will be done differently this time? In the last almost 60 

days, has there been some discussion on why the reforms from the 

Texas City and the pipeline, the Alaska pipeline, hasn’t worked? 

And, again, you know the information our committee has. You received a letter 2 days ago on some of the decisions that were made 

literally on the rig by BP’s representatives. 

What, going forward from here, will we know 5 years from now 

that we won’t have to repeat what we are doing this time? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is why I am so determined to get to the bottom of this incident, such that we can learn from it and make 

changes to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. 

Mr. GREEN. What has happened with your drilling procedures 

internationally? I know there are different standards for different 

companies. Our committee heard testimony from the executive a 

few days ago that, typically, Norway and the Scandinavian countries have the toughest offshore drilling. I know BP is active in 

Norway. 

Is there a significant difference on what you do in the Gulf of 

Mexico as compared to what you do off the coast of Norway or even 

off the coast at Edinburgh or off the coast of Great Britain? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We approach with the same standards globally. 

And the truth is that the rules and regulations, as I understand 

it, in the Gulf of Mexico are higher than they are, for example, in 

the North Sea and the U.K. Sector, in terms of the requirements. 

So we will continue to learn from this incident and make changes 

to ensure that it cannot happen again. And it will be global. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Green. Do you yield back? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Green yields back. 

I next turn to Mr. Barton, ranking member, for questions, please. 

Mr. BARTON. I thank you, Chairman Stupak. I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions. 

Mr. Hayward, yesterday when we had a hearing in a different 

subcommittee of this full committee, we had four CEOs of other oil 

companies. I think to a person—and I could be wrong about this— 

but I think they all indicated that they either would not have 

drilled this well or at least would not have drilled it the way BP 

drilled it. 

What is your response to that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I want to understand exactly what happened 

through our investigation, to compare it with other practices, to determine what is the truth. And I can’t comment today on that. 

Mr. BARTON. All right. 

I have had off-camera discussions with a number of experts in 

the drilling processes for the deep Gulf of Mexico, and they all say 

that BP has a different culture. For example, in most of the other 

companies that operate in the deep gulf, there are a number of individuals on site that have what is called stop-order authority. In 

other words, if they see something that is going on that compromises safety or integrity, they have the ability to stop production. But I am told that BP doesn’t give that authority, that it is 

further up the chain of command. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

Is that correct? And, if so, is that something that BP may consider changing, given what has happened? 

Mr. HAYWARD. On a drilling operation such as this, anyone can 

stop it—the BP man, the Transocean driller, the Transocean tool 

pusher, the OIM, or the BP on-site leader. It requires everyone to 

agree to continue, and if there is one person who does not agree, 

then they do not. Anyone. 

Mr. BARTON. So when I am told that the BP culture in terms of 

this authority is different, I have been told incorrectly? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe that is so, Congressman. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. 

In terms of the two relief drills that are currently being drilled, 

are they being drilled using the same procedures as this well, or 

are they being drilled differently? In other words, some of the 

things that weren’t used on this well—the double casing, things of 

this sort—are those relief wells going to use these enhanced safety 

procedures? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There are clearly some areas of concern, as we 

have identified in our investigation—cement casing. And the relief 

wells are being drilled with all of those issues absolutely foremost 

in the procedure. 

Now, clearly, the relief wells are rather different because of what 

they have to do. But all of the things that we have learnt, to date, 

from our investigation have absolutely been incorporated into the 

activity that is taking place with respect to the relief wells. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. 

Have you either read or been at least given a summary of the 

letter that Chairman Waxman and Chairman Stupak sent earlier 

in the week that lists the five or six outstanding—or what they 

consider, what the staffs consider to be the anomalies in this well 

and the safety concerns? Are you familiar with that letter? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am familiar with that letter. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Do you agree in general with the concerns that 

are raised there about the lack of, for lack of a better term, a safety 

collar being employed, the number of devices that could have 

stopped the oil and gas venting and escaping up the well? Somebody recommended, I think, 21 or 22, and BP made a decision to 

only use six. 

Now that you know what has happened, do you share some of 

the concerns that that letter raises? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think I share the concern about the number of 

contributing factors that may have—that have created this incident. They are focused on the cement, on the casing, on the integrity test, on the well control procedures, and on the complete failure of the blowout preventer. 

And they are all areas that I believe we really need to understand fully before we draw conclusions about how this accident occurred. 

Mr. BARTON. My final question is, based on what you now know, 

do you agree with the general conclusion expressed yesterday that 

this was a preventable accident? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe that all accidents are preventable, absolutely. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I may take a small point of personal 

privilege, I want the record to be absolutely clear that I think BP 

is responsible for this accident, should be held responsible, and 

should in every way do everything possible to make good on the 

consequences that have resulted from this accident. 

And if anything I said this morning has been misconstrued in opposite effect, I want to apologize for that misconstruction. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Barton. 

Ms. Sutton for questions. 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, this testimony has been fascinating. 

We have heard a lot about your desire to come in and improve 

the safety of operations everywhere in the world, something to that 

effect. And you listed another top priority: to conduct BP’s business 

in a way that is in tune with the world without damaging the environment. 

Would you agree that BP did not meet those goals on the Deepwater Horizon rig? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think it is clear that I regret, BP regrets what 

has happened here deeply. 

Ms. SUTTON. So, obviously, BP did not meet those goals on the 

Deepwater Horizon rig. But, Mr. Hayward, the concern beyond that 

is there seems to be little evidence about how hard BP tried to 

meet that goal. 

The committee’s investigation of the Deepwater Horizon disaster 

identified five key decisions—we have talked about it over and over 

again in this hearing—made by BP officials in the days before the 

explosion. Those decisions had two common denominators: They 

saved time and cut costs, and they each increased risk. 

Now, I have heard you say over and over again in the course of 

today’s hearings that there is nothing that I have seen in evidence 

so far that BP put costs ahead of safety. And I have to tell you how 

detached that seems. Because we have also talked about some of 

the documents that the committee has unearthed, and document 

after document that indicated that BP officials in charge of the 

Deepwater Horizon were focused on saving time and money—for 

example, the document that says that the well design was chosen 

because it would save $7 million to $10 million. 

You are familiar with that document, correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am familiar with that document. 

Ms. SUTTON. OK. And another one says that the reason for not 

using sufficient centralizers is because it would take 10 hours to 

install them. You are familiar with that document? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Yes, I am familiar with that document. 

Ms. SUTTON. OK. And you indicated that you weren’t familiar 

with any of this happening before the explosion; you only learned 

about it afterwards, right, as the CEO of this company? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I wasn’t familiar with any of the decisions or any 

of the documents surrounding this well prior or during the drilling 

of the well. 

Ms. SUTTON. OK. And what is fascinating also is that, when you 

were asked about how these decisions are made within the structure of your organization, you referenced this from a perspective of, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

‘‘As I understand it from our investigation, this is how these decisions are made.’’ But you are the leader of the company. You 

couldn’t even tell us if they were top-down or bottom-up decisions. 

You were just referencing them based on an after-the-fact investigation. 

So when we talk about these documents, the documents I just 

referenced—the one that says the well design was chosen because 

it would save $7 million to $10 million and the other one that says 

that the reason for not using sufficient centralizers is because it 

would take 10 hours to install them—none of these documents 

makes a decision to ensure a safe environment on the rig or protect 

the environment from a catastrophic oil spill. 

Would you say that that is true, that that doesn’t indicate a decision being made based on ensuring a safe environment or protecting the environment? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t think it is possible to say that, based on 

the documents, out of context. 

Ms. SUTTON. And, see, that is why I think there is a real detachment here, a real disconnect, as we have heard that word used earlier today. It seems to me there was a disconnect prior to the explosion, and there remains a disconnect when viewing evidence that 

is very clear and being presented. 

This was a tragic failure. You have talked about your commitment to safety and the environment, but when push came to shove 

on the Deepwater Horizon, the company’s concern seemed to be the 

bottom line. 

And I guess this is my question to you, Mr. Hayward: Who was 

responsible for the failures on the Deepwater Horizon and the terrible set of decisions that led to the tragedy in the gulf? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is what our investigation will determine, 

and that is what it is going to do. And if there is, at any point, evidence to suggest that people put costs ahead of safety, then I will 

take action. 

Ms. SUTTON. So, evidence like those documents? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The evidence from the totality of the investigation. 

Ms. SUTTON. OK. 

Mr. Hayward, as the leader of the company, don’t you have to 

accept the responsibility? 

You talked about the importance of safety and the environment, 

but you presided over a corporate culture where safety and risks 

and risks to the environment were ignored in order to save a few 

days and a few dollars in drilling costs. 

If you are the leader of the company, don’t you have to take responsibility? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am absolutely responsible for the safety and reliable operations in BP. That is what I have said all along. 

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Ms. Sutton. 

Mr. Welch for questions, please. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, is it true that, in 2005, the Texas City operation 

owned by BP blew up, resulting in the loss of lives of 15 workers? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is true. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

Mr. WELCH. And is it true that, in 2006, a BP oil pipeline in 

Alaska ruptured and spilled 200,000 gallons of crude oil? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is true. 

Mr. WELCH. And is it true that, in 2007, when you took over as 

CEO of BP, the corporation settled a series of criminal, not civil, 

criminal charges and agreed to pay $370 million in fines? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is correct. 

Mr. WELCH. And is it also true that, in 1 year, the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, found more than 700 

violations at BP’s Texas City refinery and fined BP what was then 

a record fine of $87.4 million? Is that true? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is correct. 

Mr. WELCH. And is it true that, earlier this year, a BP refinery 

in Toledo, Ohio, was fined $3 million for willful—and I emphasize 

the term in the finding, ‘‘willful’’—safety violations, including the 

use of valves similar to those that contributed to the Texas City 

blast? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is correct. 

Mr. WELCH. And is it true, as well, that the U.S. Chemical Safety 

Board, which did investigation into the Texas City refinery, was 

headed, with the active participation of former Secretary of State 

James Baker—are you familiar with that report? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am very familiar with that report. 

Mr. WELCH. And in that report—which you, I take it, regard as 

credible? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe it is very credible, and it is the basis on 

which we moved forward in 2007. 

Mr. WELCH. And that report, and I quote, found that ‘‘BP management allowed operators and supervisors to alter, to edit, to add, 

and to remove procedural steps at the Texas City refinery without 

assessing risk.’’ 

And the Baker panel examined all of BP’s U.S. refineries and 

found ‘‘a toleration of serious deviations from safe operating practices.’’ 

Is that an accurate statement of the findings of Mr. Baker’s report? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is an accurate finding. And based on the findings of that report and the instances of 2005 and 2006—— 

Mr. WELCH. And in the case—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. —we implemented a systematic change in how we 

manage safety and a systematic change in the culture of BP. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, let me ask you—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is something we have done consistently over 

the last 3 years. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, did that systematic change that you say you 

implemented as a result of the Baker report account for the reason 

that, at Deepwater Horizon, when faced with the choice of a cheaper and quicker casing design or a safer design, BP chose the cheaper and quicker casing design? Did you do that on the basis of the 

recommendations of the Baker report? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I have said, we need to wait for the results of 

the investigation to conclude. If there is any evidence whatsoever 

that people put costs ahead of safety in this incident, then we will 

take action. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

Mr. WELCH. Well, I am not going to ask you what their reason 

was. What I am going to ask you—and, in fact, it is not in dispute, 

that the choice was made to use a cheaper and quicker casing design rather than a more expensive design. 

And I will ask you again: There were fewer casing centralizers 

than some folks were recommending. Is that—I will leave out motivation, but there was a choice of more casing centralizers or fewer 

casing centralizers. More cost more; fewer cost less. Which choice 

did BP make at Deepwater Horizon? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The decision taken by the engineering team at the 

time, which was a technical judgment, was to use fewer 

centralizers rather than more. It is not always true that more is 

better. 

Mr. WELCH. And BP chose at Deepwater Horizon not to circulate 

drilling mud that would have cleaned out the well. It chose a lighter saltwater base for the cementing procedure. Is that correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The procedure to displace the mud was a procedure that is not uncommon in the industry. It was a procedure that 

was approved by the MMS prior to implementing it. 

Mr. WELCH. Are you saying you made the right choice in this 

case? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not able to make a judgment as to whether 

the right choices were made. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, you are the CEO. 

Mr. HAYWARD. But I am not, with respect, Congressman, a drilling engineer or a technically qualified engineer in these matters. 

Mr. WELCH. But you are in charge of them. 

Mr. HAYWARD. That doesn’t mean to say I am an expert. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, I mean, you know, one of the frustrations that 

I think folks have is, who is in charge? And there was a Baker report that said there was a systematic choice being made consistently by BP that led to the loss of life, that led to pollution, that 

could be attributed to a decision based on saving money, increasing 

profits, at the expense of safety and, as it turns out, unfortunately, 

human lives. 

You know, I am going to get back to what I asked you earlier. 

