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

76–584 2013

LOCAL IMPACT OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON 

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 7, 2010 

Serial No. 111–129 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD 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 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

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

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 11 

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

Islands, opening statement ................................................................................. 12 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prepared statement .................................................. 13 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 14 

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

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 15 

Hon. Charlie Melancon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, opening statement ................................................................................... 16 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 17 

WITNESSES

Natalie Roshto, wife of Shane Roshto; and Courtney Kemp, wife of Roy 

Wyatt Kemp .......................................................................................................... 19 

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

Kelby Linn, Owner, ACP Real Estate, Inc., Vice President, Dauphin Island 

Chamber of Commerce ......................................................................................... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Clarence Duplessis, Oysterman .............................................................................. 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Moby Solangi, Ph.D., President and Executive Director, Institute of Mammal 

Services ................................................................................................................. 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Wilma Subra, President, Subra Company ............................................................. 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

LOCAL IMPACT OF THE DEEPWATER 

HORIZON OIL SPILL 

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2010 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, 10 a.m., in the Council 

Chambers of the St. Bernard Parish Government Complex, 8201 

West Judge Perez Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana, Hon. Bart Stupak 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Stupak, Markey, Degette, Schakowsky, 

Christensen, and Burgess. 

Also Present: Representatives Scalise and Melancon. 

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

Mr. STUPAK. This meeting will document today we have a field 

hearing entitled ‘‘Inquiry Into the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Coast 

Oil Spill.’’ I’d like to begin by thanking St. Bernard Parish and the 

officials here in Chalmette for being gracious hosts for today’s hearing. I also wish to thank the United States Coast Guard, the 

United States Fish and Wildlife, the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife, 

and then the Louisiana Air National Guard for our trip down to 

the marshes last night. 

After this hearing, we will be further down in the Gulf later 

today as members are still exploring the impact that it’s had on 

this region. I’d also like to recognize two of Louisiana’s Congressmen: Congressman Charlie Melancon is supposed to be here. I’m 

sure he will be here any minute. He’s running a little bit late, but 

he will be here; and Steve Scalise who are with us. Neither of them 

are members of the subcommittee. They are members of the full 

committee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and because 

this is a field hearing in their home state, I ask unanimous consent 

that they be allowed to make an opening statement and ask questions during today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

We will now hear from the members for their opening statements. The chairman and ranking member will be recognized for 

a five-minute opening and other members will be recognized for 

three minutes. I will begin. 

Let me begin today’s hearing by expressing, on behalf of all 

members of Congress, our condolences to the friends and family 

members of those who died or were injured in the April 20th explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

lives were lost and 15 people were injured. Our hearts, thoughts, 

and prayers go out to those families and to the thousands of people 

impacted by this disaster as the well continues to spew oil into the 

Gulf and onto your shores. 

Today’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continues 

our examination into the explosion and oil leak into the Gulf of 

Mexico. This is the second hearing that our subcommittee has conducted on the Deepwater Horizon incident and the third hearing 

that the Committee of Energy in Congress has held on this issue. 

While this oil spill is an unprecedented environmental disaster, it 

pales in comparison to the tragic loss of life. Our goal is that, with 

greater understanding of the effects of such a catastrophe, we can 

assure it will never happen again. 

On May 12th, our subcommittee held a hearing into the events 

surrounding the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. During 

that hearing, we learned that BP, Transocean, and Halliburton 

failed to address various issues with the rig, the well, and the 

blowout preventer prior to the explosion. BP and Transocean failed 

to ensure that the blowout preventer was fully operational. BP and 

Halliburton failed to identify discrepancies in pressure tests done 

in the cementing of the well. Subsequently, BP briefed our committee on the progress of its internal investigation. BP reported it 

had concerns about whether proper procedures were followed at 

critical times prior to and on the day of the explosion. 

As a result of the explosion, each day 12,000 to 19,000 barrels 

of oil are leaking into the Gulf Coast threatening beaches, fishing 

grounds, critical wetland habitat, sea life, and waterfowl. BP officials said under a worst case scenario, the spill rate could reach as 

much as 60,000 barrels, 2.5 million gallons a day. 

Several attempts by BP to stop the flow of oil have proven unsuccessful. No one knows the full extent of the damage to the Gulf 

Coast region. It may be several years before we can quantify the 

true impact of this massive oil spill, but here’s what we do know: 

88,500—88,502 square miles of coastal waters, 37 percent of U.S. 

Waters in the Gulf have been closed resulting in the significant 

loss of income to fishermen and businesses. Oil from the spill has 

reached the barrier islands in Alabama and Mississippi and just 

reached Florida’s shores this weekend. 

37,193 claims have been filed with BP to repay those who have 

suffered a financial loss as a result this spill. More than one million gallons of dispersants have been used to treat the area. These 

dispersants can be toxic to some—some organisms living in the 

coastal waters. 

Less than two weeks ago, some oil spill cleanup and recovery 

workers were hospitalized after complaining of dizziness, headaches, and respiratory problems. Several community groups have 

complained that BP failed to provide adequate protection for these 

workers. More than 700 birds and numerous sea turtles and at 

least one dolphin have been found covered in oil and dead on our 

Gulf shore. 

The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and spill has had far reaching repercussions forever changing the lives of the 126 people onboard the rig and their families. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

Each of our witnesses today has a story to share with America 

about how their lives have been changed by this horrible tragedy. 

On our first panel, we will hear from Natalie Roshto and Courtney 

Kemp whose husbands died during the tragic explosion on the oil 

rig. 

We—we will also hear from Gulf Coast residents about the effects of the oil spill and how it has impacted their lives and livelihoods across the Gulf Coast. 

Clarence Ronnie Duplessis is a commercial fisherman who relied 

on the coastal waters for his livelihood. He has been deeply impacted by the closing of the coastal waters and is now struggling 

to get by in what was supposed to be the first good year of the season of fishing since Hurricane Katrina. 

Dr. Moby Solangi is president and executive director of the Institute of Marine Mammal Sciences protecting marine mammals from 

exposure to toxins like oil and dispersants. 

Dr. Solangi has studied and written about the impact of Louisiana crude oil on fisheries. 

Mr. Kelby Linn is the owner of ACP Real Estate, a beach front 

rental real estate broker of Dauphin Island, Alabama, who has 

been a—who has seen a substantial decline in rental reservations 

as a result of the oil spill. The drop began to occur almost immediately after the oil spill despite the fact that oil only reached Dauphin Island last week. 

Wilma Subra has recently conducted a health survey of residents 

of the Gulf region and those working on the cleanup to determine 

whether they have been physically affected by pollutants from the 

oil and the dispersants. 

I want to thank each of our witnesses for sharing their stories 

today, especially Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp. Your testimony to 

the subcommittee will be a valuable tool in helping us to determine 

this horrible—helping us to address this horrible human and environmental tragedy. 

I’d now like to turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee, 

Mr. Burgess of Texas, for an opening statement. Before you do that 

comment, I thought I saw Mr. Melancon come in. There you are. 

Mr. MELANCON. Good morning. 

Mr. STUPAK. Charlie, thanks for being here. 

Mr. Burgess, opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening this hearing. Certainly, we want to thank the St. Bernard’s 

parish president and council for generously offering this venue for 

the subcommittee’s use. Certainly, we want to welcome our witnesses here today. 

St. Bernard Parish was totally devastated by Hurricane Katrina. 

In fact, my first trip here was September of 2005. 

I came down at the request of a group of doctors at your hospital 

and stood in the parking lot of your hospital and saw firsthand 

what—what you were dealing with. I remembered driving through 

the town. We had to come in through a checkpoint that was secured by FEMA. You had to have special permission in coming to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

town; and FEMA, of course, recorded that the town was 100 percent destroyed. 

What I wasn’t prepared for as we drove along the streets were 

evidence that people were moving back into the area despite of the 

fact that FEMA had the entire area cordoned it off. People were in 

their front yards living in tents and tarps and going about their 

daily lives in spite of all of the devastation around them. This area 

has extraordinary resilience. I personally witnessed it. Sadly, that 

resilience is once again being tested to the maximum. 

We will hear today about the local impacts from the oil spill, impacts which have a tremendous impact on the livelihoods of the 

people who live in St. Bernard Parish and Plaquemines Parish, 

particularly and throughout the Gulf Coast. I think it is both helpful and important to listen to those most affected by the spill to understand their perspectives on this catastrophic event. 

And also, Mr. Chairman, with you I offer my condolences to Natalie Roshto and Courtney Kemp who will be speaking with us. 

They both lost husbands on the Deepwater Horizon. I appreciate 

you being here this morning. I know it is important that America 

hears your stories and I look forward to your testimony. 

We will hear about the impacts to people who make a living off 

of Louisiana’s fisheries. Since the spill, the state has closed vast 

sections of Louisiana shrimping grounds and oyster beds bringing 

immediate hardship to people who rely on this industry. 

The federal government, as the chairman said, the federal government has closed large tracts in the Gulf, over 88,000 square 

miles, about 37 percent of the Gulf’s waters closed to fishing. At 

least almost two thirds open, along with other state controlled 

waters, but there’s legitimate concern that the demand for products 

from anywhere in the Gulf will plummet as people watch the spill 

on the news and become concerned about the long-term fishing aspects. 

And I say this as a dedicated and aggressive consumer of crustaceans, you can’t help but notice what you are seeing on the television screens currently, and it is going to have an impact on the 

desire of consumers to buy those products. The news images and 

actual impacts are also hitting the Gulf coast’s large tourism industry. And, again, I think we are scheduled to hear more about that 

this morning. 

The oil spill has done much to reveal the delicate balance and 

the connections between nature and the various industries that 

rely upon the resources near the Gulf Coast. These industries, fisheries, tourism, and industry, are all significantly intertwined and 

where one is impacted it directly affects the others. As we gather 

important information from the witnesses today, we should keep in 

mind this balance. 

Just last week the president and secretary of the interior announced a moratorium on drilling in waters over 500 feet. The Wall 

Street Journal last Friday reported that even permits for shallow 

water drilling have been rescinded. While we are still trying to 

evaluate the economic impacts of these actions, initial evidence 

suggests thousands of people who have been relying upon activities 

within the energy industry for their livelihoods will also be affected. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

According to a Bloomberg News report, shutting down 33 deep 

water rigs will cost as many as 6,000—6,000 jobs in the next three 

weeks alone. And in the New York—New Orleans Times Picayune, 

it reports that each job in energy exploration supports an additional four jobs providing supplies and services. We cannot lose 

sight of the role of energy in the economy of the Gulf Coast. Energy 

helps power the other industries both directly and indirectly 

through economic growth and income. To hinder this aspect of the 

economy while other sectors are struggling is not a good way to 

help the Gulf Coast address this unfolding tragedy. 

This subcommittee is in the midst of a close and thorough investigation of BP and the other subcontractors behind what has become a national tragedy. I am confident that at the end of the day 

we will identify the factors and decisions that led to the catastrophic blowout. We are rapidly developing information that at 

least suggests this tragedy was entirely avoidable. In time our investigation will inform what practices need to be put in place or enforced to maximize the safe and secure American energy production. 

Mr. Chairman, we have to get it right. This is an important hearing to take a close look at the impacts of oil spills, to get an onthe-ground perspective so sorely needed in Washington, and it is a 

chance to understand what happens when the delicate balance between nature and industry is upset, and to identify policies that 

will help right that balance; and I pray that righting occurs soon. 

I’ll yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 12 76584A.001

Opening Statement of the Honorable Michael Burgess 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Field Hearing on the 

Local Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 

June 7, 2010 

Thank you for convening this hearing Chainnan Stupak. And I would 

also like to thank the St. Bernard Parish President and Council for 

generously offering this new venue for the Subcommittee's use. 

It is no news to the people in this room that St. Bernard Parish was 

totally devastated by Katrina. FEMA, according to testimony we later 

received, declared the Parish 100% destroyed. I visited Chalmette after the 

stonn to monitor the recovery of your health system. Despite 100% flooding 

of homes and businesses, the people of Chalmette, this parish, and this 

region demonstrated extraordinary resilience, as I personally witnessed. 

Sadly, this resilience is being put to the test yet again. 

We will hear today about local impacts from the oil spill, impacts 

which have tremendous impact on the livelihoods of people in St. Bernard 

Parish and Plaquemines [plak uh mins] Parish particularly, and throughout 

the Gulf Coast. I think it is both helpful and important to listen to those 
7 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 76584A.002

most affected by the spill, to understand their perspectives on this 

catastrophic event. 