I think all of us live in a world where we would prefer to have 

fewer regulations rather than more. We would like to rely on trust 

and faith and our word, rather than regulations and checking over 

your shoulder and all those things that I think both sides find annoying. 

But I am going to ask you the question: Does a CEO who has 

presided over a company that has incurred over $370 million in 

fines, whose company was subject to this report by Mr. Baker, indicating a choice at the expense of safety, does that person who has 

presided over almost $100 billion in loss of shareholder value, in 

the suspension of a $10 billion annual dividend, who has lost the 

confidence of shareholders and regulators and, most importantly, 

the families and citizens of the gulf, does that person enjoy the confidence necessary to continue acting as CEO? Or is it time for that 

CEO to resign? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am focused on the response. I am focused on trying to eliminate the leak, trying to contain the oil on the surface 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

and defend the beaches and to clean up the spill and to restore the 

lives of the people on the gulf coast. That is what I intend to do. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. That concludes questions by members of the subcommittee. As I indicated earlier, members of the full committee 

will have an opportunity to ask questions if they so choose. So we 

will alternate, and, as I indicated earlier, it will be based upon 

committee seniority. 

So, Mr. Stearns, you would be next, first on the Republican side, 

for questions for 5 minutes, please. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Stupak, and thank you for allowing me to ask these questions. 

Mr. Hayward, I have watched this hearing, and time and time 

again you have indicated this—you have responded with this statement: ‘‘I can’t give you a legitimate answer to that question.’’ You 

have said it over and over again. They have asked you for details; 

you didn’t know. 

Did you bring anybody with you who has the detailed information that could help you answer a lot of these questions? Is there 

anybody else who can help? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I have a technical expert with me. 

Mr. STEARNS. Because I don’t see you go back to that technical 

expert, and you just continue to say, ‘‘I just can’t answer that question.’’ 

So my question for you today: Is today Thursday, yes or no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is Thursday. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Next question. The people of Florida, when I talk to them and 

they say there is oil spilling on the coast, would it be appropriate 

to say that is because of BP’s reckless behavior, yes or no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is a consequence of a big accident. 

Mr. STEARNS. No, yes or no? Reckless behavior or not? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There is no evidence of reckless behavior. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you are standing here, you are saying here 

today that BP had no reckless behavior. That is your position, yes? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There is no evidence of reckless behavior. 

Mr. STEARNS. No. Yes or no? You are saying BP has had no reckless behavior, is what you are saying to us. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I have seen no evidence of reckless behavior. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. So you are on record saying there has been 

no reckless behavior. 

We had a hearing. Mr. McKay was here. We had the CEOs of 

Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell. We asked them the 

question, knowing what we know today about the inconsistent well 

pressure test readings, would you have proceeded with withdrawing the drilling fluid from the well? Every one of them said 

no. 

Then the next question was asked to them about safety measures. Are there safety measures that your company could have 

taken to prevent this incident? Every one of them said yes. 

So you are here this morning saying your company had no reckless behavior, yet all your peers, the CEOs of Exxon, Chevron, 

ConocoPhillips, and Shell, all pointed out your reckless behavior. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

Later on, Halliburton warned your company that the well could 

have a severe gas flow problem. Were you aware of Halliburton’s 

warning, yes or no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I was not involved in any of the decisions around 

this time. 

Mr. STEARNS. No, I don’t want to hear that. I mean, this is the 

same thing you have been saying all day. What I want to know is, 

you, in your position—has anyone on your staff briefed you about 

Halliburton warning your company, we could have a severe gas 

flow problem? Were you ever notified or briefed on this? Yes or no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. No, prior to the incident. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you are up at this top echelon and you didn’t 

hear—did you hear about the e-mails that occurred? 

Later that day, a BP official involved in the decision, who recognized the risks of proceeding with insufficient centralizers, threw 

caution to the wind in an e-mail just 4 days—4 days—before the 

disaster, stating, ‘‘Who cares, it’s done, end of story, will probably 

be fine.’’ Did you know about that e-mail? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I had no prior knowledge of this well prior to the 

incident whatsoever. 

Mr. STEARNS. In light of what your four peers have said, dealing 

with safety, dealing with the precautions with the pressure test 

reading, and dealing with Halliburton, don’t you think there is 

reckless behavior indication? If what I told you is true, do you 

think BP has reckless behavior? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe all accidents are preventable. The investigation will determine how this accident has occurred—— 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. So you are saying, right now, based upon all 

the information I gave you, you do not think BP had any reckless 

behavior. That is your position this afternoon. Is that correct, yes 

or no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is—I have seen no—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I want you to say that you don’t think BP has 

reckless behavior. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I have seen no evidence of reckless behavior. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. All right. 

Now, let’s say you were on a ship and you ran into New Orleans 

and you spewed all this oil and you killed 11 people. Do you think 

the captain of that ship should be fired? 

Has anyone in BP been fired because of this incident? Anybody? 

Yes or no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. No, so far. 

Mr. STEARNS. No people have been fired. 

So, you are captain of the ship, runs into New Orleans, spews all 

this oil. There is all this damage from Alabama to Mississippi, 

Florida, Louisiana. And no one has been fired? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Our investigation is ongoing. 

Mr. STEARNS. So let’s say the investigation goes for 3 years. Does 

that mean you wouldn’t fire anybody? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As the investigation draws conclusions, we will 

take the necessary action. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. So, in light of all the environmental damage, 

the human damage, and just the information from your peers saying that you were indeed reckless, and these e-mails I have told 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

you, you still are going to stonewall us this morning, this afternoon. And you are saying basically, we did nothing wrong and we 

are going to wait until the evidence to prove whether we did wrong 

or right; is that correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe we should await for the conclusions of 

the various investigations before we make decisions based on those 

conclusions. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, Mr. Chairman, he did answer that today is 

Thursday. 

Mr. BRALEY [presiding]. The chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from New York, Mr. Engel, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, I am going to attempt to ask some of the questions 

that my other colleagues have asked but really haven’t been answered. 

Now, on Tuesday, we had the leaders of ExxonMobil, Chevron, 

Shell, and ConocoPhillips. They all insisted at the hearing on Tuesday that they would not have made the mistakes that led to the 

well explosion. 

Are they lying to us, or are you lying to us by telling us that you 

don’t know who is responsible and don’t know whether or not BP 

did something wrong? They are all saying BP did something wrong. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe we need to await the results of the multiple investigations before we draw conclusions. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, it is—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. I want to get to the bottom of this more than anyone. I want to learn the lessons, and I want to ensure that we can 

learn the lessons and that the industry can learn the lessons. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I don’t understand. It is 61 days, it is 2 

months. I mean, what kind of an investigation are you going to 

conduct? Why, in 2 months, with all this oil spilling into the gulf, 

do we not have at least a preliminary investigation? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are conducting a full and comprehensive investigation. It involves a team of more than 50 people. We have 

shared the results of that investigation, as they become available, 

with this committee. And we will continue to do that. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, Mr. Hayward, perhaps your lawyers have told 

you to be really cautious, but it is really an insult for you to come 

to this committee and keep repeating the same thing, evade questions, evade answers, and just repeat again and again that you 

were not responsible and that we have to wait for an investigation. 

Why didn’t you come testify to this committee after the investigation if you are not prepared to tell us anything of knowledge now? 

Mr. HAYWARD. With respect, Congressman, I wasn’t party to any 

of the decisionmaking around this well in the time it was being 

drilled. And, therefore, I am not in a position to make a judgment 

about whether the decisions taken were the right ones or the 

wrong ones. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, but we have all made a judgment because it 

is 60 days and oil is spilling into the gulf. So, obviously, decisions 

were made that were wrong. 

Can’t you just admit that? Can’t you just say, ‘‘I am sorry’’? Can’t 

you just admit that decisions were made that were wrong, instead 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

of sitting there and telling us you don’t know and you have to wait 

for an investigation? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am very, very sorry that this accident occurred, 

very sorry. I deeply regret it. I deeply regret it for very many reasons. And I do believe that it is right to investigate it fully and 

draw the right conclusions. 

Mr. ENGEL. What needs to be investigated? What needs to be investigated that has not been investigated up till now? And how 

long will it take you? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I can’t answer how long it will take because we 

want to make certain it is complete. But there are clearly—— 

Mr. ENGEL. Well—— 

Mr. HAYWARD [continuing]. Many investigations—excuse me, 

sorry. There are many investigations ongoing. There is our investigation, there is a Marine Board investigation, and a Presidential 

commission. And they will undoubtedly draw important conclusions 

for all of them. 

Mr. ENGEL. But you are the CEO. Shouldn’t you not set the tone 

for the investigation? Shouldn’t you not say, ‘‘I demand that within 

a month we are going to know what happened’’? 

I mean, you are really insulting our intelligence, with all due respect, by not giving us any answers and telling us that you have 

to wait for some investigation. I think the rest of the world isn’t 

blind. We know what has happened, and we know that BP obviously didn’t do what it was supposed to do. Only you don’t know 

that. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe I have set the right tone. We launched 

the investigation within 24 hours. We have made it open and 

transparent. And we are sharing with everyone the results as they 

come out. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, let me ask you this: How many other wells has 

BP in the gulf? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t know the precise number, but it is a large 

number. 

Mr. ENGEL. Give me a ballpark figure. 

Mr. HAYWARD. In the area of hundreds. 

Mr. ENGEL. OK. How can we be assured that the same thing 

won’t happen with one of the other wells? How can you give us assurances that what happened with this well won’t happen again to 

several hundred wells? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The other wells that I am referring to have all 

been drilled and completed and are secure. 

Mr. ENGEL. So you are saying, then, all the other wells that BP 

has, that something that happened to this well could never happen 

again in any of those other wells? 

Mr. HAYWARD. All of the other wells that I am referring to are 

wells that have been completed and are secure. 

Mr. ENGEL. So is that the same assurance that you had said that 

you were going to, with a laser, make safety a priority? Is this the 

same kind of assurance that you are giving us now? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I have, throughout my tenure, been very explicit 

about the priority of safety in BP. It is the first word I utter every 

time I talk to any group of people in BP, the fact that safe and reliable operations is our number-one priority. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

And we have made very significant changes to our processes, to 

our people, and invested very significantly into the integrity of our 

plants and equipment over the last 3 or 4 years. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Hayward, let me just say with all due respect, 

I, like everyone else here and everyone else in America, is thoroughly disgusted. I think you’re stalling. I think you’re insulting 

our intelligence. And I really resent it. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK [presiding]. A member of the full committee Mr. Scalise for questions, please. Five minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you letting 

me participate in this. 

Mr. Hayward, this is a picture of an oiled pelican. This is our 

State bird in Louisiana. I’m going to keep this on my desk as long 

as we are battling this as a constant reminder of what is at stake. 

But I want you to keep this in your mind as well to recognize that 

we are not just talking about the loss of life, which is tragic, we 

are not just talking about the oil that is still spewing out of that 

well. We are talking about our way of life not just in Louisiana, but 

all along the Gulf Coast that is at stake. I would hope you keep 

this image in your mind as a constant reminder of what is at stake 

and what we are battling on a daily basis. 

Our two priorities right now are, number one, doing everything 

we can to make sure you all cap this well, but also to battle as 

strongly as we can to keep the oil out of our marsh and our ecosystem. We don’t want to sit back and wait until the oil comes in 

and does possibly irreparable damage. We want to be proactive. 

But we are having problems on the ground being proactive because 

of the delays. 

I still hear—I was on Grand Isle Friday. I hear the biggest complaints from our local officials that they are spending more of their 

time fighting BP and the Federal Government than they are fighting the oil. This is unacceptable. And I know you talk about all the 

things that you all are doing, but it is not enough. We need a more 

urgent sense of response to this disaster. And I want to ask you 

what you are going to do to help speed that up. 

When our local officials tell us when they have basic questions 

they need answers to, it takes at least 5 days. They first go to the 

Coast Guard, then they are sent to BP to get approval, and then 

they go around in circles and they are told they are going to get 

answers, and they never get those answers. This is just not an acceptable way to run this operation. And so when we hear who is 

in charge—I want to ask you, who is in charge on the ground? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The National Incident Commander is the person 

in charge of this operation. 

Mr. SCALISE. So is the Federal Government telling you what to 

do? Are you telling the Incident Commander what to do? When our 

local officials say we need something approved, do they need to get 

the Incident Commander and your approval? Because they are getting runaround in circles right now. 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are trying, sir. We are not being perfect, I acknowledge. We are trying very hard to do better. We are operating 

under the direction of the Federal Government. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
103 

Mr. SCALISE. Let me give you an example. When our Government 

came with an idea—and this was over a month ago now. He had 

an idea, Governor Jindal working with the local leaders, to have 

this sand barrier plan. They laid it out. They actually made some 

changes. They worked with scientists and with engineers. And then 

over 3 weeks went by before any approval. 

Now, we contacted—our entire delegation signed a letter; we 

tried to get the President engaged in breaking this logjam. Still to 

this day, only 25 percent of that plan has been approved. Now, is 

that you that is not approving the other 75 percent? Is that the 

Federal Government that is not approving it? Who is not approving 

the other 75 percent? Because it is not approved to this day. 

Mr. HAYWARD. The approval process flows through—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Is it you or the Federal Government? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The ultimate approval—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Can you tell them no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The ultimate approval process is with the Government. 

Mr. SCALISE. So the Federal Government is the one who hasn’t 

approved the other 75 percent? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I can’t speak to the details of the other 75 percent. 

Mr. SCALISE. You don’t know about it? We brought this to them. 

I know they submitted it. Our Governor submitted this to you and 

the Incident Commander. 

Mr. HAYWARD. As you know, we have committed $360 million to 

build a large part of the barrier island as—— 

Mr. SCALISE. It is not a large part. It is 25 percent of the plan. 

That may seem like a large part to you. 

Let me go to another question that we get asked. They don’t have 

any kind of approval of creation of a seafood safety plan. Now, is 

that something that was submitted to you all? Is that the Federal 

Government that is not approving it? Is it BP that is not approving 

it? Because again, our local leaders, they are getting run around 

in a circle, and nobody is held accountable when things don’t happen. 

What I’m going to present to you is that we don’t have time for 

these games to continue to play. We can’t have 5 days go by before 

an answer is given to anybody because the oil is coming every day. 

And I will just give you an example about the sand barrier plan. 

Now, you say you all have approved a lot of it. There is no plan 

of protection along any part of Grand Isle, and there is an area call 

Barataria Bay. And I would suggest you go look it up. About a 

week and a half ago there was no oil in Barataria Bay. That section was scheduled to be covered by the barrier plan that still to 

this day hasn’t been approved. Now, today there is oil, thick oil, 

coming into the Barataria Bay. So you’re not showing the sense of 

urgency. And whether it is you or the Federal Government, we 

have got oil in Barataria Bay when we had a plan a month ago to 

keep the oil out of Barataria Bay. 

So when people are hearing that everything is being done, I’m 

going to tell you, on the ground it is not getting done. And I don’t 

know what you need to do differently, but you need to go do something differently. And if it is not you that is blocking it, you need 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

to tell somebody who is blocking it, because it is being blocked. And 

it is not getting done on the ground, and we don’t have the luxury 

of time. 

This shouldn’t be happening. We put plans in place to stop this 

from happening, and our plans are not being approved. Now, I 

would love it if our plans were being rejected because there were 

better alternatives that were being offered by somebody, that were 

being approved, but there are no other alternatives. All we are 

being told is no without any other option being presented. And 

what we are saying is if you have got a better option, present it. 

Otherwise approve our plan. But we don’t have time to waste. Do 

you understand that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I understand your concern and your anger. 

Mr. SCALISE. And I hope you make the changes that are needed, 

because we don’t have time. 

This is something else. We continue to get—and my office gets 

flooded, I know a lot of others get flooded, with ideas of how to stop 

the oil from coming into the marsh, how to cap the well and other 

things. We have seen basic ideas like putting hay in the water, all 

the way up to the supertankers in Saudi Arabia. None of them are 

getting done on the ground. 

I’m going to give you this database. This is a database of ideas 

with links, with schematics of a number of different ideas that 

should be done that can stop the oil from coming into our marsh. 

But it is not getting done. 

We don’t have time to waste. So I’m going to ask you to move 

swiftly on this, and I am going to give you a resolution passed by 

our Senate that asks that you engage our local people who have 

been affected by this. A lot of them aren’t even being able to be employed in saving the marsh. They want that done. And also to 

speed up the efforts on some of these alternatives that are going 

nowhere. We have got a lot of ocean out there that has got oil. 

Mr. STUPAK. Time—— 

Mr. SCALISE. We want you to use every opportunity to fix that. 

So I’m going to give this to you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mrs. Capps for questions, please. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, your $20 billion of compensation fund is a good 

first step, but it is just the beginning. You’re going to have to fully 

compensate everyone who has been affected by this disaster. This 

week BP announced the first installment of a $25 million fund 

within a broader $500 million commitment to the Gulf of Mexico 

Research Initiative. Is BP still committed to putting the full 500 

million, not just the 25- installment, but the full 500 million, towards this initiative? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are. It is an initiative that will take place, we 

believe, over 10 years. 

Mrs. CAPPS. When will we see the details of this entire program? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It’s being worked by the experts currently. We 

think it is important to have a program that has firm scientific 

foundation. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Are these your experts, sir? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

Mr. HAYWARD. No, these are not our experts. These are independent scientists from across the United States from some of 

the—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. I would request that you would submit to the committee the list of experts that you have that are developing this 

program. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. HAYWARD. We would be very happy to do that. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Will there be further scientific investments you will 

make available to the research community, significant further investments of dollars? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, we have set up a $500 million initial fund, 

and I think we need to see what the scientists determine. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I just mention this because your commitment pales 

in comparison to the $1 billion Exxon spent on the Valdez spill 20 

years ago, which was in quite a bit more remote location, and fewer 

people apparently were impacted by that one. 

So you are going to make all the data from this research available to the public? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It would be fully open and transparent. It won’t 

be BP’s data, it will be the data of the scientists involved. 

Mrs. CAPPS. All right. With their names attached? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Absolutely. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I want to switch topics now. The Federal Government has developed training classes to provide the necessary training for workers and volunteers who are cleaning up the oil from 

your spill, but we continue to see reports that BP is not following 

the training guidelines, endangering further the health of these 

workers now and long into the future. Why are we still hearing 

these kinds of reports from the people who are out on the water 

and on the shoreline? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are doing everything we can to train everyone 

involved in this as well and as clearly and as properly as we can. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Are you using the Federal-developed courses? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are using OSHA guidelines to establish what 

is the appropriate training. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Finally, I want to ask you about BP’s response plan, 

which was clearly inadequate. This committee learned this week 

that the other major oil companies rely on the same response plans 

that are practically identical to your own. The same contractors 

seem to have written your plan and their plans. They hired the 

same contractors, apparently, as you did. And you all appear to 

have the same technical experts and the very same response commitment. 

Now, if this bill had happened to a different oil company, do you 

have any reason to think that they would have responded more effectively than BP has? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I can’t really comment on that. All I can say is 

that we have initiated the biggest spill response in the history not 

only of America, but of the world. It involves thousands of vessels, 

35,000 people. It is the largest activity of its kind ever conducted. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I appreciate that. The Federal Government has— 

this country has also initiated the largest response that we have 

ever initiated on behalf of any kind of a natural disaster or manmade disaster in the history of this country as well. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 

But finally, back to my original question on that topic. Rex 

Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, was asked the same question 

that I just asked you. He said that Exxon, his own company, is not 

prepared to deal with a large spill if it happens to them. He also 

said that the response capability to prevent the impacts of a spill 

doesn’t exist. Now, bear in mind, this is the same response—training manual—response manual that your company has. With respect to his own, he says the impacts of a spill, the capability does 

not exist and probably never will. 

My question to you, do you agree with Mr. Tillerson about this? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I agree that there are many missings in our ability to respond to an incident of this type, and there will be many 

learnings to be had from this incident and how we can build better 

response capability in the future. And as I said, we are doing an 

extraordinary spill response, and I regret that it hasn’t been more 

successful so far than any of us want. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Ms. Capps. 

Mr. Gonzalez for questions, please. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, let me ask you, there is a 6-month moratorium on 

deepwater drilling. Do you think that is reasonable under the circumstances? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think it is important that the lessons from this 

are learned, and that clearly that is a decision for the authorities 

to take, not for me. But it is clearly important. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I’m not asking you to make the decision. I’m just 

asking your opinion. Based on your expertise and your position, I 

would assume you would have an opinion on whether that is a prudent thing to be doing. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe it is prudent for the industry to take 

stock of what has happened here before it moves forward. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, you know, there are calls to move expeditiously to lift that ban after accomplishing whatever is supposed to 

be accomplished in order to give people peace of mind that as we 

drill, we are not going to have recurrence. 

When do you think would be appropriate to consider lifting the 

moratorium? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t think I can make a judgment on that 

today. I think that is something—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. What would common sense tell you? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think it is understood clearly what happened 

and understood clearly what better response is required in the 

event that something like this ever happened again. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I’m hoping everybody is going to be on that same 

page. It is fundamentally sound. 

Now, we have had other Members that made reference to the 

hearing we had a couple of days ago, and I’m sure you have already spoken to Mr. McKay and such. But Shell, Exxon, Chevron, 

ConocoPhillips, they all said—I will tell you this, though. When I 

asked them if they could give me 100 percent assurance that nothing like this would happen when they are drilling in deep water, 

they wouldn’t give me—what they would say is, we do it safely, we 

do it safely. Human experience is that there are no 100 percent asVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 Mar 04, 2013 Jkt 077914 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A914.XXX A914

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
107 

surances about any activity. And all I was trying to get is that let 

us be honest with the American people that there is risk, there is 

risk, there is risk. And it is a calculated risk. And if we can provide 

enough assurances that it is a risk worth taking, then we will be 

out there, won’t we? 

Well, they wouldn’t do that, believe it or not. And I’m hoping you 

won’t play that same game. What they did say was it never would 

have happened, because their manner and fashion of drilling is different than what you were doing. And I don’t want to start a big 

war on you guys, but do you really believe that the way they explore and drill in deep water is substantially different than what 

you were doing out there? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I tend to agree with you. 

So let’s talk about planning. And I think Ms. Capps pointed out 

something that is really important as far as Exxon. What he actually said was, we couldn’t deal with it if something like that happened, which is an incredible statement to make, isn’t it, the fact 

that you’re willing to expose that kind of risk? And if the worstcase scenario did develop, you wouldn’t know what to do. 

So let’s go back to 2003. The Society of Petroleum Engineers and 

the International Association of Drilling Contractors reported, 

quote, ‘‘no blowout has yet occurred in ultra deep water, water 

depths of 5,000 feet or greater. But statistics show it is likely to 

happen. Are we ready to handle it?’’ Well, we know the answer is 

no. But at that time they said it was likely to happen. 

Have you ever read anything like that in all these years, that it 

was likely to happen? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I haven’t read that answer, I’m afraid. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Did you believe that it was likely to happen? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I did not believe it was likely to happen. It was 

a risk that was identified as the highest risk by BP across the corporation. It was a risk that was identified as the highest risk by 

our exploration and production unit. And we believed that the risk 

mitigant was the so-called failsafe mechanism of the blowout preventer. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. This blowout preventer, it is the ultimate failsafe. 

And I know that you keep using that term, and it comes back 

somewhat to haunt you. But I’m curious about blowout preventers 

and the difference—and I was noticing my staff, as they were getting some information, if you have a surface well, you have a 

10,000-pound-per-square-inch blowout preventer. Shallow water, 

10,000 pounds per square inch; deep water, 15,000 pounds per 

square inch. Now, I’m not an expert. Why? What is the difference 

as you go into depth? Why a greater capacity? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Because of the pressure of the reservoirs that we 

are drilling. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Which then leads me to—what do you think 

you’re dealing with at that depth as far as pounds per square inch? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We know that we are dealing with a reservoir 

with a pressure of around 11—between 11 and 12,000 pounds per 

square inch. And we have a blowout preventer rated to 15,000 

pounds per square inch. I believe that’s correct. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

Mr. GONZALEZ. I don’t know this. Cameron—I don’t know that it 

is Cameron that builds these blowout preventers. That is a company that someone told me that is—and they are working on a 

20,000-pound-per-square-inch preventer. I mean, you’re aware of 

that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am, yes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And they actually said this: While there is much 

discussion and an ongoing effort to provide guidance for equipment 

greater than 15,000 pounds per square inch, in the interest of expediency, it was decided within Cameron to apply current design 

codes and practices. The 20,000-pound-per-square-inch EVO blowout preventer was design-tested and qualified to API—and I’m not 

sure what all that means—16A 3rd edition, meaning basically, but 

for the sake of expediency does concern me. 

Why were you all looking at 20,000 pounds per square inch when 

you believe what you already have at 15,000 exceeds what really 

is required? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think that—I’m not certain, but I think that is 

referring to blowout preventers for reservoirs with even greater 

pressure. 

I do believe that one of the most important things to come from 

this incident is the requirement for the industry to step back and 

redesign the failsafe mechanism it uses to prevent accidents of this 

sort. We need a fundamental redesign of the blowout preventer. It 

is something that BP is going to take a very active role in. We have 

already begun that process with a number of academic institutions 

and a number of contractors in the industry. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I thank the chairman for his patience. 

Mr. Hayward, we usually say better late than never, but not this 

time. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

Before Mr. Inslee, we should for the record—recordkeeping, Mr. 

Scalise had submitted a CD and a resolution here from the State 

senate. He will provide copies for the record. So with unanimous 

consent they will be made part of his questioning and made part 

of the record within 10 days. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Inslee, questions, please. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Hayward, something you said earlier was really quite astounding to me. You said that there was no evidence to date that 

there had been any decision made based on costs, that no decisions 

had been made in an effort to reduce costs. And I want to go 

through this because there is something that I think is quite pivotal in this investigation. 