Let me offer my condolences to Natalie Roshto and Courtney Kemp, 

who will be speaking to us. They both lost their husbands on the Deepwater 

Horizon. I really appreciate you all being here this morning, Ms. Roshto, 

Ms. Kemp. 

We will hear about the impacts to people who make a living off 

Louisiana's fisheries. Since the spill, the state has closed vast sections of 

Louisiana's shrimping grounds and oyster beds, bringing immediate 

hardship to people who rely on this industry. 

The federal government has also closed large tracts of the Gulf within 

its jurisdiction. According to the latest information, some 88,502 square 

miles, about 37 percent of the Gulfs federal waters, are closed to fishing. 

While this leaves 63 percent open, along with other open state-controlled 

waters, there is legitimate concern that demand for products from anywhere 

in the Gulf will plummet as people watch the spill on the news and become 

concerned about long-term fisheries impacts. 

2 
8 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 76584A.003

The news images and actual impacts are also hitting the Gulf Coast's 

large tourism industry, which we will also hear about this morning. 

The oil spill has done much to reveal the delicate balance and 

connections between nature and the various industries that rely upon the 

Gulf Coast's natural resources. These industries - the fisheries, tourism, and 

energy industry are all somewhat intertwined and relied upon, where 

impacts in one directly affect others. 

As we gather important information from the witnesses today, we 

should keep in mind this delicate balance. Just last week the President and 

Secretary of the Interior announced a moratorium on drilling in waters over 

500 feet. The Wall Street Journal this past Friday reported that even permits 

for shallow water drilling have been rescinded. 

While we are still trying to evaluate the economic impacts of these 

actions, initial evidence suggests that thousands of people who had been 

relying on this activity for their livelihoods will be affected. According to a 

Bloomberg news report, shutting down 33 deepwater rigs will cost as many 

3 
9 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 76584A.004

Picayune reports that each job in energy exploration supports an estimated 

four additional jobs providing supplies and services. 

We cannot lose sight of the role of energy in the economy of the Gulf 

Coast. Energy helps power the other industries both directly and indirectly 

through economic growth and income. To hinder this aspect of the economy 

while other sectors are struggling is not a good way to help the Gulf Coast 

address this unfolding tragedy. 

This subcommittee is in the midst of a close and thorough 

investigation of BP and the other subcontractors behind this mess. I am 

confident that, at the end of the day, we will identifY the factors and 

decisions that led to the blowout. We are rapidly developing infonnation 

that at least suggests that this tragedy was entirely avoidable. In time, our 

investigation will infonn what practices need to be put in place or enforced 

to maximize safe and secure American energy production. 

We've got to get it right, Mr. Chairman. This is an important hearing 

to take a close look at the impacts of oil spills, to get an on-the-ground 

4 
10 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 76584A.005

perspective so sorely needed in Washington. And it is a chance to 

understand what happens when the delicate balance between nature and 

industry is upset - and to identifY policies that will help right that balance 

again, and soon. 

Thank you, Mr. Chainnan, I yield back. 

### 

5 
11 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Burgess. Next we’ll go to hear from 

members of the subcommittee for three minutes. I’m sorry. Vicechair of the committee, Mr. Braley, from the wonderful State of 

Iowa. Mr. Braley from Iowa. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank the 

St. Bernard’s parish council for hosting us today and to our first 

panel of witnesses, Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp, I want to thank 

you for having the courage to come share your stories with us 

today. It’s never easy and there’s nothing we can do today to replace the pain of your loss, but the one thing we can do is never 

forget what your husbands went through and what those other 

men on the rig went through and to get to the bottom of why that 

happened and make sure that it never happens again so that no 

other family has to go through what you have gone through; so 

thank you for coming today. 

I think that one of our witnesses on the second panel, Mr. Chairman, Clarence Duplessis, summarized the concerns of most of us 

on the committee in his opening statement when he said, ‘‘There 

are really more questions than answers for what happened out on 

that Deepwater Horizon rig.’’ That came out during our first hearing, and one of the things that concerns many of us is the story 

keeps shifting. 

We were originally told that there was a release at the wellhead 

of around a thousand barrels per day; then when BP’s CEO appeared and testified in front of our subcommittee hearing, that 

number was up to 5,000 barrels per day; and just last week we 

were told that BP was excited because they were capturing 10,000 

barrels per day, which was estimated to be the one quarter to one 

half of the release from the wellhead. 

The environmental and economic devastation to this area and 

the entire Gulf Coast region cannot even be comprehended at this 

stage. 

Our job as the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is to 

get answers to those questions, to find out why this happened, to 

find out how it happened, to find out who is responsible and what 

they must do to be held accountable. 

One of the things we know is that the economic devastation is 

going to be severe and long lasting, and the witnesses we are going 

to hear from today will help us put a human face on that tragedy. 

But there are also disturbing parts to this story that we need answers to; and one of the things that we have done is ask for specific 

information from BP, Halliburton, Transocean, and others involved 

on that drilling rig. And one of the things that is disturbing is 

when we ask for specific information, as I did following our May 

12th hearing, and getting back a response only after a second follow-up request was sent that was incomplete and ignored the request that we made at the time of the initial hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s obvious to me that we are going to have to 

continue to pursue answers to the questions. We need to have additional hearings as necessary until the people of Louisiana, MisVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:09 Feb 09, 2013 Jkt 076584 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A584.XXX A584

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

sissippi, Alabama, Florida, and indeed the entire United States, 

know what happened and what we are doing about it. 

And I’ll yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Braley. Mrs. Christensen for an 

opening statement for three minutes, please. Mrs. Christensen 

from the Virgin Islands. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

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

good morning. 

I feel sort of like deja vu all over again. In September of 2005, 

my staff and I came to hear firsthand the health impacts, but most 

importantly the health needs of the people of New Orleans in the 

wake of Hurricane Katrina. It was the first of many visits. And 

now with this region barely back on its feet from that tragedy, we 

are here for another one, which is the words of many residents 

even that we will talk of more for many, many reasons. 

So thank you, Chairman Stupak and Ranking Member Burgess, 

for having this oversight hearing, not in Washington, but right 

here where its impact is being seen and felt. 

First of all, my condolences to the families of the 11 workers who 

were lost. And thank you to Mrs. Kemp and Mrs. Roshto for joining 

us this morning, for being willing to testify, for your courage and 

that of the other families who you represent, and for the important 

positions that you are taking on the future of our offshore drilling 

in spite of your loss as well as on the Death of the High Seas Compensation Act, which is an insult to the dedication of the oil workers and the families who sacrifice when they leave home for weeks 

at a time. 

We wish a speedy and full recovery to those who were injured 

and to those whose lives and livelihood have been disrupted and 

damaged for what remains an uncertain future. 

We know what lies ahead will not be easy, but we commit to 

working with President Obama and to do everything we can to 

bring your communities and your lives back to as close to normal 

as possible as soon as possible. 

In every briefing and hearing of this subcommittee and those of 

my other committee of natural resources, I’ve asked BP, the Coast 

Guard, and others for assurance that everything that needed to be 

done was being done to prevent both short- and long-term health 

impacts, including providing and using protective gear. It seems 

that the assurances which we received were empty. Without the insistence of residents, the decisions of courts, and the vigilance and 

advocacy of groups like LEAN and LMRK and Subra, it appears 

that nothing would have been done despite what we know from 

past experiences. This is very troubling; and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on what they feel we as a committee in the 

Congress need to do at this point. 

I remain reluctant on the issue of new drilling, but I am clear 

that strengthened regulation and enforcement that markedly improved safety measures for the offshore drilling that is now permitted, that increased accountability of the companies involved in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

the process, and that the fullest possible recovery for all that has 

been damaged must be a part of our responsibility going forward. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement, and 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. And as members know, our subcommittee just don’t do a hearing or two. This is our second hearing. We will be doing another one within the next two weeks with 

the head of BP, Tony Hayward, up in Washington, and later this 

month we have a fourth hearing set. 

So, as you know, like Hurricane Katrina, our committee came 

down—I led that group—our committee came down to deal with 

the health aspect after Hurricane Katrina, so our committee will 

stay with this issue. And it should be noted we have, if I count 

right, nine members here. Rather unheard of to have nine members to come down for a field hearing. Each hearing we have had 

on these tragic circumstances, all members have shown up, so I 

want to thank the members for taking the extra time for being 

down here and take time out of their schedules and, of course, Mr. 

Melancon and Mr. Scalise also who are valuable members of our 

committee. 

Next we will hear from Mr. Markey from Massachusetts. Mr. 

Markey is chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of 

the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Markey is also the 

chairman of the Select Committee on Climate Change. 

Mr. Markey, opening statement, three minutes. 

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

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

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

go out to those whose loved ones were lost in this explosion. We 

thank you for being here today. It takes a lot of courage. Mrs. 

Roshto and Mrs. Kemp, we thank you for being here. It’s important 

that you are here and we all extend our sympathies to you and to 

your families. 

We begin to appreciate how vital our role in the oceans play in 

our economy as soon as we saw the impact from that explosion; and 

we’ve become increasingly frustrated as each rosy assurance provided by BP failed to be true and every attempt to stop the oils 

flow failed to work. 

Every day as this oil encroaches on the wetlands, estuaries, and 

beaches, the entire nation shares in the anxiety and anger felt by 

the people living in the Gulf region. It is clear by BP’s actions that 

while they spent billions of dollars to develop technologies that 

would allow it to drill ultra deep into the ocean, that investment 

was not matched with the development of ultra safe technologies 

that could prevent, contain, and cleanup the consequences of these 

types of drilling operations. It has also become clear that just as 

no one has capped BP’s profits, the great damage it has caused, 

and as a result we must make sure that BP must repay everything 

that they have caused in terms of damage and that should not be 

capped as well. BP must be held accountable. 

Oil has made its way onto the beaches of four coastal states from 

Louisiana to Florida. As of yesterday, approximately 33 percent of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

the fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico had been closed depriving people 

of their livelihoods. I’ve seen firsthand with the other members the 

stain of BP’s oil on the cane in the marsh land and heard of the 

birds, the fish, and the dolphins that have already been killed by 

oil. 

We have also heard reports that there may be plumes of subsurface oil posing an insidious threat to deep sea coral and other 

marine life, oil that will not make its presence known by the clear 

signs of tar balls or oiled birds but which could, nevertheless, affect 

generations of aquatic life too. 

Remarkably last week, BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, 

claimed that BP didn’t have enough resources in its toolkit to handle the Gulf oil disaster. That is why this week I will introduce the 

Oil SOS Bill that will require companies to fund research and development for upgraded safety and cleanup tools, so that in the future companies like BP will never again be relying on 30-year old 

technologies to deal with 21st century problems. That is unfair to 

the families who must suffer the consequences of the lack of preparation by BP. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Markey. Ms. DeGette from Colorado, opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In late August of 2005 a perfect storm, Hurricane Katrina, formed over the 

Gulf devastating homes and taking a terrible toll on human life 

and the economy. This spring, five years later, the residents of this 

area, being resilient and caring and working hard, had just started 

to turn their economy around and rebuild their lives when another 

perfect storm hit, this one being entirely man-made. 

And the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill is a national 

tragedy and we are all terribly concerned about it, but the local effects are felt far more acutely. The human impact in terms of loss 

of life and injuries and the economic impact to the local fishing and 

tourism industries and the environmental impact along the Gulf 

Coast are all terrible and, frankly, the effects will last indefinitely 

longer than we know. Accidents on this scale raise many questions 

about what went wrong; and in this case, as usual, there’s no single answer on who to blame. 

We have had, as the Chairman said, several hearings in this 

committee and also in the natural resources committee on which 

several of us sit where we have probed the causes of the accident, 

but what we have been able to tell to date is that it really was a 

perfect storm. We had a blowout preventer testing and a certification problem, we had faulty cementing, we had a lack of a chain 

of command. We had many, many problems that are going to take 

a long time to sort out; but, as the Chairman said, this committee 

is nothing if not stubborn and diligent and we are going to get to 

the bottom of it because, if we don’t, this could happen again and 

we can’t let this happen again. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

In terms of human life, in terms of loss of ecosystem, in terms 

of loss of economy and jobs, we can’t—we might have another environmental perfect storm. Mother nature’s unpredictable, but we 

can’t be causing these impacts ourselves. We have to make sure 

that systems are in place so that when the important drilling that 

occurs out here is done it’s done in an environmentally safe way 

and in a way that will save human lives. 