The facts are clear that you hired Halliburton to give you advice 

about this. Mr. Gagliano, an expert in the field, did an analysis and 

concluded you needed 21 centralizers to make sure that this rig 

was safe. And just to remove any doubt as to why that is important, the American Petroleum Institute recommended practice—65 

says, quote, if casing is not centralized, it may lay near or against 

the bore hole wall. It is difficult, if not impossible, to displace mud 

effectively from the narrow side of the annulus if casing is poorly 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

centralized. This results in bypassed mud channels and inability to 

achieve zonal isolation, closed quote. 

So the experts said you need 21. Then if we can put up the first 

slide, a BP employee essentially wrote to that expert and said, we 

have only got six, and we don’t have time to deal with this problem. Time to British petroleum was money. This rig was 45 days 

late. It cost you $500,000 a day. And people’s obvious attention 

were about time, which meant money. 

So what happened then? Well, another British Petroleum person 

sent a memo saying, you really need to follow the model here. He 

kicked it up to Mr. Guide. 

If we could have the second slide. 

Mr. Guide came back and said, I don’t like the fact this is going 

to take 10 hours to do, even though another British Petroleum person had said we are going to fly 15 things in, they can be here tomorrow morning. Mr. Guide said, I don’t like the 10 hours. And it 

didn’t happen. And then the next response from British Petroleum—next slide, please—was an e-mail from Mr. Cocales sort of 

reprimanding another BP person, saying, even if the hole is perfectly straight, a straight piece of pipe even in tension will not seek 

the perfect center of the hole unless it has something to centralize 

it, meaning you have got to have the right centralizers. But he 

went on to say this: But who cares? It is done, end of story, we will 

probably be fine, and we will get a good cement job. 

What happened then—that is not quite the end of the story. Mr. 

Gagliano then ran further computer models, and he concluded—the 

last slide, please—he concluded—and this is hard to read, but I will 

read it. He concluded that this well is considered to have a severe—and severe is all capitalized in his memo—gas-flow problem. 

Now, it is very clear to me, reading this clear evidence, that, in 

fact, decisions were made because of costs, because people didn’t 

want to wait to get the centralizers that was needed to safely do 

this job. So your statement that there is no evidence that costs led 

to shortcuts just doesn’t ring true with me. 

Isn’t it pretty clear that there were cost decisions made that had 

suboptimal at best number of centralizers in placement in this 

well? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t want to be evasive, but I genuinely believe 

that until we have understood all of the things that contributed to 

this accident, it is not easy to say what I would say. If there is evidence that costs were put ahead of safety, I would be both deeply 

disturbed, and we would take action. 

Mr. INSLEE. Sir, let me ask you about that action. We just read 

these e-mails. Everybody in this room knows what happened, reading these e-mails. You know what happened in reading these emails. Are you going to call the employees involved when you leave 

this meeting and say—because you’re drilling in places all over the 

world right now; this is an ongoing operation—and tell them they 

have to change their attitude? Are you going to take action based 

on these e-mails today? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We will take action based on our investigation 

which puts all of this together, and as—as it unveils clear conclusions, we will take action on them. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 

Mr. INSLEE. Let me suggest another action. We asked British Petroleum what it spent on research and development regarding safer 

offshore drilling technologies. You gave us the number. It was 

about $10 million a year. That represents 0.0033 percent, 0.0033 

percent of British Petroleum revenues. That doesn’t sound like an 

adequate prioritization. How does it compare to your compensation? 

Mr. HAYWARD. In what respect? 

Mr. INSLEE. British Petroleum is investing about $10 million a year in safer drilling technology. How does that $10 million a year 

compare to you compensation last year? 

Mr. HAYWARD. My compensation last year was $6 million. 

Mr. INSLEE. Forbes reports it at 33-. There must be some misunderstanding then. Is that appropriate? Stock options don’t count? 

Mr. HAYWARD. My compensation last year was—is—I think it 

was recorded at $6 million. 

Mr. INSLEE. Do you think British Petroleum ought to make a 

larger investment of its significant gross revenues in developing 

safer drilling technology? And do you think you owe that to the 

American people at this point? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The answer is yes, and we undoubtedly will do 

that on the back of this accident. 

Mr. INSLEE. We hope that that will be expeditious and successful. 

Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. Melancon for questions, please. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. 

Mr. Hayward, how many deepwater operations do you have at 

BP around the world that you’re operating? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t know the precise number, but it is probably in the order of 15 or so. 

Mr. MELANCON. Is there—one of the things I have run into, and 

Mr. Scalise alluded to it, we have had in my office over 600 requests for submissions for products, ideas, concepts, ways to cap 

the wells, et cetera, et cetera. Basically—and, of course, because of 

ethics, we can’t and won’t go in and make anybody meet with anybody. So we just refer them into them. The best I can tell is that 

maybe 3 out of the 600-plus have received an e-mail back, thank 

you for your submission, or, no thank you, if anything else. 

There seems to be a closed loop of vendors that you’re dealing 

with, which my frustration is that the hole is still wide open. And 

when this accident first occurred, everyone said, we are going to 

take whatever ideas and suggestions, whatever—I mean, the 

cofferdam, the top hat, whatever. But I have seen some people that 

have called me, and we referred them in, and they have never 

heard once from your company. Is this just if you’re not a vendor 

with us before this occurred, then we are not dealing with you, or 

are you going to only the vendors and allowing them to select who 

they are going to deal with? And my reason for this is because if 

there are good ideas out there, why isn’t somebody looking at 

them? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are trying very hard to engage with everyone 

who has a good idea. We have been, quite frankly, inundated with 

hundreds of thousands. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
111 

Mr. MELANCON. I know there is a tremendous amount. I know 

that the first one I saw was wrapped—sheets around a cord hanging with milk cartons to catch oil. So I understand that. Those are 

easy to go through. 

Let me shift to another gear. Do you believe that this administration’s moratorium is a result of the tragedy that occurred on 

Deepwater Horizon, the fact that they put it in was strictly because 

of what went wrong in Deepwater? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t know that, but I believe that is the case, 

and I think it is probably the right thing to do until such time as 

we have greater clarity. 

Mr. MELANCON. And I agree with that. I don’t agree with the 

moratorium because—and as I have expressed to my friends, it is 

really difficult for us in Louisiana to stand in oil and say we will 

take more oil, but it is because of the economy, it is because of the 

jobs we have supported—I have supported—the industry. I support 

the people. 

But it makes sense that BP bear the responsibility of the economic hardship associated with this moratorium. I think you all 

put 100 million aside for lost jobs. I’m told that in a given month— 

and I don’t know if this is just Louisiana, offshore Louisiana or offshore—but it is about 350 million a month in wages. 

Are you and your company going to take responsibility and make 

sure that these companies that fold up or these companies that 

have financial hardships, and particularly their employees that 

they are going to start laying off, are going to be compensated in 

some way? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We made a contribution, having been asked to by 

the government, up to a fund which will be part of the funding for 

that issue. 

Mr. MELANCON. Do you think 100 million is adequate? And you 

have been in the oil business for quite a while. Those are good-paying jobs; that is why we want to keep them. But do you think that 

contribution is adequate for—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. We made a contribution. We set aside $20 billion 

for claims. 

Mr. MELANCON. Twenty billion is for everybody else, that is businesses and otherwise. I am concerned also with them. Ms. Roshto 

and Ms. Kemp were in Chalmette the other day. Very brave 

women, especially so soon after the deaths of their spouses. And at 

the hearing, Ms. Roshto and Ms. Kemp shared with us questions 

they had for your company. I would like to hear maybe your response. 

Ms. Roshto’s husband told her about the problems on the rig, 

that the well was losing a lot of mud. That is the sort of detail that 

may not have come to your attention, but it is well known among 

workers on rigs as a sign of a problem. She wants to know, and 

she asked this question at the hearing, why your company wasn’t 

working harder to fix the problems on the rig in the weeks before 

the explosion? Why wasn’t your company prepared for a blowout? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think, as I have said all along today, we want 

to understand exactly what happened such that we can take the 

right actions going forward. I’m not aware of what you just raised, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

but the investigation will determine whether or not—the multiple 

investigations will determine—— 

Mr. MELANCON. Investigations are not going to bring back those 

11 men to their kids. Not only were these women concerned about 

your company’s preparedness, they were also concerned about your 

company’s values. They wanted to ensure that rigs were kept safe 

and told us that BP should be held accountable for not protecting 

their husbands. 

Mrs. Kemp asked why money is more important than someone’s 

life. And so I guess on behalf of Ms. Kemp, how do you respond 

to that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It isn’t. It absolutely it is not. As—since I have 

been in this role, it is something I believed in for a very long time. 

The priority of everyone involved in these operations is safety. That 

doesn’t come before anything, not anything. It is something that I 

believe personally very passionately. 

Mr. MELANCON. The women talked about in their testimony—I’m 

sorry, I have gone over my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Finish your question. 

Mr. MELANCON. The women talked about in their testimony that 

their husbands worked for the drilling rig company, for 

Transocean, and that they pushed safety, they pushed safety, they 

pushed safety. But in discussions in weeks prior to the explosion, 

their husbands talked about BP waiving; saying, keep going, keep 

doing. And I have heard growing up in south Louisiana about the 

tool pusher or the drilling foreman and the company guys getting 

into fistfights. 

Was there any incidents, to your knowledge, or have you discovered that there was a direct order given by BP that says, keep 

going, I don’t care what is going on? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I have not seen any evidence of that whatsoever, 

and I believe that the operation on the rig in the days leading up 

to the incident and in that day was carried out because everyone 

agreed on the rig to move forward. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Melancon. 

Ms. Castor for questions, please. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, I would like to start out by expressing the anger 

and frustration of the hardworking people of my home State of 

Florida at the catastrophe BP has rendered upon our State and all 

the small businesses, the fishermen, the mom-and-pop hotel owners. We were just coming out of the most severe recession of our 

lifetime that happened in 2007. Things were getting a lot better. 

So this is like a sucker punch to the gut to learn that this tragedy 

is a result of BP elevating profit considerations over safety. 

For a decade many in Florida have opposed this drumbeat to 

bring the oil rigs closer to our beaches over time. We haven’t industrialized our coastline like other States. We rely on tourism and 

clean beaches and clean water, and we really fought it off, even in 

the face of very well-paid lobbying campaigns and ad campaigns 

and with a lot of representations that this is safe, this is safe technology, whether it is in deep water or in shallow water. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 

So, Mr. Hayward, I’m trying to understand how BP was either 

so unprepared for the possibility of a blowout or ignored the risks, 

because according to the Minerals Management Service study conducted in 2007, 126 blowouts have occurred at offshore drilling facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf since 1971. In 1979, a blowout at the Ixtoc oil well in the Gulf of Mexico created a disaster 

that flowed continuously for 290 days. And, Mr. Hayward, you have 

said that the chances of a blowout and explosion like the one that 

sank the Deepwater Horizon rig were one in a million, but over the 

past 40 years, there have been 126 blowouts in the U.S. waters 

alone. That is roughly three blowouts per year. How could an average of three blowouts every single year for the past 40 years not 

have registered as more than a one-in-a-million chance risk for 

your company? 

Mr. HAYWARD. With respect, Congresswoman, I think what I said 

was that the integrity rating of the blowout preventer was of the 

order of 10 to the minus 5, 10 to the minus 6. That is to say that 

it was designed to fail between 1 in 100,000 and 1 in a million 

times. 

Ms. CASTOR. And that is an acceptable risk? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is the risk that BP and the industry more 

broadly use to assess the failsafe mechanism called the blowout 

preventer. 

Ms. CASTOR. I know you rely on these blowout preventers, and 

you call them failsafes, but they are not failsafes at all in the face 

of what we have discovered through our committee’s examination 

and the statistics here. This committee has reviewed BP’s regional 

oil spill response plan for the Gulf of Mexico, and not one time in 

the 582-page plan does BP lay out a method for controlling a 

subsea gusher after a blowout has occurred. Your company conducted its planning as if an uncontrolled subsea blowout wasn’t 

even a possibility. 

In a recent interview with the Financial Times, you admitted, 

what is undoubtedly true is that we did not have the tools you 

would want in your tool kit. My question to you is very simple: 

Why not? Why weren’t you prepared? Why did you elevate profits 

over safety? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t believe we did elevate profits over safety. 

What I was referring to in that article was the very complicated 

engineering problem we were faced with after the rig sank attached to its riser. So we had a well, a riser and a rig on the floor, 

and we didn’t have the pieces of equipment instantly available to 

cut the riser, to cut off the top of the riser and find a way to intervene on the wellhead. And that is indeed true. 

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Hayward, for years big oil companies and your 

allies have claimed that drilling is safe, and you want to come closer to Florida beaches, and you say it is safe, deep or shallow, that 

there are no problems. But on the other hand, we have heard over 

and over again over the last couple of months this is complex and 

this is dangerous, it is dangerous to drill miles below the ocean. 

And BP officials have said it is like operating in outer space, and 

given the difficulties and complexities in what we really knew, in 

what you knew about the risks, I can’t understand why you all 

would assume that nothing could go wrong. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

So I’m—the doublespeak is rather tiresome. I’m dismayed and 

disheartened by what has happened and the elevation of profit over 

safety. And I can only hope that this disaster will motivate us to 

reassess our priorities and implement a clean energy policy for this 

country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, that concludes questions of everybody on the 

committee. Now there is a few more questions. There are a couple 

of Members that have a couple of follow-up questions. So we are 

going to go a quick second round, if we may. So I will start with 

Chairman Waxman, if you would like to begin. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, you said your priority, your top focus, is on safety, 

and you feel very passionate about it. Except for your statement to 

that effect, I see, as you have said over and over again today, no 

evidence of that. You and other senior officials seemed oblivious to 

what was happening on the Deepwater Horizon rig. You weren’t 

following the progress of the well. You weren’t aware of the risks 

that were being taken. In answers to questions you said that your 

top officials under you, Mr. Ingles and Mr. Suttles, you would be 

surprised if they were following the happenings on the rig. You 

said you couldn’t answer for them, but you would be surprised if 

they had been following the activities on the drilling rig. 

So who was following the activities on the drilling rig? You said 

there were people there who were the experts in their field. I just 

find it shocking that when the potential consequences of a mistake 

on a deepwater rig are so enormous, and you have such a high, 

passionate commitment to safety, that you seem so removed. I 

think operating in a deepwater environment is like operating in 

outer space, and yet you seem to think that all is going to be taken 

care of in time. 

Now, you said there is a team of the best minds in the world 

working on how to stop the oil spill. When were the best minds in 

your company paying attention before the spill? You were oblivious, 

and so were other senior officials. And I think this was a fundamental mistake in management. Let me ask you that: Do you think 

there was a fundamental mistake in management not to know? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think, as I have said, that we have made it very 

clear that the focus in the company is on safety. What management 

can do is ensure that the right people with the right skills are in 

place, and the right systems and processes are in place, and the 

right priorities are in place, and the right investment is available 

to ensure that the plant that we are operating has integrity. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So you felt confident that the people who were 

making these decisions—and we went through five in our letter to 

you, and many Members asked you about some of these decisions— 

that the right people were making those decisions? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe that the right people were making those 

decisions. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And you have no evidence that they didn’t make 

the right decision. That seems to be your position today; is that 

right? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think at this stage in the investigation, it is premature to draw conclusions as to what was and what was not the 

right decision. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So it is premature. 

What investigation or investigations are taking place to determine these facts? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There is the BP investigation, there is the Marine 

Board investigation and the Presidential commission. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And are you going to be cooperating with all of 

them? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are, as we have, Mr. Chairman, cooperated 

with your committee. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I question how cooperative you have been 

with our committee, because I have heard very little answers to the 

questions from you today to the questions raised by our colleagues. 

You were asked whether BP made a mistake in well design. You 

said you haven’t reached a conclusion yet. Mr. Dingell asked 

whether costs were a factor in your decisions, and you said you 

didn’t know because you weren’t there. When Mr. Doyle asked you 

who made the well design decisions, you said you didn’t know. 

Our committee is doing an investigation. Now, the reason we are 

doing an investigation is we want to know how this happened so 

that we can make changes in the law and the procedures if we are 

going to allow further drilling. Don’t you think you ought to be 

more forthcoming with us? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We will be as forthcoming as we can be, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Give me the time horizon for your investigation. 

When will you have that completed? You have already had 60 days 

to do it. Is it going on now? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is ongoing. And we want to have access to all 

of the evidence before we make final determinations. But as we 

have made very clear—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Give me your estimate of when that will be concluded. 

Mr. HAYWARD. One of the most important elements in this is the 

blowout preventer. It remains on the seabed, and it needs to be examined. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So we will put that aside. How about the other decisions before the explosion about the casing, about the centering 

of the well, about all of the other things that have been raised, 

have you reached any tentative conclusions that you can share 

with us? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As we shared with you recently, we have identified 7 areas, areas of focus in our investigation. And we will continue to share our understanding and our thinking with you as 

that develops. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Inslee asked you if there was any action that 

appeared—if there was any action to save money, and you said 

there is no evidence of that. I can’t believe you said there is no evidence of that. There is evidence. You want to know more about it, 

but there is evidence to that effect, isn’t there? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

Mr. HAYWARD. There were decisions taken by the people at the 

time, and some of them, sitting here today, appear they may have 

been to deal with money. But it is not clear. The—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. The evidence is not conclusive, but there is evidence. 

Mr. HAYWARD. The decision, for example, to run a long string 

versus a liner was, as it shows in the document that you highlighted to me, a decision to do with the long-term integrity of the 

well. 

Mr. WAXMAN. There is evidence, and evidence may point in a certain direction. There may be evidence that points in another direction. So you take the evidence and reach a conclusion based on the 

preponderance of the evidence. That is not to say there is not evidence, when we have some of these clear examples. 

Let me ask you this. You can’t give us a time for when this investigation is going to be complete, so we are relying on you to do 

your own investigation. Why should we rely on you to do your own 

investigation? I don’t think you have a terrific record of reliability 

that should give us comfort to have us step back and just wait to 

get answers from you until you have done your own investigation. 

Why should we rely on that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are clearly not the only people doing an investigation. There are many people doing investigations. All I have 

committed is that as our investigation proceeds, we will share with 

you all of our findings and all of the data and all of the information. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me just say in conclusion, we delayed this 

hearing today so you could be prepared to answer our questions. 

We sent you our questions in advance, yet you have consistently 

ducked and evaded our questions. There may be some reason you 

think this approach makes sense, but your evasion will make our 

job more difficult. It will impede our understanding of what went 

wrong and will make it harder for us to draft appropriate reforms. 

I think that is regrettable and an unfortunate approach for you 

to take to the work of this committee of the United States Congress. And I will look forward to seeing what you come up with, 

but we are going to get evidence, and I would like you to submit 

for the record the names of the individuals who made those decisions in each of the areas that were under discussion in the letter 

we sent you. Would you be willing to do that. 

Mr. HAYWARD. We will make that available to you—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. HAYWARD [continuing]. As we have made everything, to my 

knowledge, available to you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Maybe they will have some answers they can share 

with us. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Barton for questions. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Stupak. 

We are about to finish up this hearing. We do appreciate your 

patience in listening to all the various members of the subcommittee. 

What one or two recommendations are you prepared to give 

about what we could do to prevent a future accident of this type 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

now that you know what you know and you have listened to what 

the Congress knows here today? Are there one or two things that 

you would like to suggest for consideration to prevent an accident 

of this type from happening in the future? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe the most important one is to take the 

failsafe mechanism called the blowout preventer and design is such 

that it is genuinely failsafe. The reality in all industrial accidents 

is that there are always a combination of equipment failure and 

human judgment. And the most important thing is to have in place 

a system that is genuinely failsafe. And it is clear, based on our 

experience of this accident, that the current design basis of the 

blowout preventer being used in the deep water, not just in this 

case, but across the world, is not as failsafe as we believed it to 

be. And I believe that is a very important lesson that the industry 

needs to grasp, along with the relevant regulatory agencies. 

Mr. BARTON. Much has been made of the complexity and the 

risks associated with drilling these deep wells. Would you care to— 

I have asked some of your subordinates to give us some sort of an 

assessment of the potential size of this particular field of this particular well. I have asked the Texas Railroad Commission and the 

Texas Geological Survey what the largest onshore oil well in Texas 

in its history of over 100 years has been, and with the exception 

of the initial discovery at Spindletop in 1901, we can’t find a record 

of any well on shore in Texas, which has been the number one oilproducing State in the country for over 100 years, with the exception of a few years where Alaska at Prudhoe Bay, at its peak that 

flowed at 50,000 barrels a day. And the latest estimates are that 

this well in this condition could be flowing as much as 50,000 barrels a day. If you extrapolate that on an annual basis, that is over 

100 million barrels of oil a year. 

So could you give us some assessment of why BP and other companies go to such extraordinary measures to drill in these areas? 

What is it that you think you found or are hoping to find beneath 

the Gulf of Mexico? 

Mr. HAYWARD. In the instance of this well, we believe that the 

discovery was of the order of 50 million barrels. 

Mr. BARTON. Fifty million? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Fifty million barrels. That is our estimate of the 

discovery—the size of the discovery that this well made. 

Mr. BARTON. So at the rate it is flowing, it ought to peter out 

pretty quickly; 50,000 barrels a day is 350,000 barrels a week, 

which is 3.5 million in 10 weeks, which is 35 million in 100 weeks. 

So I was told it was on the order of 500 million barrels. 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is not correct, Congressman. This is a discovery based on the—clearly on the well and the seismic information we had available to us, which is—— 

Mr. BARTON. So it is just that the extreme pressure—I mean, it 

couldn’t flow at this rate in full production? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That’s correct. 

Mr. BARTON. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That’s correct. 

Mr. BARTON. Would you care to tell us what it would flow at, 

what you expected it to flow at per day? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think at a producing well, properly completed, 

we would expect it to be between perhaps 15- and 25,000 barrels 

a day. 

Mr. BARTON. And lastly, with the moratorium that is currently 

in existence in the Gulf of Mexico for the deep areas, the 6-month 

moratorium, I know you have to do—we want you to stop this spill 

and clean it up, but there are other areas that could be explored. 

What other areas might BP go to instead of in the Gulf of Mexico? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, we have deepwater drilling exploration and 

production operations in a large number of locations around the 

world; in West Africa, Brazil, Egypt, to name the three, as well as 

the U.K. in the North Sea. 

Mr. BARTON. So you would focus on those areas if this moratorium continues? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are focused today on the relief well. 

Mr. BARTON. I understand that, and you should be. You better 

be. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I haven’t thought, frankly, beyond the relief wells 

in terms of activity in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. Hayward, in the line of questioning throughout the day, you 

have referred to the blowout preventer. Mr. Gonzalez, when he 

asked you questions, and Mr. Barton just asked some questions on 

there. Back on June 4th, you wrote an editorial for the Wall Street 

Journal. In talking about the blowout preventer, you stated, we in 

the industry have long had great confidence in the blowout preventer as the ultimate failsafe piece of safety equipment, yet on 

this occasion it failed with disastrous consequences. Do you still believe the blowout preventer should be considered the ultimate 

failsafe? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe so. Either a blowout preventer or some 

similar mechanism. 

Mr. STUPAK. I’m a little surprised by your comments, because the 

committee received a document—you have the document binder 

right there. You may want to refer to it—that evaluated the blowout preventer used on the Deepwater Horizon rig. The document 

was prepared in 2001. It is tab No. 14 right there, and we have 

put it up on the screen. 

In 2001, when Transocean bought the blowout preventer, I want 

to show the executive summary in which BP participated with it 

in this review. And it says, engineering and operations personnel 

identified 260 failure modes. 

Do you see where it says that towards about top third of it? OK. 

So BP engineers helped to identify these 260 failure modes. So 

how can you write or how can you testify—but how can you write 

in the Wall Street Journal 2 weeks ago that you thought the blowout preventer was the ultimate failsafe when your own engineers 

examined the blowout preventer 9 years ago and found 260 failure 

modes in it? How can you ever say it is the ultimate failsafe? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I haven’t seen this document previously. I apologize for that, but I haven’t. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, now knowing there are 260 failsafe modes in 

this blowout preventer that was on Deepwater Horizon, it never 

was the ultimate failsafe, was it? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The blowout preventer is designed to be the ultimate failsafe. That is the design basis. It is the basis for which the 

industry has operated for 30 years in deep water. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask you this: As the CEO, why, then, did 

your company change the blowout preventer failsafe method or 

mechanism? For instance, we found other things that showed that 

this blowout preventer was not failsafe. At our first hearing, May 

12th, I asked in review of it that the blowout preventer had been 

modified in ways which would increase the risk that it would blow 

out, that it wouldn’t work. OK? One modification, for instance, was 

to remove the important variable bore ram and replaced it with a 

test ram that made it ineffective in case of an emergency. 

At our hearing I asked Mr. McKay, who is the president of BP 

America, about these modifications. He testified under oath, he 

took the oath, and he said he didn’t know anything about modifications. We have since learned that BP approved modifications despite being warned that it would reduce the safety of the blowout 

preventer. I would like to display it again. It is tab No. 10 right 

in your book right there. Here is a letter from 2004 from 

Transocean sent to BP that BP signed and acknowledged. And it 

says, BP acknowledges that the conversion—the conversion you 

asked for—the conversion will reduce the built-in redundancy of 

the BOP, thereby potentially increasing the contractor’s risk profile. 

So what does that mean, BP, that you reduce the built-in redundancy, increase your risk? You asked for modifications which limit 

the redundancy and increase your risk, right? BP did. 