Natalie and Courtney, I want to echo what my colleagues have 

said. This is a terrible loss to you and to your families, and we are 

here to sympathize with your losses; but much more than that, we 

want to do what you want to do. We want to make sure that we 

work with you so that this never happens to any other families. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Ms. Schakowsky, opening statement. 

Ms. Schakowsky is from Illinois. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Burgess, 

for holding this very important hearing here in Louisiana; and I’m 

really happy that we can be here to offer support and solidarity to 

our colleagues, Congressmen Melancon and Scalise. 

And over the last six weeks, we have been reminded once again 

of the tremendous cost of our nation’s reliance on oil to meet our 

energy needs. The oil spill in the Gulf Coast is not only a human 

tragedy leading to the loss of 11 lives, but an unprecedented environmental disaster and yet another economic catastrophe for this 

region. 

For what it’s worth, we are here in part to express our sympathy 

and support not only to the families of those workers who perished 

but also to everyone who lives or works in the Gulf region; but I 

know you want more than sympathy, you want to see action. 

And to Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp, I want to express my gratitude and admiration for the courage that you have for being here 

today and turning your personal tragedy into suggestions of what 

we can do better to avoid this in the—in the future. 

The Deepwater Horizon spill is a devastating reminder that the 

United States must implement a comprehensive energy strategy 

that weans our nation off of oil and spurs development of cleaner 

renewable sources like wind and solar power, but as long as we 

drill, we must enforce, vigorously enforce, current law. We also 

have to quickly determine holes in that regulatory and enforcement 

framework. For example, Canada requires a relief well at the very 

same time any deep water well is drilled. 

I also believe it’s imperative that we raise or completely eliminate the cap on damages imposed on oil and gas companies that 

cause—that cause environmental catastrophes. It’s unconscionable 

that current law allows companies like BP to make billions of dollars in profits and then when an accident occurs the law protects— 

well, we’ll see—but may protect them from paying for the damages 

they caused. 

But the point of today’s hearing is to learn about the impact of 

the oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig site on the Gulf 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

region. And we are hearing from, of course, these two widows 

today, representatives of some industries that are being hit the 

hardest; and I want to thank each and every one of you for being 

with us today. I know how difficult the last six weeks have been, 

or I can try and know that, but I want you to know that we truly 

appreciate hearing your perspective of this unprecedented disaster 

and we will be working to make sure that we address the problems 

and assure that it never happens again. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Let’s hear from our two native sons 

here, Charlie Melancon, a member of—valuable member of our 

committee. Opening statement, please, sir. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE MELANCON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mrs. Roshto 

and Mrs. Kemp, on behalf of Peachy and I, our condolences to you 

and thank you for having the courage to be here today. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member Burgess, thank you 

for taking the time and interest in my state, our people, our environment, our livelihood, for coming to this field hearing and working to ensure that a tragedy like this doesn’t happen again. 

The news coverage is constantly reminding us that we are facing 

the largest environmental disaster in our nation’s history. It’s hard 

not to draw comparisons to a similarly grim milestone five years 

ago when this district and our state bore the brunt of the largest 

natural man-made—natural disaster in history as well. 

I mention this association because it’s easy to become distracted 

by the torrent of bad news that streams all day long, but we are 

here today to help make sure the effects of this tragedy on real people’s lives aren’t forgotten and aren’t repeated. And I might add a 

footnote: Louisiana is still open for business and, even more importantly, the communities right now along the coast need for the citizens of the state and the neighboring states to come and enjoy Louisiana. 

And we need to make certain that this investigation into what 

went wrong is thoroughly carried out. We must examine all solutions that may guard against a disaster like this ever happening 

again. 

We are fortunate to have witnesses today who will share their 

frustrating and heartbreaking stories with us. These stories are not 

easy to share, so I sincerely appreciate the willingness of the witnesses to come before this group and to share their personal accounts. Hopefully, this hearing and others like it will reveal the 

pattern of mis-steps and negligence that led to this continually 

growing catastrophe. 

Because the responders work as fast as possible to cap this well 

and protect our marshes, it is important to identify what must 

change to keep another disaster like this from striking our fragile 

coast. In addition, we must make sure that the safety of the workers in America and on these rigs is protected. 

These rigs in the Gulf represent a tremendous segment of the 

economy in south Louisiana; and the sooner we ascertain the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

vulnerabilities the sooner we can fix those problems and have our 

men and women working again in a safe environment. 

I’d also like to thank the expert witness panel for participating 

today. I’m afraid that when the cameras and the national attention 

leaves, we in Louisiana will only be—just be commencing with our 

recovery. The toxic pollution in the Gulf waters could knock out our 

fisheries and industries along that area and our way of life for 

years to come, if not for decades. We need your expertise to help 

recognize the actions we can take to mitigate these scenarios and 

to make our resources productive again as soon as possible. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, thank you for holding 

this hearing. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Melancon. Next we will hear from 

another valuable member of our committee, Mr. Scalise. 

Opening statement, please, sir. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

and bringing the committee to Louisiana to hear about the Deepwater Horizon spill and how it’s affected the people of the Gulf 

Coast. 

I extend my deepest condolences as well, as other members have 

already expressed to Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp for appearing 

here today to share your stories with us because my thoughts and 

prayers are with you and all 11 families who are going through 

what is a real human tragedy. We see so much, the stories of the 

oil coming up and we are fighting that side of it, but you are fighting every day a different side of it and I don’t think we have heard 

enough of your side of the story as well, so I appreciate both of you 

being here with us as well. 

It’s nearly five years after Hurricane Katrina and we are fighting 

yet another major disaster here in south Louisiana. In fact, the 

room we are sitting in right now was completely under water after 

Katrina. You’ve seen the resiliency of the people of St. Bernard 

Parish, who I appreciate their hospitality, and you can see their 

strength and how they’ve come back from this, but it’s not been 

easy. And we know that the next months or more ahead are not 

going to be easy for us as well, but we need to get answers. 

Just like when a plane crashes, you don’t stop flying. You find 

out why that plane crashed and you move forward. We need answers that we still haven’t gotten to find out why this disaster happened. 

We have already heard some reports. There has been a 30-day 

study. We need to get the results of that study so that we can learn 

more as well, but we’ve also got to make sure that we continue to 

hold BP accountable because they testified before our full committee under oath that they would pay all damages. And I intend 

and I know my other colleagues intend to hold them to that. 

But in the meantime, our top priority has got to be stopping this 

flow of oil that’s coming out and protecting our valuable marshes 

from being inundated by the oil. If the blowout preventer that 

failed to work properly was supposed to be the rig’s last line of deVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:09 Feb 09, 2013 Jkt 076584 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A584.XXX A584

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

fense against this type of disaster, then the federal agencies that 

regulate these rigs were supposed to be our first line of defense and 

they failed us as well. We still need to get those answers from the 

federal regulating agencies and the work and the tests that they’ve 

performed prior to the explosion to find out what went wrong. 

There are a lot of other rigs out there in the Gulf in even deeper 

waters than the Horizon that haven’t had these kinds of problems, 

so we should also see what they are doing that was not being done 

on this rig and the mistakes that were made by BP and 

Transocean and the other parties responsible. 

But we also need to establish a real chain of command. We still 

don’t have a structure that allows for accountability. Every time we 

try to get answers—when our local leaders who are battling this 

every day have problems with the recovery, we just see more finger 

pointing. That’s got to stop. We have got to have a real chain of 

command, and BP should not be the gatekeeper for our local responders who are trying to protect our valuable marshland. 

We also need to address this drilling ban. Not only do you now 

have a human disaster and an environmental disaster, but the ban 

on drilling threatens to pose an economic disaster on our state. 

That is not a proper response to what happened. 

I’m calling on the president to reconsider his decision to go meet 

with all of us who deal with the industry who have seen the successes of the industry and understand how drilling can be done in 

a safe and environmentally friendly way. You don’t hold an entire 

industry accountable for the failures of one. We have got to find out 

what went wrong and make sure it doesn’t happen again, but you 

don’t ship 30,000 jobs and billions more dollars to the middle eastern countries who don’t like us as a response. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the hearing and I 

yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Scalise. That concludes the opening 

statement by members. Let’s have our first panel of witnesses. 

On our first panel, we have Mrs. Natalie Roshto whose husband 

Shane was killed during the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil 

rig. Shane and Natalie were married for four and a half years and 

have a three-year-old daughter together. 

Mrs. Courtney Kemp whose husband Wyatt was killed during 

the explosion. Wyatt and Courtney were high school sweethearts. 

They were married five and a half years and have a three-year-old 

and a four-month-old daughter. Thank you both for being here. 

It is the policy of this subcommittee to take all testimonies under 

oath. Please be advised that you have the right under the rules of 

the House to be advised by counsel during your testimony. Do you 

wish to be represented by counsel, Mrs. Roshto? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. I’ve been represented. 

Mr. STUPAK. Move that mic forward, please. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. I have counsel. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Would you just for the record identify your 

counsel’s name? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Ronnie Penton and Scott Bickford. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. If during testimony, if you want to consult with 

them, just take a moment and do so. If they testify, they would 

have to be sworn in. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

Mrs. ROSHTO. OK. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mrs. Kemp, are you represented by counsel? 

Mrs. KEMP. I am not formally represented, but I do have Mr. 

Barry Rhodes here with me today to give legal advice and guidance. 

Mr. STUPAK. Very good. And, again, any time during your testimony or questions if you would like to consult with him before you 

answer, please do so, OK. 

Mrs. KEMP. OK. 

Mr. STUPAK. So I’m asking you to please rise and raise your right 

hand to take the oath. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Let the record reflect the witnesses replied in the 

affirmative. You are now under oath. We will now hear your opening statement from our—from each of you. 

Mrs. Roshto, do you want to begin, please? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. I’m going to ask you to pull that mic up closer to 

you so we can all hear. 

STATEMENTS OF NATALIE ROSHTO, WIFE OF SHANE ROSHTO; 

AND COURTNEY KEMP, WIFE OF WAYNE KEMP 

STATEMENT OF NATALIE ROSHTO 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Good morning. Before I begin, I would first like to 

thank each and every one of you again for allowing me to speak 

today on behalf of my husband, Shane Roshto, who was tragically 

killed in the Deepwater Horizon explosion, myself and our wonderful son, Blaine. 

In the early hours of April 21st when I received the news of the 

explosion and a fire, I never thought I would be sitting here. I 

never thought I would go home to a bright eyed three-year old and 

have to face the fact that his dad and my husband would never 

come home to us. 

Every three weeks when Blaine and I would give Shane our last 

love sending him off for three weeks, I would always fear the helicopter ride, but never did this tragedy ever come to mind. But 

through God’s grace, family, and friends, we are making it through. 

After all the safety school meetings, fire drills, and safety regulations, I knew he was safe. 

When the events of the Deepwater Horizon explosion started to 

unfold, I asked myself will I ever personally recover. What if he’s 

out there and they just didn’t look long enough? As the days 

passed, Shane’s absence became a reality. 

My husband took great pride in his job. He loved his work and 

all his Deepwater Horizon family; but most important, he knew offshore provided the life he wanted for our son. He loved us unselfishly and provided a lifestyle that allowed me to attend college and 

to be at home with our son. During Shane’s off weeks, he spent 

every day with Blaine passing on his love for the outdoors, hunting 

and fishing and doing for others. 

A little background on how Shane and I began. We met at 15 

years old. We were high school sweethearts. At 18 years old, I 

found out I was pregnant. Shane came to me the day I found out 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

I was pregnant and he said, ‘‘I’m going to be here for you and 

Blaine, and the only way I’m going to do it is to go offshore.’’ And 

he did. That’s what he did for me and Blaine. As the days passed, 

I asked why. What happened? The life Blaine and I knew was over. 

My wonderful love story had come to an end. Though he is a mirror 

image of his daddy, Blaine has now the void that will never be 

filled. 

When I—the day I found out, when I got that phone call at 6:00 

April 21st and I heard what had happened, I knew he was safe. 

I just knew he was coming home. As I went—I went to Fourchon 

because the only thing I knew was to get closer to the water, just 

to get to the water. I knew that’s where he would be. As the hours 

passed and I received a phone call that he was on the missing list 

and they were searching for him, I was devastated. I never thought 

it would be on this level ever. 

As I sit here today, though, I come with a new perspective, a perspective that I hope can make a difference, one that will ensure 

safety to every man in the oil field. 

And I do fully support offshore drilling and always will because 

I know, like my husband Shane, many men and women depend on 

this means—this as a means to provide for their family and also 

to provide for our country with a commodity that is necessary to 

everyday life. 

I would like to leave here today knowing that because of my husband’s tragic death, we can begin to focus on making safety the 

most important priority, not to focus on making more safety regulations but on ways to effectively implement the ones that we already 

have. This tragedy will not be in vain because as of right now my 

husband’s death is in vain, but it will not be in vain if it serves 

to make the lives of every man and woman working in the oil field 

the top priority and cause these powerful oil companies to know 

that they will be held accountable for their actions. 

My intense interest in Shane’s work led us through many conversations detailing work carried out on the Deepwater Horizon 

and the many safety practices that were in place. It is my hope 

that these 11 men who suffered a tragic death will serve as a motive to enforce safety above all else. 

In the weeks that Shane was home, the last time he left to go 

offshore we had many detailed conversations of the wrong that was 

going on out there, all the mud they were losing, the high pressure 

situations they were in. I pray every day when I awake and have 

bedtime prayers with Blaine that I can sit him down one day and 

be able to tell him that his daddy was a hero, a hero to all oil field 

men and women because his death changed the heart and soul of 

those who place their business agendas over the importance of life. 

In closing I would like to—well, what I would like to accomplish 

today before I say that, is the removal of Death on the High Seas 

Act. It is beyond me that any man that is injured out there has 

more right than a man that was killed providing for his country 

and his family. 

In closing I would like to ask that the next time you see a picture 

of the Deepwater Horizon in flames or hear about the oil spill, you 

think about this: The flow of oil eventually will be stopped, slowly 

the environment will recover, the Gulf, I pray, will continue to proVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:09 Feb 09, 2013 Jkt 076584 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A584.XXX A584

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

vide us with oil and gas and many other things that we all enjoy, 

but the lives of the 11 men, their survivors, and heroes of the 

Deepwater Horizon will forever be changed. 

We can only hope that the legacy of this tragedy will be much 

more than a devastating oil spill, but an unfortunate tragedy that 

prompted changes creating a safer environment for those who love 

their work in the oil fields of the Gulf of Mexico. 

[The statement of Mrs. Roshto follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 76584A.006

MARTZELL & BICKFORD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

JOHNR. MARTZELL(1937-2007) A Proftssional Corporation 

SCOTT R. BICKFORD t 

REGINA O. MATlTIEWS 

338 LAFAYETTE STREET 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130 

SPENCER R. DOODY 

LAWRENCE J. CENTOLo\, III \VWW.MBFlRlvl.COM 

NElL F. NAZARETH 

ROSHA WN H. DONAHlil~ TELEPHONE: (504) 581-9065 

FACSlMILE: (504) 581-7635 t also admitted in Texas & Colorado 

VIA Email 

The Honorable Bart Stupak 

Chairman Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigation 

The Honorable Michael C. Burgess 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

ATTENTION: David Leviss 

Kevin Kohl 

June 9, 2010 

E-MAIL: MB@MBFlRM.COM 

Writer's Direct Email: 

Re: Testimony of Natalie Roshto provided to the Committee on Jnne 7, 2010. 

Supplemental Memorandum ou Legal Issues 

Rig Design Defect 

Our File No. 10903-01 

Dear Congressmen: 

Pursuant to the request of the Committee please find attached a brief synopsis of the issues 

arising under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHA) and the Limitation of Liability Act. The 

former needs to be amended to bring some consistency to maritimerernedies, particularly in the case 

of maritime related deaths, and the latter should be repealed because it is an antiquated statute that 

is now being used by foreign corporations against American citizens. 

In addition to these proposed changes in the law, we also aak the Committee to look into a 

very specific allegation that has arisen in the course of this investigation, and that is the design of 

the DEEPWATER HORIZON. We also represent Michael Williams, the rig's chief electrouics 

officer who was present during the incident and escaped DEEPWATER HORIZON with his life. 

Based 
23 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 76584A.007

June 9, 2010 

Page 2 

upon his infonnation and that developed during the Coast Guard! MMS investigation, we believe 

that there has been sufficient evidence to show that one of the primary reasons 11 men died aboard 

this vessel was due to a hazardous ventilation design that directed stagnant methane gas into the 

equipment room where many of the missing men were located. The vent for this room was on the 

drill floor adjacent to the area where gas is frequently present due to drilling operations. The night 

of April 20, 2010,was a calm evening without significant wind to dissipate the large kick of gas 

coming out of the well. The air intakes next to the drill floor allowed the methane to be sucked into 

the rig's diesel engines via the room where many of the dead men were working. As a result they 

were killed, the other 115 people on the rig escaped with their lives. 

This matter has been touched upon at the United States Coast Guard and MMS hearings; 

however, we believe it would behoove this Committee to investigate the matter in much more depth 

by deposing the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), the design approval agency, the rig designers, 

engineers and representatives of the Coast Guard charged with inspecting the rig. We have already 

discussed this issue with certain members of your staff; however, we are available for further 

discussions as to what paths to direct that portion of an investigation. 

Once again, I want to thank all of the members of the Committee, and their receptive staffs, 

for all of the courtesies shown to our client and me. There has been a bi-partisan effort to support 

these aggrieved families in their time of need and a genuine effort to ascertain what occurred and try 

to prevent it from happening to some other American family. 

Thank you again, 

SRB/jh 

cc; Natalie Roshto 

Congressman Melancon 

Congressman Scalise 

Respectfully yours, 
24 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 76584A.008

SUBMISSION OF LEGAL POSITION 

On behalf of NATALIE ROSHTO 

in connection with her congressional testimony 

provided on June 7, 2010, Chalmette, Louisiana 

Submitted by: 

Scott R. Bickford, Esq. 

Attorney for Natalie Roshto 

Martzell & Bickford 

338 Lafayette St 

New Orleans, LA 70130 

June 9, 2010 

Pursuant to the request of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, counsel for 

Natalie Roshto submits this legal memo highlighting the problems with the Death on the 

High Seas Act and the Limitation of Liability Act and suggests to the Subcommittee 

certain changes that, if effected, would greatly simplify and make more fair remedies to 

families of injured and killed offshore workers. 

Presently, when a tragic marine death occurs, the location where one dies can, and in 

great part does, determine what remedies are available to them. The maritime location, 

whether 1 mile from shore or 35 miles from shore, should not determine the remedies 

available to their families. Congress should impose a uniform method of maritime 

remedies. 

Maritime law is a hodgepodge of federal statutory and common law, but in the wake of 

the explosion and sinking of the DEEPWATER HORIZON, and the deaths of 11 of her 

crew, it is clear that Congress needs to take a broader, comprehensive look at available 

maritime remedies to ensure that there are fair remedies for victims who were injured as a 

result of explosion and resulting oil spill. Principally, there are two statutes, which, if 

one were amended and the other repealed, would go a long way to establishing a 

balanced, understandable and common sense solution to compensate victims. 

Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) 

Under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), families who have lost a loved one on 

the "high seas", such as those who perished on the Deepwater Horizon, are prohibited 

from recovering non-pecuniary damages-the type of damages that are awarded for the 

untimely death of a spouse or a parent, or the pain and suffering experienced by the 

deceased when burning or drowning. Congress already fixed the problem for family 

members who lose a loved one on the high seas as a result of a plane crash. (See Pub. 

Law 106-181). The eleven brave men who died on the Deepwater Horizon should get the 

same protection under the law. 
25 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 76584A.009

Roshto Submission 

Page20f3 

June 9, 2010 

Congress can fix the issue not by repealing DOHSA, but rather by making common 

sense amendments that will be fair to workers who admittedly are employed in one of the 

most hazardous industries in this country. 

To make the law fair, Congress should amend DOHSA to provide fair and equal 

remedies to victims of maritime disasters on the high seas: 

• Provide for the recovery of non-pecuniary losses for the death of a loved one. 

• Expand the definition of non-pecuniary loss to include the victim's pre-death pain and 

suffering, such as burning or drowning. 

• Clarify that the DOHSA statute applies evenhandedly to deaths on the ''high seas" (12 

miles off the coast), regardless of whether the death is caused by an explosion on a 

vessel or a commercial airliner crashing into the sea. This would allow the high seas 

to be defined in a uniform mauner. 

• Assuring that families of whose member has died on the high seas is accorded the 

same rights to assert punitive damages that are available to injured maritime workers 

Limitation of Liability Act (LOLA) 

Even the most conservative courts in the country have labeled this statute as antiquated. 

It is an 1851 federal law whose purpose was to promote commerce. It is now being used 

as a foil by foreign corporations to prevent US Citizens from being fairly compensated. 

The business protections afforded by the statute are outdated and only serve to punish US 

Citizens rather than promote commerce. 

The law actually has its roots in an English statue of 1734, before the corporate structure 

was used to limit liability of shareholders. The statute protected investors who were 

wining to risk capital on the then extremely risk laden business of shipping cargo by sea. 

The present statute still allows a vessel owner, such as Transocean, to limit its liability 

with respect to claims for cargo, collision, personal injury or death for acts done without 

the privity and knowledge of the owner. The limitation of their liability is to the value of 

the vessel (THE DEEPWATER HORIZON) at the end of the voyage. The 

DEEPWATER HORIZON is at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico and its value at this 

stage is minimal. Hence the statute was in place to protect the owners (read shareholders) 

against unlimited liability due to acts done at sea beyond their control or knowledge. 

Shareholders are now protected by corporate structures and insurance. 

So in the present tragedy, under the Limitation of Liability Act (LOLA), Transocean, 

owned by a foreign corporation, has move to have its liability limited to the post-accident 

value of the vessel, the Deepwater Horizon, thus the value of the Deepwater Horizon as it 
26 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 76584A.010

Roshto Submission 

Page 3 of3 

June 9, 2010 

sits on the bottom of the ocean-essentially a $26.7 million cap. Transocean has already 

availed itself of LOLA by filing a LOLA proceeding in federal court in Texas. 

Proceedings elsewhere, including Louisiana, are now suspended pending a determination 

by the Texas court that the LOLA limitation applies. This law is just another procedural 

obstacle that Transocean is using to deflect accountability for this disaster. 

The LOLA has exceeded its reasonable shelf life and should be repealed: 

• The original purpose ofthe Act-to promote American shipping interests-no longer 

exists. The American shipping industry simply carmot and does not compete with 

foreign carriers. A majority of shipping companies incorporate in third world 

countries and use foreign-flagged vessels in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes and 

following U.S. health and safety regulations. 

• Congress could not have envisioned in 1851 that movable oil rigs would qualify as 

"vessels" under LOLA. When Congress passed this law they never intended for 

LOLA to shield liability in this type of disaster. 

• When the LOLA was enacted in 1851, owner communications were limited to 

documents transshipped on other vessels. LOLA was intended to protect those 

owners because they could not timely communicate with those running their ship. 

Today's communication technology allows ship owners to manage their vessels, even 

when they are not physically present on their ships. Owners today have direct 

communication by radio, computers, and phone, and a ship can be positioned and 

monitored constantly using satellite systems. Continued use of the LOLA simply 

deters owners and managers from properly monitoring and managing their ships. 

• There are better, more sophisticated alternatives for protecting shipowners than 

LOLA. Today, shipowners have a wide variety oflegal tools they can choose from 

that better protect their financial interests. For example, insurance, contract, charter, 

mortgage, the separate incorporation of vessels and even bankruptcy are alternative 

methods that can offer better financial protection than LOLA. 

• The LOLA would even limit the ability ofBP to seek reimbursement from 

Transocean for Transocean's own negligence in the Deepwater Horizon explosion 

and resulting spill. Transocean should have to accept responsibility for its share of 

the harm under the Oil Pollution Act. This antiquated law should not provide 

Transocean with a tool to dodge accountability. 

Should the Committee or its staff have any further questions to this end, we would be 

pleased to provide additional information 
27 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Mrs. Kemp, your opening statement, 

please. 

STATEMENT OF COURTNEY KEMP 

Mrs. KEMP. Good morning. My name is Courtney Kemp and I’m 

from—— 

Mr. STUPAK. May I ask you to pull that up a little bit, if you can, 

or scooch up a little bit more to the table or slide that over. 

Mrs. KEMP. Good morning. My name is Courtney Kemp and I am 

from Jonesville, Louisiana. My husband is Roy Wyatt Kemp, one 

of the 11 men killed on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that exploded 

on April 20, 2010. On behalf of my husband and my family, I would 

like to thank you for the opportunity to speak regarding the oil 

issues in the oil and gas industry. 