Mr. HAYWARD. Again, I haven’t seen this document previously. 

What I do know, there were modifications made to the blowout preventer. In particular a test bore ram was added. It was not a subtraction. It was an addition to the blowout preventer is my understanding. 

Mr. STUPAK. But here is our problem. Your territory will say this 

is the ultimate failsafe. We find out it is modified. We ask your representative, Mr. McKay; he says no, no. We get down to the hearing, we get documents showing, in fact, BP asked for it. BP was 

warned that the ultimate failsafe system, the way BP wanted it 

modified will increase the risk of a problem. And that is the one 

we have here in Deepwater Horizon. 

So how can we write an editorial—you can’t have it both ways 

here. How can we write an editorial saying, ‘‘Oh, this is the ultimate system’’—and even your own engineers said there are 260 different ways it can fail. Then you add some more to it. 

Mr. HAYWARD. The—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Go ahead. 

Mr. HAYWARD. The blowout preventer is designed to be the 

failsafe mechanism in the drilling industry. 

Mr. STUPAK. Correct. 

Mr. HAYWARD. That has been the case since blowout preventers 

were created. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

Mr. STUPAK. But you are the CEO. You have been head of exploration, drilling, all this. Does it make sense to you that this is the 

ultimate failsafe system when there are 260 different ways it can 

go wrong? Plus, you, your company modifies it, which increased the 

risk of things going wrong? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The fact is, it is the ultimate failsafe mechanism. 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask you this. OK, this well, you started drilling it last fall, the Macondo well, last fall, using the different rig, 

the Marianas. It was harmed, it was damaged in the hurricane, so 

you replaced it with Deepwater Horizon. 

In November of last year, Transocean pulled out the blowout preventer from the ocean floor because its shear rams weren’t working. The lower annular would not close, and the upper annular had 

been stripped through during a well-control event. 

We know that BP was aware of this because Transocean—and, 

again, it is Document No. 12 there in our binder—reflect conference 

calls with BP about the problems with this blowout preventer. In 

addition, Transocean records indicate the incidents state that the 

estimated down time forced by the malfunction is a conservative 10 

days at $444,111 per day, or $4.4 million, as it shows. 

So how can you say blowout preventers are failsafe devices when 

the blowout preventer you are using on the well in November had 

to be removed because of malfunctions? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, of course, the answer is, they are the 

failsafe mechanism, and when problems are identified with them, 

they are rectified. And I believe that is what has taken place. 

Mr. STUPAK. You know, you can’t have it both ways here. This 

accident occurs. You have a blowout preventer you know had 260 

different errors in it, ways it could go wrong. You modify it. You 

pull it in November of 2009. You see there are all kinds of problems. This accident happens. So you write this editorial in the Wall 

Street Journal saying, ‘‘Hey, it ain’t our fault. It’s mechanical.’’ You 

said earlier, an accident is because of mechanical failure and 

human judgment—human error. 

It seems like we have more human error than mechanical, because the mechanical safeguard, the ultimate failsafe, really wasn’t 

an ultimate failsafe. They can fail in many ways, and that is exactly what went wrong here and that is what happened on the 

20th.Correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. What is clear is that the ultimate failsafe failed 

to operate in this case. That is absolutely clear. 

Mr. STUPAK. Why would a company like BP, when you are doing 

this deepwater drilling, modify the ultimate failsafe if it is supposed to protect the American people and our environment? Why 

would you modify it, increase the risk of problems? You knowing 

it, you sign a document. The contractor warns you not to do it, and 

you still do it. That is the problem we are having. 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I said, the blowout preventer is the failsafe 

mechanism. It is designed to be exactly that. 

Mr. STUPAK. Questions, Mr. Burgess? 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, it has been a long day. 

You said earlier, if I recall correctly, that everyone in your organization, in the culture of safety, not only had the right to curtail 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

operations but the obligation if they saw something going on that 

was not safe. Is that correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is correct. 

Mr. BURGESS. And in response to a question from the other side 

of the dais, and I don’t remember who asked it, you also made the 

assertion that the right people were making the decisions on the 

rig. Did I hear that correctly? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe that is the case. 

Mr. BURGESS. Who is Donald Vidrine? 

Mr. HAYWARD. He is the well site leader on—one of the well site 

leaders on the Deepwater Horizon. 

Mr. BURGESS. So he was referred to in a Wall Street Journal article as the company man or the BP man on the Deepwater Horizon the day of the blowout. Is that correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. I don’t know if you are familiar with the article 

that was in the Wall Street Journal, and this has been several 

weeks ago, on May 27th, I believe. They talked about a skirmish 

between some of the Transocean folks, the chief engineer or chief 

mechanic on the Deepwater Horizon, and the rig’s top manager, 

Jimmy Harrell. 

Are you familiar with that discussion that apparently was quite 

a heated discussion? I think Mr. Gonzalez was actually the one 

that brought it up. 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is my understanding, Congressman, that that 

account has been contradicted under oath in the Marine Board investigation and that there was no debate or skirmish or any other 

heated discussion. 

That is what—I can’t recall exactly who it was, but, under oath 

at the Marine Board investigation, I believe it was the Transocean 

tool pusher, testified that there was no either heated discussion or 

debate or anything else. 

Mr. BURGESS. Would that would be the tool pusher Miles Ezell? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe that is the case, sir. 

Mr. BURGESS. It wasn’t Dewey Revette, because he died in the 

accident. And he was one of the other witnesses to the altercation. 

Well, you know, if this occurred, even if it only partially occurred, 

it just seems like there was enough discussion that someone should 

say, ‘‘Wait, let’s not go forward with this because at least some of 

our number feel it is unsafe.’’ And, again, you said that the men 

would have the obligation, not just the right, to say let’s halt; he 

would have the obligation to say, well, let’s get everyone on the 

same page with this. 

Am I wrong to assume that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. You are not wrong. And I think you can only conclude they all believed that it was right to proceed. 

Mr. BURGESS. Are we ever going to get a chance to talk to Mr. 

Vidrine? Will BP make him available to our committee? 

Mr. HAYWARD. If you call him, of course. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me ask you another question. You said in response to some information that came up that there was no evidence that BP was focusing on the cost of drilling. And, yet, March 

2010 strategy presentation, you stated, ‘‘We have added exploration 

resources efficiently. Our discovery cost was $1.40 per barrel in 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

2009. This is consistent with our track record over the last 5 years 

of having the lowest discovery costs in the industry.’’ 

Now, certainly, that would be enviable, except, in a culture of safety, I mean, I might even spend $1.45 or $1.47, instead of just 

$1.40, if it meant that it was a safe procedure. 

So was maintaining the lowest-cost discovery in the industry possibly a factor in the decision-making on this well? 

Mr. HAYWARD. None whatsoever. 

But that metric is created by dividing the volume of barrels discovered by the costs. And what it talks to is the success of our exploration program and the scale of the volume that we have discovered, not anything to do with costs. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, but it does have something to do with cost. 

Now, it has been reported that completion of the Macondo well was 

running behind schedule. Is this accurate? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe it was running behind schedule, that is 

correct. 

Mr. BURGESS. How far behind schedule? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t know the precise number. 

Mr. BURGESS. What does it cost today to run a rig like that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That sort of rig, fully built up, the cost is probably 

a million dollars a day or thereabouts. 

Mr. BURGESS. So, even a couple of days over is a significant cost driver on that $1.40-a-barrel minimal discovery cost in the industry. 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, with respect, Congressman, the most important thing was that actually we had made a discovery, and we 

wanted to secure it in the proper way. And that was going to be 

a far bigger driver of any value that the company was going to create than the cost of the operation. 

Mr. BURGESS. I don’t disagree with that. But, oh, how I wish that 

that had been the case, as we are investing hearing after hearing 

after hearing on this thing case and the darned thing is still bubbling down at the bottom of the gulf. That doesn’t seem to be accurate. 

Is your own investigation looking at the issue of whether or not 

cost drivers were an issue in the problems that were created? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Our investigation is covering everything. 

Mr. BURGESS. So it wasn’t on your list, but, nevertheless, it will 

be included in your—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, my list is the early findings of the investigation in terms of the key areas to focus on—areas around cement, 

casing, the integrity test—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Got it. 

Mr. HAYWARD. —well control procedures. 

Mr. BURGESS. I got it. We are running out of time here. 

But when you said your investigation was proceeding without 

privilege early on in the hearing today—so it would also cover the 

issues of whether or not cost drivers were an issue in creating the 

problems? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It will cover everything. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I would just echo what Mr. Scalise said earlier. We 

get calls all day or night, faxes come in, people have got ideas on 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

how to fix our problem in the gulf. I really wish you guys would 

open up an 800 number and take these things and vet them and 

listen to what people are saying. Americans are terribly—we have 

a lot of ingenuity in America. And people are watching that thing 

that Mr. Markey made everyone’s computer screen show 24 hours 

a day. It is driving people crazy to watch that thing bubbling in 

the gulf. People are coming to us with solutions. There needs to be 

a central location. I don’t care whether it is you, I don’t care whether it is Dr. Chu, but somebody needs to be vetting these things and, 

if there is a reasonable idea out there, put it to work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Markey for questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Mr. Hayward, is the most optimistic date for the relief well to be 

completed still August? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is our current timetable. 

Mr. MARKEY. Is August also the earliest date the leak can be 

stopped? Or will it take more time after the relief well is complete 

before the flow of oil is permanently halted? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The relief well will halt permanently the flow of 

oil. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Hayward, in 2009, an independent firm that 

BP hired to serve as its ombudsman, headed by former Federal 

Judge Stanley Sporkin, substantiated that BP was violating its 

own policies by not having completed engineering documents onboard another BP rig operating in the Gulf of Mexico, the BP 

Atlantis, when it began operating in 2007. One BP official warned 

that the absence of these safety documents could lead to catastrophic operator error. 

Let me read to you from an internal BP e-mail. And this goes 

from Barry Duff, BP employee, to other engineers at BP. Here is 

what he said. He said, ‘‘The P&IDs for subsea are not complete and 

have not been approved, are handed over to operations. The current procedures are out of date. The risk in turning over drawings 

to the people out on the rig running the Atlantis that are not complete are: number one, the operator, the BP operator, will assume 

the drawings are accurate and up to date. This could lead to catastrophic operator errors due to their assuming the drawing is correct. Turning over incomplete drawings to the operator, the BP operator, for their use is a fundamental violation of basic document 

control. Having the project document control person turn over 

drawings that are not complete places the onus on her that they 

are the most current version. Currently, there are hundreds, if not 

thousands, of subsea documents that have never been finalized yet 

the facilities have been turned over.’’ 

Mr. Hayward, BP’s managing attorney stated to the Associated 

Press on May 15th of this year that BP has reviewed the allegations and found them to be unsubstantiated. 

Mr. Hayward, were all of the engineering documents and drawings necessary to operate the Atlantis rig safely and fully completed before the Atlantis rig began operating in the Gulf of Mexico? 

Mr. HAYWARD. When this issue emerged, we conducted a full investigation and determined that all of the drawings that were necVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 Mar 04, 2013 Jkt 077914 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A914.XXX A914

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
124 

essary to start up the operation were available to the people starting up the operation at the time the operation started up. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Hayward, Mr. Duff was relieved of his duties 

in the middle of August of 2008. A new person was put in charge 

as a result. His name is Ken Abbott. Ken Abbott has been testifying all day in Washington across the street in the Natural Resources Committee. 

He is a whistleblower. He got fired 6 months after he replaced 

Mr. Duff because he raised the very same concerns, that there was 

not proper documentation on the BP Atlantis. He was fired even 

though he raised issues that obviously have a lot of resemblance 

to the kind of attention to the safety protocols that were part of the 

BP–Horizon rig. 

Is it part of your policy, Mr. Hayward, to fire employees who 

raise questions about the safety of your rigs? 

Mr. HAYWARD. No, it is not. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, Mr. Hayward, I am afraid that that is what 

happened to Mr. Abbott. Because not only was he fired, but 2 

weeks later they put out—and was told that he was just part of a 

force reduction, but your company then put out an advertisement 

to hire someone to replace him on that job. 

Earlier, you said all of the other BP wells in the Gulf of Mexico 

that had been completed are secure and are safe to operate. Do you 

still stand by that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I do. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, do you know that Judge Sporkin said that it 

is not true that the documents were completed when he substantiated Mr. Abbott’s allegations? So how do you account for that, 

that you hire an ombudsman, he is a former Federal district court 

judge, he comes in, he does the evaluation, and he substantiates 

the whistleblower’s allegations? How do you in any way justify 

then firing the person who actually brought these issues to your attention? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I said, the investigation concluded that the 

drawings necessary for start-up were on the Atlantis facility. Judge 

Sporkin, our ombudsman, is investigating the issue of unfair dismissal, which is quite appropriate. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I ask for you to provide a copy of the investigation which you are conducting, Mr. Hayward, for the record. 