My husband and I have two precious daughters, Kaylee, three, 

and Maddison, four months. Our girls will only know what a wonderful father they had by the stories we tell them. While I understand companies must make a profit, I do not believe it should be 

at the expense of risking lives or destroying families. I am asking 

you to please consider harsh punishment on companies who chose 

to ignore safety standards before other families are destroyed. 

I am not here today to suggest that Congress implement more 

safety regulations, but rather to encourage you to hold companies 

accountable for safety regulations already in place and merely neglected. If proper safety procedures had been taken on the Deepwater Horizon, it is my firm belief that this tragic accident would 

have been prevented and my husband and the others would be 

alive today. 

It is no secret that the oil field has effected the environment. One 

can see the devastation that is happening to the coastline and the 

magnitude of its effects on the seafood industry in general. However, our state has overcome many adversities in the past, including numerous weather related issues such as hurricanes and 

droughts. We as Americans are a strong people and will recover 

from this tragedy as well. 

America is a rich nation regarding natural resources, but in my 

opinion we have become too dependent upon foreign imports, this 

including oil. While we realize we are suffering from economic impacts resulting from the leaking oil, it will be even more devastating if you allow drilling in the Gulf to cease. If drilling ceases, 

not only would offshore employees lose their jobs, but the trickle 

down effect would be devastating not only to the coastal states but 

eventually the entire country. You must not allow this to happen. 

Drilling in the Gulf must continue. 

I would also like to speak with the members of Congress about 

one of the many acts of Congress that may have a negative effect 

on my family’s future. The Death on the High Seas Act is an antiquated act of Congress passed in 1920 which spells out the losses 

that the family of a person who suffers wrongful death on the high 

seas may recover. 

DOHSA is a comprehensive act that limits allowable damages for 

deaths occurring on the high seas. This act does not permit the applications of state wrongful death remedies. It does not look to general maritime law to—to supplement the act’s limitations. In esVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:09 Feb 09, 2013 Jkt 076584 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A584.XXX A584

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

sence the act limits the liability of wrongdoers in this matter, such 

as BP, Transocean, and many others. 

My family can never and will never be adequately compensated 

for our loss. What I am seeking is an accountability from the 

wrongdoers who caused this terrible tragedy. I ask that the members of Congress use this catastrophe as a basis to revisit and 

amend this outdated act from 1920. Revise DOHSA with 21st century standards and realities in mind. 

Please use this opportunity to make corporate America more responsible and accountable. Require corporate wrongdoers to fully, 

fairly, and adequately compensate the victims of senseless accidents. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. Let 

me ask a question or two, if I may. We will start with questions 

from members. 

Our investigation has uncovered several flaws in the design and 

operations of this well, including equipment malfunctions. From 

our investigation, we have learned that BP and Transocean were 

not prepared for a catastrophic loss of well control on the Deepwater Horizon like the one that occurred on April 20th. 

We have learned of the following problems, among many, but 

some of the more obvious ones are mechanical problems were uncovered as early as March of 2010; the blowout preventer, which 

is the fail safe tool designed to prevent a catastrophic loss of control, was not maintained properly and it was not fully tested. It appears BP made well design choices that may have compromised 

safety. 

According to BP’s preliminary investigation, there were several 

signs of possible loss of well control in the 24 hours before the explosion, yet steps were not taken to safeguard the employees. It 

also appears BP made several cementing design choices that went 

against the best practices for the industry. 

This weekend we see adds from BP like this one we have here 

(indicating). And I point that out because it says ‘‘we will get it 

done. We will make this right’’. It reminds me of the marshes we 

were in last night. Once the oil gets in those marshes, you really 

can’t get them out. Mother nature has to do that; but more importantly, it can’t make your loss right. And the part that disturbs me, 

the ad never mentions your loss, that of the 11 people who died 

and those who were injured. 

So let me ask you this, Natalie and Courtney: What would ask 

these companies, BP and Transocean? What would you ask them 

if you had the opportunity? Hopefully, you can do it through us. 

Mrs. Roshto. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. If I had the opportunity to ask BP one question, 

it would be—I know that my husband can’t come back. There’s 

nothing I can do or say to make him come back, but why? What 

went wrong? Why weren’t you out there trying to do something in 

the weeks before when they were having problems? 

Mr. STUPAK. Mrs. Kemp. 

Mrs. KEMP. I would also ask why but in a different sense. Why 

is it that money is more important than someone’s life? Why? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

And I’m extremely upset that BP has never mentioned the 11 or 

the ones that are injured or the men that are struggling mentally 

that survived that tragic night. 

Mr. STUPAK. In this hearing you mentioned the Death on the 

High Seas Act. I’m sure every member here knows of it and we will 

look at it and, as the Congress of the United States, I’m sure all 

Congress will. 

What other hopes do you have this hearing will accomplish? 

What else would you like to see come from these hearings? You 

mentioned safety, you mentioned the High Seas Act. Anything else 

you would like to see, Mrs. Kemp? 

Mrs. Roshto? I’m afraid to ask your counsel because I’m sure 

they have a list of them for us, but—— 

Mrs. ROSHTO. My hope from this hearing is to not stop offshore 

drilling. That’s—that has—when I saw that and heard that, that 

hit deep because my husband took great pride in his job. And many 

men, many men depend on offshore drilling. That is our way of life. 

I mean I—that—that would not do these men any justice one bit. 

Mrs. KEMP. I totally agree with Natalie’s statement in that our 

husbands will—being a Christian, we will one day again see our 

husbands, but it is important now that Congress and the government in itself takes—takes pride in knowing that there are men 

out there that work every day to put fuel in your vehicles, to heat 

our homes, and that is something that is merely neglected. 

And I hope today that people realize how important offshore 

drilling is and how important it is not only to the coastal states 

where so many people work—because we do live in very rural areas 

and offshore work is a way for families to make a living and to be 

able to provide for children, and I hope that you work very hard 

and diligently to make sure that drilling continues in the Gulf. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, I can’t speak for all the members, but from 

where I sit, drilling will continue. Right now after this tragic accident, I think we need to pause here. Let’s see what went wrong. 

Let’s make sure it doesn’t happen again. Whether it’s a shallow 

well or a deep water well, let’s make sure we get it right. We can’t 

have more hearings like this with young folks like you coming talking about your tragic loss and the environment being devastated in 

the Gulf, so I think we ought to slow it down for a minute here. 

Let’s see what’s going on. Let’s get proper rules, regulations, safety 

concerns addressed. And I think there will always be drilling in the 

outer continental shelf or wherever in this country. We’ve just got 

to do it better, safer. 

With that, I want my questions—we are going to go—This will 

be the order of questions so all will know: 

Mr. Burgess will go, Mr. Braley, Mr. Markey, Ms. DeGette, Ms. 

Schakowsky, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Melancon, and Mr. Scalise. 

Mr. Burgess, five minutes, please. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I want to 

thank our witnesses for being here today. I want to thank you for 

bringing to our attention Chapter 21, paragraph 761 of the Death 

on the High Seas Act. You know, it’s interesting we have been talking about changing the law where BP’s liability is capped at $75 

million to $10 billion, but—but that actually wouldn’t help what 

you are talking about on the Death on the High Seas Act where 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

no—no liability occurs beyond three miles out from the shore. And 

clearly, as we—as we adjust for the 21st century the liability of the 

companies, this is something that on an individual basis has to be 

tackled also. So just to let you know, your testimony here this 

morning has been very helpful. Let me—let me ask you a question: 

What—now, did your husbands work for BP or Transocean or Halliburton. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Transocean. 

Mrs. KEMP. Transocean. 

Mr. BURGESS. And since the accident, what have you heard from 

the company itself? Have they come to you and—and offered any 

type of assistance with—with pulling your lives back together. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Actually, I sat across my kitchen table with the 

CEO and president of Transocean. He personally paid a visit to me, 

and I also had a lady from the company that has kept in close contact with me about anything to do with anything out there. 

Mr. BURGESS. So are they giving you financial assistance at this 

point? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Yes. I—we are still receiving his paycheck until 

otherwise. 

Mr. BURGESS. I see. Same with you, Mrs. Kemp? 

Mrs. KEMP. Yes, sir. Again, the CEO of the company came to the 

House to express his personal condolences. Like Natalie, I also 

have a representative from Transocean who we keep in close contact and she and I speak regularly on a daily basis. And yes, we 

are still receiving their paychecks just as if they were out there 

working. 

Mr. BURGESS. I see. So—so the ability to keep body and soul together right now while things are being sorted out, you have a cash 

flow that is—is available to you? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Yes, sir. 

Mrs. KEMP. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. And the reason I ask is because, you know, just 

preceding the—the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, there was another 

tragedy that occurred on land on April 5th in West Virginia. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I’ll submit this for the record, but a newspaper article on the Upper Big Branch mine, each miner’s spouse 

or beneficiary will collect life insurance benefits that are five times 

the miner’s annual pay. A surviving spouse will be entitled to 20 

years of health benefits dependant children will continue health 

benefits until the age 19 or age 24, child care benefits for children 

up to the age of 12. 

This company obviously got out in front of this issue. I’m glad to 

here that Transocean did. I actually don’t know if any of BP’s employees were—were killed in the accident and I’d be interested to 

know if they have been as forthcoming; but clearly, this is not— 

in my opinion, this is preventative medicine. This is taking care of 

a family that needs help who suffered a devastating loss. 

I’m glad to hear that Transocean has—has stepped up. I hope 

that it is every bit as reasonable as what the—the owners of the 

Upper Big Branch mine did because they clearly recognized they 

were facing a dreadful public relations problem, as is Transocean, 

as is BP, and honestly as is Halliburton. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

Did your husbands talk to you at all—both of you referenced the 

fact that when you saw your husbands they talked about things 

that were not right on the rig. I presume you’ve talked to the Coast 

Guard about this, but is there anything you can share with us 

about the stories your husbands were telling you during those last 

visits about concerns they had about safety on the rig? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. The last time Shane was home, the three weeks 

he was home, we had some pretty detailed conversations about 

some of the issues out there concerning the well. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me stop you for just a second. Is that normal 

coast side conversation that you and Shane would have had—— 

Mrs. ROSHTO. We had—— 

Mr. BURGESS [continuing]. Or was he overly concerned about 

safety? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. No, no. We always talked about his work. I had 

an intense interest in his work because I did not work. Because I 

couldn’t see it with my own two eyes, I had a lot of questions. And 

I mean the four and a half years he was out there, we talked 90 

percent about his work and—because he was moving up and he 

was really interested in his job. But we had some previous conversations on some issues that they had out there. 

Main reason he had an issue was because he was working in the 

mud room, a lot of mud loss undoubtedly. I actually spoke with him 

at 1:30 the morning of the accident and he expressed some concern 

about some issues they were having, and I talked to him at 10:30 

a.m. The morning of the accident and at that time he didn’t really 

express any concern; but our 1:30 a.m. Conversation he had some 

concerns about some well issues that they were having, the mud 

loss. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mrs. Kemp, just a little time I have left. Can you 

respond to that? 

Mrs. KEMP. Yes. My husband also stated that they had been losing mud. They had had problems with well control before and actually lost the well, lost a lot of tools and everything, several millions 

of dollars worth of equipment that had been lost. They were also 

receiving a lot of kicks from the well, a lot of gas pressure, and— 

and that had been going on throughout the duration of this well. 

Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Mr. Braley for questions, please. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. And Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp, I 

want to thank you for bringing us this problem with the Jones Act, 

otherwise known as the Death on the High Seas Act, because a lot 

of people don’t appreciate what’s going on out on those drilling 

platforms. They don’t know that they are flagged vessels and that 

the Deepwater Horizon rig was flagged as a vessel in the Marshall 

Islands. Were you aware of that? 

Mrs. KEMP. No, I wasn’t. 

Mr. BRALEY. And that because they are a flagged vessel, they are 

subject to the Jones Act limitations which are very restrictive. They 

don’t provide any compensation for quality of life damages, for the 

loss, the emotional loss, that the two of you have for losing your 

husband, for the emotional loss that your children have, for the 

fact that your husband won’t be there for their high school graduaVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:09 Feb 09, 2013 Jkt 076584 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A584.XXX A584

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

tions or their weddings or those wonderful times that families get 

to celebrate. 

If this had happened on land under the laws of Louisiana and 

in almost every other state, your claims would have been significantly greater and different; because those quality of life damages 

are recognized but they are not under the federal law known as the 

Jones Act, and that’s the concern both of you were expressing. Is 

that what you were sharing with the committee? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Yes. 

Mrs. KEMP. Yes. 

Mr. BRALEY. Now, one of the things that we do know is that 

Transocean was involved in reaching out to families after this disaster occurred. And, Mrs. Roshto, you talked about being contacted, 

I think you said, 6:00 o’clock in the morning by phone call? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Actually, my mother woke me up. She had gotten 

a phone call from a friend of a friend that was on another rig. I 

actually did not hear from Transocean until 11:22 that afternoon 

to ask if it was a good contact number, and then I again talked to 

them about 2:20 and they did not confirm that he was on the missing list until around 4:00 when I was already in Fourchon. 

Mr. BRALEY. Can you just tell us the extent of your contact with 

a representative from Transocean as you went through that difficult first period? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. You talking about the first day? 

Mr. BRALEY. Yes. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. The first day I spoke with them periodically 

every—pretty much every hour, but it was this—after 11:00 is 

when I spoke with them pretty much every hour, but it was never 

any new information. 

Like I said, I didn’t actually find out he was on the missing list 

until around 4:00. My mom actually is the one that woke me up 

and told me. I had heard that there was some in different hospitals 

that had already—I actually contacted different hospitals that I 

had heard some were at. 

We made it down to Port Fourchon. We stayed down there and 

then that’s when we found out the boat was supposed to be coming 

in, went to where the seaport where the boat was supposed to be 

coming in, and that’s about the time that I found out he was on 

the missing list. 

Mr. BRALEY. And when you talk about the boat coming in, are 

you referring to—— 

Mrs. ROSHTO. The crew boat that was carrying the men, the survivors. 

Mr. BRALEY. Bringing the survivors back to shore? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Uh-huh. 

Mr. BRALEY. What were you told, if anything, about the circumstances that had led to this disaster? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. At that point at the seaport, I really didn’t know 

much. I knew what I had watched at the 3:00 o’clock news conference on the TV. That was the extent. At 3:00 o’clock when I 

watched the news conference, that was the most news, the most information I had heard then. The only thing I knew up to that point 

was that there had been an explosion. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

Mr. BRALEY. When was the first time you had contact with anyone from Transocean that gave you some sense of explanation of 

what had happened to your husband? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Never. Never. 

Mr. BRALEY. And to this day you’ve never received an explanation? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. No. 

Mrs. KEMP. No. 

Mr. BRALEY. And, Mrs. Kemp, I see you also responding. Tell us 

what your experience was like in dealing with Transocean. 

Mrs. KEMP. I received a call at approximately 4:30 on April 21st. 

The lady told me that there had been an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon and an emergency evacuation was taking place and 

the Coast Guard was on the scene. I immediately jumped to my 

feet and said, ‘‘Where’s my husband?’’ And she said, ‘‘At this time, 

we don’t know.’’ And I said, ‘‘Can you tell me anything about him, 

anything about the crew?’’ ‘‘No, ma’am. We don’t have any information.’’ I said, ‘‘OK.’’ I took her name, her phone number, and I said 

that I would be contacting you. 

I then about 6:00 o’clock that morning I called—Wyatt rode back 

and forth with Wyman Wheeler, and I called his home and Becky 

was already en route to New Orleans, his wife, to—he was one of 

the ones injured. And I asked, I said, ‘‘Where is Wyatt? You know, 

what’s going on?’’ And she said, ‘‘Wyman doesn’t know where anybody is. I don’t have a clue. When I get down there, I’ll try to find 

out something for you and get back with you.’’ 

They, Transocean, set up a hotline. I started calling the hotline 

every hour on the hour; and when I did around 2:00 o’clock, someone answered the hotline and told me that everyone had been accounted for and no fatalities were reported. 

Mr. BRALEY. That was 2:00 o’clock the first day? 

Mrs. KEMP. 2:00 o’clock the first day, April 21st. At approximately 2:30, my sheriff in our parish came to the House. He is a 

personal friend of ours. He came to the House and he told me, he 

said, ‘‘Courtney, let’s go in this room and I—I need you to call this 

lady.’’ And so I did so, and that’s when she informed me that Wyatt 

was one of the 11 missing. And to this day, we have never received 

any kind of explanation as to what happened. There’s a lot of speculation, a lot of things you hear, but we have never gotten an explanation from Transocean, BP, anybody. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Braley. And, Mr. Markey, questions, please. 

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

you for your testimony. It’s very important for us to hear how our 

laws and how they are implemented impacts ordinary families. So 

the first thing I would like to tell you is that your testimony is 

going to help to make it possible for us to repeal the Death on the 

High Seas Act so that we never again have a situation like this. 

We have thousands of thousands of people who are out on these 

rigs on the ocean and there never was any intention for you and 

people like you not to be able to recover for your families, so that 

has to be changed and your testimony is going to very profoundly 

help us to be able to accomplish that role. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

Now, you talked a little bit about the concerns which your husband had about mud control, about well control. Was he concerned 

about the shortcuts that BP was making in safety out on the rig, 

Mrs. Roshto? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Shane never made any reference to BP as far as 

safety. The last time Shane was home, we actually—he actually 

went to a safety school that Transocean put on, and he highly 

spoke of Transocean and their safety. 

Now, there were statements made that there was times he felt 

that there was agendas put over safety, you know, business agendas to get the work done. The last—when I spoke with him the 

weeks before—the first week he was out there before the accident, 

there was talk about high pressure and how they were pushing on 

to get finished and, you know, they were over budgeting, they were 

over their time in the hole, and yet there was concerns but never 

anything pointed towards BP or Transocean. 

Mr. MARKEY. What would you say to BP about the impact that 

compromises safety they have upon families when something goes 

tragically wrong? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Let’s just remember that it’s—it’s all going to be 

OK in the end. You are going to get that oil out of that hole regardless of how long it takes. But there were 11 men that suffered, 11 

families that suffered, and let’s not place the importance of oil over 

the importance of a life. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mrs. Roshto. What would you say to BP 

about the compromise of safety in pursuant of oil? 

Mrs. KEMP. Again, like Natalie, I—I don’t see how—you know, 

people say money is the root of all evil and in this case it really 

was. BP, it’s—it’s plain to see that, of course, BP was in a hurry 

because they were over schedule and, of course, trying to hurry up 

and get off of that well and move onto the next one, so in a—in 

a way it’s just the fact that life is way too precious and no amount 

of money will ever be sufficient of bringing your—your spouse back 

or your father back or anything like that. And, frankly, it’s not that 

important as far as you are talking about a life. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, one way that we can hurt BP is to make sure 

that—BP stands for bills paid—that the money for families, the 

money to clean up the Gulf comes out of their pocket and that we 

repeal the Death on the High Seas Act and we change the laws in 

order to make sure that the companies are more accountable when 

they harm not only lives but the livelihoods of people—— 

Mrs. KEMP. I really—— 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. That are dependent upon these companies. 

Mrs. KEMP. I’m sorry. 

Mr. MARKEY. No, please. 

Mrs. KEMP. I really believe that BP will never understand the 

pain that we feel. And the only way that big companies like that 

will feel the pain is when it comes out of their pocket because 

that’s basically how we have felt is all they are worried about. And 

until they are hurt bad enough, they will never understand what 

we have gone through. And even if they are hurt bad enough, they 

still will never understand the pain we feel. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, we are going to make sure that they feel the 

pain and the two of you will always be remembered as we go back 

to Washington. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. And if you can do that, this will serve justice to 

all other men. If you can do that, this will make all the pain—I 

can speak for Courtney too—and all the suffering’s worth every bit 

of this just to see something change out there. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. STUPAK. Ms. DeGette, questions, please. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Roshto, you 

talked in your testimony today and also in your written testimony 

about the safety schools, meetings, fire drills, and safety regulations that your husband, Shane, went through. Did you feel like he 

was really thoroughly trained about emergency procedures on the 

rig, what would happen? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Yes and no. Every Sunday, especially the last Sunday before he would come home on Wednesday, he would always 

say, ‘‘Last safety—I mean last fire drill, baby. I got to go.’’ They 

practiced, practiced, practiced, practiced evacuation drills and that 

kind of stuff. But throughout all this, I’ve learned that and also 

knew that at 10:00 o’clock every Sunday it was at the same time 

every Sunday, same place. If there can be something different done 

as far as maybe under different conditions or different ways of 

going about it each time, you can practice, practice and you can do 

it; but when it really comes down to it like it did the night of April 

20th, it all goes out a wash. And in an incident like that, if there 

could be something done different to make them in different situations. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So they were training to do one thing but maybe 

not respond to a situation like this? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Right. Correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mrs. Kemp, what about your husband, Wyatt? 

Mrs. KEMP. Yes. Yes and no. They were—they were trained. 

They were—they were made to do things and—and go through 

different trainings and all of that, and all of that was great. And 

then Wyatt would say, ‘‘You know, some helped, some didn’t.’’ 

But—but at—at this catastrophe, the magnitude of this accident, 

it—from what—when we talked to some of the crew members and 

everything, all of their safety plans, all of their, you know, fire 

safety drills, all that went out the window. They were not—they 

were not expecting something of this magnitude to happen. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Mrs. KEMP. You are talking about a blast that—that threw the— 

the axes off the window, broke them in half. There was things 

there that they couldn’t do anything to help the other people and 

because they were not expecting a blast like this. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. One of things that we—so—so the answer— 

and—and Mrs. Roshto said this in her testimony: It’s not more 

training, it’s better training and more focused training. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Right. 

Mrs. KEMP. Right. 

Ms. DEGETTE. One of the things we have seen in the news accounts is a criticism that there wasn’t any real chain of command, 

that there was this pressure both of you talked about. There was 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

this pressure to get things done. And a lot of people had concerns: 

The mud concerns, the gas build up, the hurry up. And we have 

seen that from you and other people, but what they are saying is 

that no one was really sure exactly who they could go to and talk 

to about those concerns and get those concerns addressed. 

Did your husbands talk to you about that, Mrs. Roshto, about a 

lack of a place—of a sort of a system in place to address that? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Shane was fully aware of the chain of command 

and who—if he had a problem, who to go to. Now, from the testimonies and different things I’ve heard from that night, there was 

a mix up or, you know, who should have been in command, who 

should have made what call. I think that should be addressed because it is a dynamically positioned rig and you do have a line up 

and you do have a captain. There needs to be a fine definition of 

who is in charge, who makes what call in what situation. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mrs. Kemp, do you have any thoughts on that? 

Mrs. KEMP. I agree with Natalie’s statement in that, you know, 

my husband knew who to go to personally, but in something this 

horrific it, like I said, all went out the window. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Do you know if your husband felt like he could go 

to people and talk about this gas build up that you mentioned and 

how that was addressed, or was it just sort of a fact that he was 

reporting? 

Mrs. KEMP. It was more of a fact that he was reporting. I know— 

I feel certain that he and Wyman talked about it, Wyman Wheeler, 

because they were travel partners. Wyman is also a toolpusher. So 

as—as far as the chain of command goes, he is above Wyatt, so I’m 

sure that they spoke about it and everything, but to what extent, 

I’m not sure. 

Ms. DEGETTE. You know, this is one of the things we are hearing 

about. 

Mrs. KEMP. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Everybody knew about these problems, but nobody—but there was a chain of command but nobody felt nobody 

could—could stop it or slow it down or—you know what I’m saying? 

They knew there were problems, but they were just sort of going 

to go along and do their job. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. I know about smaller issues the men could report 

and not feel that there was any way of losing their job because in 

2008—no. Yes. 2008 my husband received an award for spotting a 

dropped object, but that was within Transocean. That was not 

within BP. So I think within the company, Transocean, and the 

men on his rig, Shane always felt like if there was an issue that 

he could express it to his Transocean fellow co-workers. But never 

once did he ever make a statement to—to me about feeling comfortable about speaking with BP or, you know, if he did see a concern with Transocean, would they ever follow up with BP. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can Mrs. Kemp answer real quickly? 

Mr. STUPAK. Yes. 

Mrs. KEMP. Also, with my husband, you know, BP company men 

are—they are the ones that call the shots. It’s their well. But as 

far as with the rig and everything with Transocean, my husband 

was willing and able and—and could go speak to a Transocean 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

member. But as far as with BP, it was not like that because they 

called the shots. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Ms. Schakowsky for questions, please. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you so much. Let me follow up on that. 