Mr. HAYWARD. We can do that. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. We will put that in the record. 

I think, Mr. Hayward, that the only thing worse than one BP rig 

at the bottom of the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico would be two BP 

rigs at the bottom of the ocean. 

I think this is just another example of you running through all 

of the red lights, all of the warnings. Judge Sporkin is one of the 

most respected people in this city. He has corroborated the charges 

that were being made by this now-fired employee who was raising 

safety concerns. 

I am afraid, once again, it is a blistering, scalding indictment of 

the lack of a culture of safety that you had at BP. And I just think 

that it is something that has to end before we see another disaster. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

Before I go to Mr. Latta, let me ask unanimous consent that we 

have the document binder be entered in the record, provided that 

the committee staff may redact any information that is business 

propriety, relates to privacy concerns, or is law-enforcement sensitive. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask for 30 seconds, one 

additional question? 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me finish what I am doing here. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. 

Mr. STUPAK. Without objection, the documents will be entered 

into the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. MARKEY. May I just ask—— 

Mr. STUPAK. It has to be really quick, Ed. You never ask a 30- 

second question. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Hayward, will you shut down the BP Atlantis 

until these safety questions have been answered? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe they have been fully resolved, Congressman. 

Mr. MARKEY. I do not think that that is the case. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. We will take time for Mr. Latta. Mr. Latta for questions, please? 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I could just follow up with some questioning that Ranking 

Member Burgess was on, talking about the schedule. 

My first question is, what is the process that BP executives have 

developed when it comes to schedules, especially for the offshore 

wells in the gulf? Is there a schedule? Who makes the schedules? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The schedule, the drilling program for the—is 

that the—— 

Mr. LATTA. Right. Who is in charge of the scheduling for those? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The drilling programs are created by the engineering team, overseen by the vice president for drilling and completions and the business unit leader and, in this case, the exploration manager in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. LATTA. Now, are you consulted in the development and 

maintenance of those schedules? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am sorry? 

Mr. LATTA. Are you consulted at all in the development or maintenance of those schedules? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not. 

Mr. LATTA. Is there a committee higher up that is then consulted 

at BP about those schedules? 

Mr. HAYWARD. About the schedules of drilling? 

Mr. LATTA. Correct. 

Mr. HAYWARD. There are several groups that would look at the 

schedules of drilling. 

Mr. LATTA. Now, I guess in a corporate structure, how high up 

would those committees be or those groups that would be looked 

at that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It would be within the Gulf of Mexico business 

unit. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask this: Would a well of this type, being as 

deep as it is, being as tough as it would be, it sounds like, to drill, 

would that elevate it to a higher standing that folks higher up at 

BP would be consulted on it? Or is it just still kept in the gulf with 

that region right there? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The design and operating practices would be 

signed off at the level of the vice president of drilling and completions in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. So you would never be consulted on that then? 

Mr. HAYWARD. No. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Latta. 

Mr. Braley for questions, please. 

Mr. BRALEY. Mr. Hayward, at the beginning of this hearing, I 

showed you a couple of short video clips from two of the women 

who testified last week at our field hearing in Chalmette, Natalie 

Roshto and Courtney Kemp. And one of the questions they posed 

during that hearing was what they would tell to their children 

about why their fathers died on this Deepwater Horizon rig. 

You began your testimony a very long time ago today with these 

words: ‘‘The explosion and fire aboard the Deepwater Horizon and 

the resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico never should have happened.’’ 

What do you think that those two young mothers should tell 

their children about why this happened, based on what you know? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Based on what I know, that this was a tragic accident involving many failure mechanisms. That is the reality. That 

is why this happened. 

Mr. BRALEY. Is there blame to go around among all of the companies that were working on that well site? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t believe now is the time to try and apportion blame. I believe now is the time to try and understand what 

happened. And that is what the investigations are trying to do. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, the reason I am asking that is because, during 

other congressional hearings, there has been finger-pointing on. 

And I assume you have been following what has been going on in 

the hearings and are aware of that. 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I said, I don’t believe that this is the time to 

finger-point or apportion blame. I believe this is a time to understand fully what caused this accident such that the industry and 

BP can learn for the future. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, I am glad you brought that up, because one 

of the things that BP has been taking responsibility for is the 

cleanup costs and the payment of all legitimate claims. We have 

heard that phrase over and over again. 

And we have also seen press accounts where BP spokespeople 

have said, as the responsible party, we are required to handle those 

claims, and then we will wait until some later date to deal with 

the apportionment of responsibility among the various parties. 

Are you aware of that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, let’s talk briefly about the claims process and 

some of the problems that are currently part of that process. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
127 

One of the things we know is that, under the oil pollution claims 

process, a claimant can’t file suit until a presentment of claim is 

made. Are you familiar with that process? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not familiar with the details. 

But what I can say is we have set up an independent claims facility under Ken Feinberg. He will have the full authority to adjudicate on claims. Within that system, there will be an opportunity 

for anyone to appeal to three judges. 

That system does nothing to deny anyone any rights with respect 

to any other claims process. It is simply a way of expediting the 

claims process such that it is fair, efficient, and fast. 

Mr. BRALEY. I want to talk to you about that, because this is 

what I have been hearing from people involved in the preliminary 

claims process with BP. I have been informed that BP’s position, 

under their current claims process, is that a submission of a claim 

is not a presentment for the purpose of beginning a claims process 

under the Oil Pollution Act. And the reason BP has taken that position is because they do not consider it to be for a sum certain if 

there are future losses that have not yet been determined or if 

there are ongoing economic losses with no date certain. 

Are you aware of this process? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am aware in general terms of the process. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, do you understand the problem that creates 

for somebody with an ongoing economic loss, like Ronnie Duplessis, 

the shrimp boat officer who testified at our hearing last week, who 

is without work because the fishing beds that are part of what he 

does for a living are not available to him? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We are endeavoring—I believe we have put in 

place a process whereby we pay money and it means nothing about 

future liabilities. 

Mr. BRALEY. Yes, but my question—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. No one has given away the opportunity to claim 

future liabilities. 

Mr. BRALEY. I am not implying that. I am talking about a process that actually puts money in the hands of people who desperately need it because their income source has been destroyed by 

this oil disaster at your rig. 

Do you understand their frustration, when they have gotten a 

check, in the case of Mr. Duplessis, for $5,000, which represents a 

very small amount of the monthly gross income he gets from his 

business, to feed his family? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I understand fully. I have spoken to many people 

on the gulf coast, to fishermen, to shrimpers, to small hotel owners, 

and I—— 

Mr. BRALEY. Can you understand, then, sir, why they are frustrated? If BP is taking the position in this claims presentment 

process that every time they cannot define their future economic 

loss they have to submit another claim as soon as that loss becomes defined for a fixed period of time and then another claim and 

another—do you understand how that could be frustrating? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I do, Congressman. And—— 

Mr. BRALEY. So—— 

Mr. HAYWARD [continuing]. In terms of the last weekend—if you 

would just let me finish, please—we have put in place a process for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
128 

small businesses where they can project forward for the next 

month what it is they expect to lose by way of cash flow, and we 

will pay it now. 

I am very conscious of the issue of small businesses who have ongoing cash-flow demands. So we are trying very hard to ensure 

that money is paid in advance for commitments for people have already taken, rather than in arrears. And that is what we will continue to do. 

Mr. BRALEY. And will that be part of the fund that Judge 

Feinberg is administering? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That process will be transferred into Ken 

Feinberg’s process, and that is the basis on which we will move forward. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. HAYWARD. And in the course of the last week, we have paid 

out over $15 million to small businesses on that basis. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Braley. 

Mr. Welch for questions. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, can you point to any single bad decision that was 

made in connection with Deepwater Horizon? 

Mr. HAYWARD. As I have said often today, I am not prepared to 

point today, with a half-complete investigation, as to what was and 

was not a bad decision. 

There are many components to this accident, to do with, as I 

have said, the casing, how it was run; the cement job, how it was 

conducted; integrity tests that may or may not have been well-interpreted. At all stages, everyone on the rig decided that the right 

thing to do was to continue. We need to understand how that came 

about. 

Mr. WELCH. I understand that. But, with the benefit of hindsight 

and whatever investigatory work has been done, both by you and 

by others, at this moment, 57 days after this event, is there anything you can identify that was done wrong? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not able to draw that conclusion at this 

time. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. 

Well, yesterday, Mr. Hayward, I think BP took a very construc- tive step in agreeing to deposit $20 billion in an independently administered fund to compensate victims and to pay for the cleanup. 

It was a first step in establishing confidence in BP, confidence that 

BP’s words would be matched by their deeds. 

But today, regrettably, your appearance here has done a good 

deal, at least for me, to erode that confidence. We know you are 

not an engineer, and we know that you were not on the Deepwater 

Horizon. But your answer 65 times that you don’t know to questions that were reasonably posed to you on both sides of the aisle 

erodes confidence; it doesn’t inspire confidence. 

You know, the question that any company has to ask itself is 

whether it has strict procedures in place to make disciplined decisions that give it confidence that, at a critical moment, where the 

lives of its workers and the investment of its shareholders is at 

stake, critical judgment will be exercised. And that is the obligation 

of the CEO. However it is you accomplish that ability to hold your 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
129 

workers accountable and support them, that is the job of the CEO, 

whether it is a small company or a large company. 

And at that very critical moment when that well was going to be 

capped and decisions had to be made about the ceiling of the well, 

whether to use a cheaper and quicker casing design, whether to 

use more or fewer casing centralizers, whether to run a critical cementing test, whether or not to circulate drilling mud, it does not 

appear that anybody was in charge. 

And that is the erosion of confidence, because the lack of procedures, the lack of people being in charge, and resorting to the leastcost alternative clearly played a major role in this catastrophe. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Scalise for questions, please. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, going back for a few more of the questions that we 

continue to have, why was a cement bond log not performed? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t know why a cement bond log wasn’t performed. I wasn’t there. I didn’t take the decision. What I understand—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I know you have to—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. What I understand from discussion with the investigation team is that the conclusion reached on the rig by BP, 

Transocean, was that they had a good cement job, that they had 

got returns at the surface, that the right volume had been pumped, 

and they had pressure integrity. 

Mr. SCALISE. And they based that on readings of some other test 

that they performed, or—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. On the basis of those three things, they determined that they had a good cement job. And it was on that 

basis—— 

Mr. SCALISE. So there is no BP procedure to perform that test. 

You leave it up to the discretion of the company man on the rig 

or somebody else on the rig? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There is no requirement to perform a cement 

bond log. 

Mr. SCALISE. Are you going to change that policy and make it a 

requirement? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is one of the things we need to look at in the 

light of this accident. 

Mr. SCALISE. When we talk about, you know, all these different 

ideas—and, like I said, I just gave you some. We get lots of them. 

I tried to filter some out. I don’t know if you have seen the presentation of people putting hay in the water, and the oil comes on to 

the hay and the water doesn’t, and then it rolls up and you can 

clear that away—all kinds of ideas like that. 

What is your process for all of these people that are submitting 

ideas, many of which have tremendous merit and then none of 

which we see being used in the water? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Well, I think, with respect, we have used many 

of the ideas that have been submitted, Congressman. 

We do have a process, and there are thousands, hundreds of 

thousands, actually, of ideas that have been submitted. And we 

have a process to work through them and to utilize them. And we 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

have used very many that have been submitted from individuals 

across the United States. 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, hopefully we will be able to get some more of 

those implemented. Because, as I said earlier, there is not enough 

that you can do. If you have more ideas, try them all, because there 

is a lot of oil in the gulf. And if something works, do more of it. 

If it doesn’t work, you can go on to something else. 

Is that structure just BP’s structure? Is there some unified command—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. It is part of the unified command structure. 

Mr. SCALISE. So are there any Federal agencies involved in that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. There is a team of people. So as e-mails and suggestions come in, they are forwarded to a team of people, and they 

are evaluated and implemented based on that team of people that 

sits within the unified command structure. 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, local people that are affected by this, we are 

still hearing from lots of local people—fishermen that can no longer 

fish; people that have oyster-processing companies and now some 

of those oyster beds are closed so they have no oysters to process; 

boat captains. These are all people that don’t want to just get some 

unemployment check. They want to work, but they can’t work. 

Many of them are frustrated that they are not being engaged to 

work on the cleanup. And they are the ones most vested; they are 

the ones on the ground who want this cleaned up with the most 

urgency. And it seems like many of them are frustrated that they 

are being shut out, and then they are seeing people bused in from 

out of State that come in in the day and then they are bused out 

again at night that just don’t have the same kind of passion. And 

it is kind of confusing. Why are they not being employed, if they 

want to work, if they are there on the ground? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We made every effort to use everyone locally who 

wants to participate. We have almost 10,000 Vessels of Opportunity—the local fishermen employed in the Vessels of Opportunity 

program. And we have—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I was notoriously told—and this was reported in 

many media accounts, but I have actually spoken to the parish official on the ground who actually did this. Just a few weeks ago, 

there were 50 of those boats, Vessels of Opportunity, that were contracted by you that were supposed to be putting out boom. Those 

boats were sitting idle at the dock, not putting out boom, as oil was 

coming into our marsh. And this parish official actually went out 

and they commandeered a number of those boats and just went 

and put it out themselves. 