There was talk about pressure because it was—the project was 

being rushed to be finished. Did that pressure come from BP to 

Transocean or was that just internally Transocean? In other words, 

did the Transocean employees feel like they were being pressured 

by BP to complete the job? Do you have any sense of that? 

Mrs. KEMP. Not really sense of it, but I believe, you know, that 

that was the extent. BP was, you know, in a crunch and they were 

behind on the well and everything and they had fallen behind 

schedule, so I think—I know speaking for Wyatt that he was pressured in trying to hurry up and get things done. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And that pressure would have come from 

his—from his bosses, but he felt that it was really BP that pressured Transocean to get it done? I’m trying to understand who 

might have short circuited a little bit and what the cause of that 

would have been in terms of safety. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. I think it was a trickle effect. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I can’t hear you. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. I think it was a trickle effect. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I see. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. I mean it came from the well holders and then— 

I mean Transocean knew that they were their well holders and 

that was their contract. That’s how they paid their men on that rig. 

I think it was a trickle effect. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Was any of the slow down—it was a difficult 

well, I think both of you have mentioned, but was any of the slow 

down particularly identified as things that would effect safety? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. They were losing tools in the hole and had to go 

back and drill a side drill because they had lost the hole. I mean 

this is—we’re talking about the same hole that inside they were— 

they abandoned for the same issues but yet they put the Deepwater Horizon rig over this hole and were still having problems in 

the first two weeks that they got over this hole. They lost the well 

and had to drill a relief well beside it. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. All right. Has Transocean ever made any 

statements to you or assurances about financial compensation that 

your families would be all right? You said that they are right now 

paying salaries, but do they ever—ever really talk to you about the 

future? 

Mrs. KEMP. They have come to me and made a settlement offer, 

but it’s not enough. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. We spoke, but nothing of a serious nature. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And what about BP, what kind of contact have 

you had with British Petroleum since the incident, letters, phone 

calls, visits? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Two BP men attended Shane’s services and they— 

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. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. They said—they asked you that? They came 

right up to you and asked that? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. That—I met them. We were greeting at the door 

at Shane’s services, and I never saw them after that and I have 

not spoke with one. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And what about you, Mrs. Kemp? 

Mrs. KEMP. Two BP—two BP men came to Wyatt’s services and 

one extended his hand. I shook it. He told me that he was 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 services; and that is the extent of my conversation or 

any dealings with BP. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Did they identify themselves as to—I’m not 

looking for names but as to how high up they were in the company 

in any way? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. No, ma’am. 

Mrs. KEMP. No, ma’am. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Was there ever any indication from either of 

your husbands that there was a tension with—between Transocean 

and BP, that different instructions somehow were—were coming 

down, that there was any feeling that BP wasn’t doing what it 

should do; was there ever any of that? 

Mrs. KEMP. My husband never spoke of stuff like that. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. No. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So aside from your—both of your feelings that 

we should repeal the—what’s it called? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Death on the High Seas Act. 

Mrs. KEMP. Death on the High Seas Act. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You feel like—it sounds like you don’t think 

there needs to be new legislation but rather enforcement; is—is 

that right? Is there anything else that you would think we ought 

to do in order to prevent this in the future? 

Mrs. KEMP. I think that there are plenty of safety regulations in 

place. It’s just the mere fact of them being enforced and not being 

neglected and having some accountability for when they are neglected. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. I—I fully agree with Courtney. I think that there 

should somehow be a way to make these companies have to be 

looked at by maybe a third party to come in and investigate, maybe 

say this safety rule’s good. You have this back up plan, but let’s 

revise this back up plan. Because if they are regulating theirselves, 

how do we know if they are doing it the right way or the wrong 

way. Undoubtedly, it was the wrong way in this situation. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Ms. Christensen for questions, please. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I know many questions have 

been asked but, again, thank you for being here. Mrs. Kemp, I understand that your husband, Wyatt, worked with Transocean for 

four years prior to the explosion. And we know that he was a hard 

working individual and he had recently been promoted to assistant 

driller. Did he work on the Deepwater Horizon for all of those four 

years. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

Mrs. KEMP. Yes, ma’am. Actually, he worked a little more than 

four years. It was approximately four and a half, five years and he 

had only worked on the Deepwater Horizon. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Because my question is going to be then, 

and how would he have compared that to other sites? So I 

guess—— 

Mrs. KEMP. He had worked on a land rig but not in the Gulf. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. And, Mrs. Roshto, your husband also 

was a very hard worker, was training to work at the subsea level. 

He had worked also for four years—— 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN [continuing]. With Transocean? Did—both of 

you had testified that your husbands spoke to you about the difficulties, the mud leaking, and the loss of equipment, and so forth. 

Did Shane work on any other projects that he would be able to 

have compared? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. No, he didn’t. But the day he got hired, he got the 

phone call from Transocean and he called the guy that actually got 

him hired. The guy told him—he also worked for Transocean. He 

said, ‘‘If there is any rig that you want to be on, it’s the Deepwater 

Horizon.’’ He said that is by far the safest rig in the Gulf. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Well, did any of them—I’m trying to get a 

sense of—the purpose of my question was to try to get a sense of 

the difficulties that were being experienced in this operation was 

different from others. 

In their maybe discussions with other workers in this deep water 

operation, did you ever get a sense that the difficulties that they 

were experiencing were different or greater than might have happened, might have been experienced by their co-workers who 

worked on other rigs? 

Mrs. KEMP. Wyatt would always—Wyatt just told me that, you 

know, it was—it was typical to—to get some kicks from a well and 

to have some problems, but it was their job to deal with the problems, fix them, and go on with it. This well was different in the 

fact that they were having so many problems and so many things 

were happening and it was just kind of out of hand. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And that was your sense also, Mrs. Roshto. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. The numerous kickbacks that they were having 

and the loss of the well is what really concerned Shane, and the 

loss of the mud because he had never worked in it before. That was 

his three main concerns, you know, that we talked about a lot. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Well, although a lot of information is 

being uncovered, there is still a lot that we don’t know; but I think 

you can walk away from this hearing with assurance that this subcommittee, as it does in every instance, will not let up until all the 

questions are answered and we know what happened and who’s responsible. 

Again, thank you for being here and honoring the lives of your 

husbands with your testimony. I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Mr. Melancon, questions, please. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On a bright note, I’ve 

spent many a hunting season in Liberty, Mississippi, about six 

miles north of McComb Highway when I was in college and several 

years after. So if Shane was a hunter and fisherman, and if Wyatt 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

was too, I understand. And Jonesville is a good hunting area and 

fishing area, so I—they are probably guys I would have had a lot 

to talk about with. 

The Death on the High Seas thing bothers me tremendously. And 

just so you will know, I will support and work to try and make sure 

that we repeal and reform that section of law. It’s egregious that 

there is no recourse other than, I think, the only obligation that the 

company has is to reimburse you for the funeral. I think that’s it. 

I may be wrong. So that’s—that’s very disheartening. It’s—in these 

days and times, even back in those days and times, it probably 

shouldn’t have been. 

Did Transocean advise either of you how long they intended to 

continue giving you your husband’s checks and are they going to 

continue health benefits or—— 

Mrs. ROSHTO. I know until the life insurance is issued, we will 

receive his paycheck; but now as far as health insurance, no, we 

have not spoke on that matter. 

Mrs. KEMP. We have touched on the health insurance part, and 

it is my understanding until a settlement is reached we will be 

compensated with health insurance. And up to a year after the settlement, we can receive health insurance but we have to pay for 

it at the company rate; and then after that year we are on our own. 

Mr. MELANCON. Now, the life insurance, is that a company benefit or is this life insurance that your husbands and you-all purchased. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. It’s a company benefit. 

Mrs. KEMP. It’s a company benefit. 

Mr. MELANCON. Is it adequate to maintain your family for—I 

mean we don’t know how long that might be—the rest of your life? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. I would say so because last year when the Deepwater Horizon started taking water and they had a problem or 

whatever, Shane came home and said that he realized that he was 

working in a very dangerous atmosphere and it just really opened 

his eyes up. And we actually purchased some—— 

Mr. MELANCON. Purchased some. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Not purchased, but through the company we took 

out some extra insurance plans because he said he wanted—— 

Mr. MELANCON. But you still had to pay for those yourself. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. No. They came out of his check and things like 

that, but it was at the company’s expense. But now, regularly, if 

you just take what the company offers and don’t take an extra 

plan, I wouldn’t say that it’s compensatable. Would you? 

Mrs. KEMP. No. And we just—we took what—the company plan. 

Mr. MELANCON. There has been—I have heard, don’t know if it’s 

fact or not and I don’t know if either of your husbands had a conversation, but as I understand it, Schlumberger was on the rig 

prior to the explosion and about 11 hours out said they were getting off the rig. Did either of your husbands have a conversation 

with you about that or—— 

Mrs. KEMP. My husband did not, but I am aware of 

Schlumberger being out there. 

Mr. MELANCON. And saying that they felt it was an unsafe condition and—— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

Mrs. KEMP. Yes, sir. My father is close friends with someone who 

works for Schlumberger and he told my dad. 

Mr. MELANCON. I mean would you think that your husbands— 

of course, they can say to the Transocean people if they are getting 

off, then maybe there’s a problem and we ought to be—— 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Yes. Let’s—let’s follow in behind. 

Mr. MELANCON. Yes. I mean they should have been putting them 

on the same crew boat or the same helicopter if, in fact, that was, 

and maybe leave a skeleton crew to try and cement in the hole or 

whatever the procedure would be there. Did—did either one of 

them—did—when you talked did you-all talk to them that afternoon in that period of time that they may have said something 

about Schlumberger pulling off? 

Mrs. KEMP. My husband never talked to me about Schlumberger. 

I work in a dangerous job as well and he didn’t want—I don’t think 

he wanted to bother me about—— 

Mr. MELANCON. Didn’t want you worried. 

Mrs. KEMP. Sorry? 

Mr. MELANCON. He didn’t want you worried. 

Mrs. KEMP. Right. 

Mr. MELANCON. And what do you do. 

Mrs. KEMP. I’m an investigator for child protection. 

Mr. MELANCON. OK. Sheriff’s office or DA’s office. 

Mrs. KEMP. No, sir, with the Department of Social Services. 

Mr. MELANCON. OK. Yes you can get in some hairy situations. 

The—one of the things that I want to say to the committee, this 

lady’s from Mississippi. This lady’s from north Louisiana. I think 

if we look at the residencies of the people on the rig, we’ve probably 

got Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, you name it. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. They are everywhere. 

Mr. MELANCON. They are from everywhere. So this is one rig and 

all of them lack that that touch families from throughout the south 

as best I can tell. 

I support drilling. I’m just hoping that we can find something between shutting down and drill baby drill to give us the balance to 

maintain the community to provide the good jobs; but at the same 

time, we need to make sure this never happens to anyone again 

and safety should be our first priority. And the committee, I thank 

the chairman and the ranking member. That’s where I will work 

to try and make sure that when you go to work the expectation is 

that you will be coming back from work. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Right. 

Mr. MELANCON. So thank you all for coming. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Thank you. 

Mrs. KEMP. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Melancon. Mr. Scalise for questions, 

please. Five minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You both talked about 

the safety regulations and, you know, I guess whether there should 

be more regulations or just follow the existing. And I think both 

Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp both said that maybe it’s more of a 

case that the existing safety regulations weren’t followed more 

than—more than we need more. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

Can you both touch on were there things that you saw and conversations you had with your husbands about safety regulations 

that weren’t followed or how the regulations weren’t being properly 

administered by the federal regulator? What things did you see to 

make you feel that way? 

Mrs. KEMP. I didn’t speak to my husband about safety regulations particularly on this well, but I didn’t learn about all of the 

shortcuts and everything that was taking place until after the explosion. 

Mr. SCALISE. In conversations with some of the other families? 

Mrs. KEMP. Correct. With conversations with some of the other 

crew members and just things that have come out in the media and 

everything. 

Mr. SCALISE. Mrs. Roshto. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Looking back on Shane and I’s past conversations 

the weeks leading up to the accident when he was on the rig, I 

never thought about it when we were talking about it. I never 

thought about the—I guess really the problems that they were having and what—how it could end up. But when I found out and as 

I had conversations with the crew members and I thought about 

what he said, it really made me realize that there was a problem 

and he saw it. He knew that there was a problem. 