There is no excuse for that. What kind of method do you all have 

in place? If you are just giving people a check and telling them to 

sit the boat at the dock—we don’t need the boat at the dock. We 

need the boat out putting the boom so that the oil doesn’t get into 

the marsh. 

And, again, it gets into this sense of urgency. It is not just about 

writing checks. I mean, that is important, but it is even more important that the work gets done in a quick time frame. And that 

is not what is happening. There is no quick turnaround. And then 

things like that continue to happen. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
131 

Are you going to change something on the ground to emphasize 

that it is not just about running a PR campaign? We have things 

that have to happen quickly because there just isn’t the time for 

days to go by with these kinds of delays. 

Mr. HAYWARD. Our focus is to continue to improve the quality of 

the response and the engagement of the people in the initial area. 

It has been the biggest challenge, and we continue to work it very 

hard with the incident commander Thad Allen and the Coast 

Guard. 

Mr. SCALISE. Let me ask you, is the casing cracked or damaged 

below the sea floor? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We don’t know that, of course, because we haven’t 

been able to get into the well. 

Mr. SCALISE. There is nothing that you have seen that would 

show that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We have no way of knowing that. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK. And I know—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Time, Steve. 

Mr. SCALISE. And I apologize. 

Mr. STUPAK. Go ahead, one more. Go ahead. 

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. McKay was here, testifying at the same table 

you are at, on Tuesday. He said, quote, ‘‘The spill response has 

been pretty effective.’’ And I strongly disagreed with him in that 

hearing on Tuesday. 

I would like to know if you agree or disagree with his statement 

that the still response has been pretty effective. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think if any oil gets to the shore to impact the 

environment, that it is not possible to declare a spill response effective. 

In many dimensions, we have launched, implemented a very, 

very significant effort. It has been recognized, as I said, by the 

Coast Guard as beyond anything anyone has ever achieved in the 

past. But—— 

Mr. SCALISE. And this disaster is beyond anything ever 

achieved—I just hope to give you that sense of urgency. We need 

the sense of urgency. We can’t have days—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Time has expired. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. There is nothing to yield. 

Ms. DeGette for questions, please. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hayward, you told both Mr. Dingell and Mr. Scalise that the 

conclusion BP reached was that there was a good cement job, there 

was no requirement to perform the cement bond log test, and you 

would look at whether that needed to be changed in the future. 

So my question to you is, are you aware that Halliburton’s chief 

safety officer, Tim Probert, told a Senate committee last month 

that a cement bond log test is, quote, ‘‘the only test that can really 

determine the actual effectiveness of the bond between the cement 

sheets, the formation, and the casing itself’’? 

Do you agree with that statement? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am aware of his testimony, and I—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. And do you agree with that testimony? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
132 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am not qualified to agree or disagree with that 

statement. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, is your technical expert, Mr. Zanghi, who is 

here with you today, qualified to answer that question? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I can ask him. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Please. 

Yes? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Mr. Zanghi is not a cement bond expert. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I am sorry, I can’t hear you. Can you move 

the—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. Mr. Zanghi is not a cementing expert, but he is 

a drilling engineer. And he—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. He is a drilling engineer. And has he had experience with cementing as a drilling engineer? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I am sure he has. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. But yet he doesn’t know whether this test is 

the only test that can determine the actual effectiveness? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The fact is that the team on the rig concluded 

that they had three other mechanisms to determine that they 

had—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. What were those mechanisms? 

Mr. HAYWARD. It was the volume that had been pumped—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. I am sorry? 

Mr. HAYWARD. The volume of cement that had been pumped, 

which told they essentially where in the world the cement had 

gone; the returns to the surface—that is to say, the cement had return to the surface; and a pressure test that confirmed that there 

was ceiling. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But also, as I mentioned in my first round of questioning, Mr. Hayward, the internal document, tab 6, page 9, which 

I had you refer to, said that, because of the long string approach, 

that you didn’t do the other type of approach, ‘‘Cementing simulations indicate that it’s unlikely to be a successful cement job.’’ 

So was that taken into account, when it was determined that the 

cement was likely to succeed? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I clearly can’t know that because I wasn’t there, 

but one would—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. OK. I—— 

Mr. HAYWARD [continuing]. Assume that the team on the rig—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. I am sorry? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I would assume that the team on the rig looked 

at the data and determined that they had achieved a successful cement job. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But, now, the team on the scene sent the test crew 

away before the pressure testing was done. So how would they 

have known that the cement was going to hold before they even did 

the pressure testing? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I can’t answer that question. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Would you mind supplementing your testimony to 

let us now how they would have known that? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I can’t interpret what the people on the rig were 

thinking at the time the decision was made. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But you could ask them and have them tell us. 

Would you do that, Mr. Hayward? 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

Mr. HAYWARD. We can, certainly, as part of the investigation, do 

that. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much. 

Now, I want to ask you, because previously I asked you how 

many deepwater wells that BP had—or I asked you if you had 

knowledge of this well, and you said no. How many deepwater 

wells has BP drilled since you were CEO of the company, in the 

last 3 or so years? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t know the precise number. It is probably 

on the order of 25 or 30 a year. 

Ms. DEGETTE. You might be surprised to know, of the deepwater 

wells, that it is a far fewer number than that. But you don’t know 

the exact number, correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t know the exact number. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. 

I want to just ask you one last question. We have been hearing 

a lot from people, from health care workers and from public health 

folks, about the potential health consequences. 

We have been talking a lot today about the economic losses and 

this fund to reimburse people for economic losses. 

I want to ask you, will BP also commit to paying for the longterm health care costs incurred by workers and residents of the 

gulf as a result of this spill? 

Mr. HAYWARD. We have created a fund of $20 billion to cover the 

claims resulting from—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Let me ask you again. Let me just ask you again. 

I know there is the fund, and we commend you, and we are glad 

you did that. 

But as part of the reimbursement, is BP committed to reimbursing the workers and the residents of the gulf for their long-term 

health care costs incurred as a result of this spill? Yes or no? 

Mr. HAYWARD. If the independent adjudicator determines that 

those are valid claims, they will be paid. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So the only way you intend to pay those claims 

is if it comes through this fund. Is that your testimony today? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Twenty billion dollars is a very large sum of 

money to pay claims from. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I am sorry? 

Mr. HAYWARD. Twenty billion dollars is a very large fund to pay 

claims from. 

Ms. DEGETTE. It is a large fund. And is it your view that part 

of what that fund will be used for is to pay people for their longterm health care costs incurred as a result of this spill? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That will be a decision for the independent adjudicator. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, if they asked you what you thought, would 

you say, yes, the health care costs should be paid for from this? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think that is something that I will leave him to 

decide. That is why we have appointed an independent adjudicator. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So—see, this—if I may, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. STUPAK. Just another minute. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. If I may, Mr. Chairman, this is what is concerning members of this committee and others about BP’s response 

here. Because you had executives who have sat here and said that 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
134 

we will pay for all reasonable costs incurred. But then when we ask 

direct questions, for example, about health care costs, you evade 

the questions. 

And all I want to know is, as part of the reimbursement of all 

reasonable costs, health care costs that are incurred by workers 

and residents of the gulf? It is not a difficult question, sir. 

Mr. HAYWARD. I believe that if they are a direct consequence of 

the oil spill, then the independent adjudicator will find them to be 

claims that are legitimate under the fund. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And would you support that, sir? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I clearly would. But it is—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for 

your coming here. 

Mr. HAYWARD [continuing]. It is for the independent adjudicator 

to make the decisions. That is what we are trying to create. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, just—— 

Mr. STUPAK. OK, oK, oK. Members are going to have 10 minutes—excuse me—10 days to submit additional questions if they 

want, oK? Because, I mean, we could go here all night, and I am 

sure people would like to, but that concludes all of our—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I do want to ask one last question 

on the letter that you and Mr. Waxman—— 

Mr. STUPAK. The June 14th letter, yes. 

Mr. BURGESS [continuing]. The June 14th letter that, Mr. Hayward, you indicated that you were briefed on this letter from Mr. 

Waxman and Mr. Stupak; is that correct? 

Mr. HAYWARD. That is correct. 

Mr. BURGESS. Is there any part of this letter that you actually 

dispute? I know you wouldn’t really answer Mr. Waxman’s questions, but are there parts of this letter that you actually do not 

agree with? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I think it is a statement of your conclusions at 

this time. 

Mr. BURGESS. But do you dispute the facts as stated in the letter? 

Mr. HAYWARD. I don’t dispute any of the facts, not any of the 

facts. And as I have said all along, I would like to await drawing 

conclusions—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, I understand. 

Mr. HAYWARD [continuing]. Until all of the investigations are 

complete. 

Mr. BURGESS. If there are facts that you dispute, you would provide those to us within this—— 

Mr. HAYWARD. I certainly will. 

Mr. STUPAK. I am sorry, but I have to call this to an end, because 

then down on this side they are going to want more questions and 

I will want more questions, and we will be here until at least midnight, and we are not going to do that. 

Mr. BURGESS. That is why we are the most important committee 

in Congress. 

Mr. STUPAK. I agree we are the most important committee in 

Congress, but even important things must come to an end. And 

right now it is coming to an end. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
135 

Mr. Hayward, I want to thank you for being here today. You did 

come voluntarily, and we appreciate that. 

However, I think it is fair to say that Members are frustrated because the answers we have heard time and time again are phrases 

like ‘‘I wasn’t involved in that decision,’’ ‘‘I don’t know,’’ ‘‘I can’t recall,’’ ‘‘we need to wait for the results of the investigation.’’ And we 

had really hoped, by giving you information and the June 14th letter, you would be better prepared to answer our questions. 

I think the evasiveness of your answers only serve to increase 

the frustration, not decrease the frustration, not just of Members 

of Congress but of that of the American people. 

So, I will thank you for being here. 

This is going to conclude our hearing. I want to thank all Members for participating. 

The document binder is made part of the record. 

And that concludes our hearing. This meeting of the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
136 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 77914A.031
137 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 77914A.032
138 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 77914A.033
139 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 77914A.034
140 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 77914A.035
141 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 77914A.036
142 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 77914A.037
143 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 77914A.038
144 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 77914A.039
145 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 77914A.040
146 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 77914A.041
147 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 77914A.042
148 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 77914A.043
149 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 77914A.044
150 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 77914A.045
151 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 77914A.046
152 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 77914A.047
153 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 77914A.048
154 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 77914A.049
155 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 77914A.050
156 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 77914A.051
157 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 77914A.052
158 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 77914A.053
159 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 77914A.054
160 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 77914A.055
161 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 77914A.056
162 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 77914A.057
163 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 77914A.058
164 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 77914A.059
165 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 77914A.060
166 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 77914A.061
167 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 77914A.062
168 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 77914A.063
169 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 77914A.064
170 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 77914A.065
171 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 77914A.066
172 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 77914A.067
173 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 77914A.068
174 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 77914A.069
175 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 77914A.070
176 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 77914A.071
177 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 77914A.072
178 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 77914A.073
179 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 77914A.074
180 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 77914A.075
181 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 77914A.076
182 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 77914A.077
183 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 77914A.078
184 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 77914A.079
185 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 77914A.080
186 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 77914A.081
187 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 77914A.082
188 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 77914A.083
189 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 77914A.084
190 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 77914A.085
191 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 77914A.086
192 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 77914A.087
193 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 77914A.088
194 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 77914A.089
195 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 77914A.090
196 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 77914A.091
197 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 77914A.092
198 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 77914A.093
199 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 77914A.094
200 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 77914A.095
201 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 77914A.096
202 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 77914A.097
203 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 77914A.098
204 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 77914A.099
205 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 77914A.100
206 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 77914A.101
207 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 77914A.102
208 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 77914A.103
209 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 77914A.104
210 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 77914A.105
211 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 77914A.106
212 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 77914A.107
213 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 77914A.108
214 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 77914A.109
215 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 77914A.110
216 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 77914A.111
217 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 77914A.112
218 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 77914A.113
219 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 77914A.114
220 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 77914A.115
221 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 77914A.116
222 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 77914A.117
223 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 77914A.118
224 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 77914A.119
225 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 77914A.120
226 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 77914A.121
227 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 77914A.122
228 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 77914A.123
229 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 77914A.124
230 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 77914A.125
231 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 77914A.126
232 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 77914A.127
233 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 77914A.128
234 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 77914A.129
235 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 77914A.130
236 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 77914A.131
237 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 77914A.132
238 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 77914A.133
239 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 77914A.134
240 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 77914A.135
241 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 77914A.136
242 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 77914A.137
243 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 77914A.138
244 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 77914A.139
245 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 77914A.140
246 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 77914A.141
247 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 77914A.142
248 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 77914A.143