Now, as far as safety on this particular rig, he never specifically 

pinpointed a safety issue that they had, but he did make reference 

to safety, you know, that was in practice. He was always very 

prideful about Transocean and how they practiced safety, but 

never—it was always Transocean practiced safety, never BP practiced safety. 

But he always was very prideful in Transocean practicing safety; 

but at the same time, though, there were downfalls to their safety, 

different ways they went about doing safety things and tank cards 

and permits they had to get. There were issues with that, not necessarily just on this well, but on his time on the Deepwater Horizon. 

Mr. SCALISE. We have heard some stories, mostly secondhand accounts, that there may have been some—some pretty strong disagreements between some of the Transocean people on the rig and 

BP, especially about the displacement of the mud when they 

brought in water and during the sealing period and maybe there 

was a disagreement in which procedure to use. 

We had a hearing with Transocean and BP, and—and they said 

there wasn’t a disagreement, but we are hearing that there were 

employees—and I don’t know if you-all have heard that, but there 

was some pretty strong disagreements over the process that was 

used to displace the mud with water. I don’t know if you’ve heard 

anything about that. 

Mrs. KEMP. I’ve heard that from some of the crew members 

who—one in particular that walked in and they were—BP and 

Transocean were going back and forth on what was supposed to 

take place that day and—and about the displacement of the mud 

with sea water, and I—I think it was a—kind of a heated conversation. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. That’s the same thing I heard. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

Mr. SCALISE. Did you-all ever hear—did your husbands ever 

share stories of the MMS, who is the federal regulator, coming onto 

the rig and doing inspections? Was it all—did they just kind of cede 

that responsibility to the companies to do their own inspections or 

do you know? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. I’ve learned more about MMS in the past weeks 

than I ever knew about them. 

Mr. SCALISE. Because there’s some talk of—one of the answers 

is splitting them up. And it seems like if you have got an agency 

of over 1,700 people, whether it’s one agency or three, if one agency 

wasn’t doing its job, having three agencies not doing its job doesn’t 

seem to accomplish anything. But I don’t know if you-all had heard 

anything about that because that’s something else that we’ll be 

looking at. 

And I think from some of the things you said earlier it sounds 

more like a case of just doing your job right as opposed to not doing 

the proper inspections. I think whether you’re for big government 

or small government, I think we should all be able to expect competent government, and I don’t know if we got that here. 

And so that’s something else we’ve got to look into on our side 

to make sure that for other families, as you talk about, that they 

don’t have to worry about things like that in the future. 

One last thing, you both talked about what the industry means 

to your lives and, you know, what it meant to your families and, 

you know, how much your husbands, the pride that they had. I 

know it’s being talked about. We’re going to deal with it in terms 

of policy possibly of this—this potential shutdown, a ban, that in 

essence, would run all of these rigs off for maybe three to five years 

or more because if you lose that infrastructure. Can you-all share 

just what the industry means in terms of what it meant to your 

families and your husbands working? 

Mrs. ROSHTO. What it meant to my family was being able to put 

a roof over my child’s head. I attended college. I had every intention of—I was actually supposed to graduate May the 13th. I had 

taken an incomplete because of the incident. I had—Shane had 

every full intention of putting me through school to get my masters. And what it—what it meant to us was a way to provide for 

our child, a way to provide a life-style that most 21 and 22 year 

old people cannot provide for their child; because everyone knows 

sitting in this room that offshore you make more money than you 

do on land. It’s just a fact of it. 

But at the same time, though, it meant being able to come home 

and spend three weeks every day with his family. Most people don’t 

get but the weekends, whereas our husbands received three weeks 

of—with us ever single day doing what we wanted. 

Mr. SCALISE. Mrs. Kemp. 

Mrs. KEMP. Back in—in my town and my part of Louisiana, 

you—you can walk down the street and you can ask somebody 

what do you do for a living. 75 percent to 80 percent of them will 

say they work offshore or they know somebody that works offshore 

or they know somebody that works for Transocean. 

The oil field industry is—is a very, very large industry in our 

state and with the coastal states, especially in my hometown. And 

like Natalie said, it’s—it’s one that my husband could go out there, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

make good money, and be at home with me and the girls, and— 

and give us his—his devoted time. 

Now, you know, Mr. Melancon talked about hunting and I had 

to share that with my husband because he enjoyed his fair share 

of hunting, but—but that was definitely—definitely one thing that 

he enjoyed was the time at home with his family, that he didn’t 

have to worry about the rig or he didn’t have to worry about work, 

and one thing that—that we all really enjoyed. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both of you. 

As a father of a three year old and a one year old, I can’t imagine, 

you know, what it’s like, but I can just say I appreciate the 

strength that both of you are exhibiting. If there’s anything my office can do to help you along the way, but thank you so much for 

your testimony. 

Mr. STUPAK. We’d like to thank you again for your testimony. Let 

me just ask you for your counsel. You both indicated you had counsel. We know Transocean’s asked for a $17 million cap. 

We would like your counsel just to explain to us how the Jones 

Acts, whether that would be part of it and affect it because you certainly raise the awareness of the committee on that issue. And I 

think we would like a full explanation as we move forward to try 

to amend that act, at least to try to assist here. 

So if your attorneys would, your counsel would give us some insight on that, especially with that cap sitting out there, we would 

like to know more about it and we would use it to supplement the 

records since there’s been many questions from members on that 

particular act. 

OK. Thank you. We will dismiss you and thank you again for 

your courage, for your testimony, and feel free to stay if you would 

like for the rest of the hearing. Thank you both. 

Mrs. ROSHTO. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. I’d now like to call up our second panel of witnesses. 

On our second panel we have Ms. Wilma Subra, who is a chemist 

that provides technical assistance to the Louisiana Environmental 

Action Network. She has extensive knowledge on the human health 

and environmental effects associated with the spill; Mr. Ronnie 

Duplessis, who is an oyster and shrimp fisherman from Davant, 

Louisiana. Ronnie’s shrimping grounds and oyster beds have been 

closed putting him out of work; Mr. Kelby Linn, who is president 

of ACP Real Estate, a beach front property sale and rental agency 

on Dauphin Island, Alabama; and Dr. Moby Solangi, who is founder, president, and executive director of the Institute for Marine 

Mammal Studies in Gulfport, Mississippi. Dr. Solangi has studied 

and written on the effects of Louisiana crude oil on fisheries. 

As with the last panel, it is the policy of this subcommittee to 

take all testimony under oath. Please be advised that you have the 

right under the rules of the House to be advised by counsel during 

your testimony. Do any of you wish to be represented by counsel? 

Everybody’s shaking their heads no, so great. And let me ask you 

to please rise, raise your right hand, and take the oath. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Let the record reflect the witnesses have replied in 

the affirmative. They are now under oath. We will now hear an 

opening statement from our witnesses. We ask you to keep it to 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

five minutes. You may submit a longer statement for our record or 

to supplement our record at a later time. 

Mr. Linn, if you don’t mind, we’ll start with you, if that’s all 

right. 

STATEMENTS OF KELBY LINN, OWNER, ACP REAL ESTATE, 

INC., VICE PRESIDENT, DAUPHIN ISLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; CLARENCE DUPLESSIS, OYSTERMAN; MOBY 

SOLANGI, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MAMMAL SERVICES; AND WILMA SUBRA, PRESIDENT, SUBRA COMPANY 

STATEMENT OF KELBY LINN 

Mr. LINN. That’s fine. 

Mr. STUPAK. I’m going to ask you to pull that mic over and speak 

into the mic and we will be ready to go. Begin, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. LINN. I want to first thank the—the ladies for their testimony. We are here to talk about in my case, you know, the impact 

on businesses, environment, but nothing can equal the impact 

that—that they have, so our condolences. 

My name is Kelby Linn. I’m vice-president of the chamber of 

commerce. I’m also an owner of a real estate and property management company on Dauphin Island, Alabama. We are a small island 

that depends totally on tourism, charter fishing, that type of thing. 

It’s sand beaches. The environment is probably our biggest draw. 

Once the news hit the press, we got ourselves into a situation 

where about seven days later all of our cancellations, our reservations started occurring. We have a hundred and ten vacation rental 

properties that we manage for other owners on the island. We are 

one of the larger employers on the island; and as our business goes, 

so goes so many of the others such as your T-shirt shops, your— 

your restaurants, the small things. 

There is not a traffic light on the island, for example. There’s five 

or six independent restaurants. We don’t have a franchise, so it’s 

all pretty much family geared and our tourism is pretty much family based. 

We have come into this season with the best year that we have 

experienced since, I think, a lot of you folks were here from Hurricane Ivan and Hurricane Katrina, so I won’t go into the hurricane 

history that everybody around here knows all too well. But we— 

we were coming in—literally year-to-date this year we were 33 percent over last year. 

Most of us were coming in with the first year in the black that 

we had seen since 2005. 

That being stated, within the four weeks or five weeks, we lost 

over 175 reservations and dropped from almost an 80 percent future occupancy rate down to approximately a 30 percent future occupancy rate. 

The businesses that—that we have around us, it has all been in 

preparation. The government has responded pretty strongly. Governor Riley in the last two or three weeks has really stepped up 

and has started helping us a lot. BP’s part of this whole thing is— 

the preparation on Dauphin Island has actually been pretty strong. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

We have a lot of preventative measures that have been put in 

place; we have protective sand barriers that were built; we had the 

National Guard come in and put containment systems along the 

water’s edge on the north side of the island; we have several berms 

or actually booms that have been put in all the way around. 

There’s been more preparation in actual need of the work in the 

beginning. 

Now, last week, week and a half is when we first had our first 

tar balls hit and now we are into tar patties and now we are into 

the connections of those, which is making a bigger and bigger spill. 

We have not seen the devastation in the marshes that they are 

seeing here. We are primarily more of a sand beach. We do have 

our estuaries. We do have our—our oystering and things that are 

around us, but it has not impacted quite yet here or there like it 

is here. It’s coming. We all know it. We now know it’s at Pensacola 

Beach. We know the sheen is within a mile of offshore. 

There has been significant odor at times depending on the wind. 

The quality of life has, not only for those that live on the island 

such as myself, but for anyone who would want to come visit, has 

definitely deteriorated substantially. There’s no end to this, and I 

guess the next step I have to come to is what is BP doing for us 

to help us get through this. 

The claims process has been cumbersome. There are been—there have been tremendous amounts of $5,000 checks that have been 

just given out to the individuals, fishermen, the oystermen, all deserving. When it comes to the small business side to anyone who 

has more of a P&L impact or a business approach to things, we 

have seen nothing in terms of any claim response so far. 

In our case, we ended up finally deciding to go with a local attorney to help us through that because I’m still trying to keep the 

business together and must focus on it. I hated to do that, but I 

feel that the claims process is not helping us in any way whatsoever and it’s going to take that type of clout. 

The suggestions that I have I—I would hope would come out 

some more in the questions and answers rather than go into—into 

here in terms of helping us. We do feel a little bit like the ant fighting the elephant at this point in time with the individual businesses on Dauphin Island. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Linn follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 76584A.011

ACP Real Estate, Inc. 

Congress ofthe United States 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

June 3, 2010 

Robin Linn, Qualifying Broker I Owner 

Toni Knox, Associate Broker 

Kelby Linn, Owner I Broker- Holiday Isle 

Jamie Barron, Realtor 

Rose RaicB. Realtor 

Marlon Laney, Realtor 

Charles Gaba, Associate Broker 

Stephanie Willis, Realtor 

Amy Vice., Vacation Specialist 

Bridges, The Office Cat and Greeter 

RE: Written statement for testimony before Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations on Monday, June 7, 2010. 

To whom it may Concern: 

My name is Kelby Linn. My wife and I own ACP Real Estate, Inc. which is a real estate sales and property 

management company offering 100 + vacation rental properties on Dauphin Island, Alabama. I am a board member 

of the Dauphin Island Chamber of Commerce, Vice President of the Dauphin Island Industrial Development 

Authority, and am serving on other town committees that are working on long telTI1 beach restoration programs. I 

have been asked to describe the impact ofthe BP Oil Spill on our business, on other businesses on the island, and 

how it has changed our and others' personal quality of life. 

Dauphin Island is a small Tourist destination located 7 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico on the western side of 

Mobile Bay. We have approximately 1400 full time residents and our tourists would have grown our population to 

around 4000 to 5000 people during our prime summer season. Our tourism is driven by the love of our pristine 

white sand beaches, by the fishing we offer, and our environmental qualities induding being one ofthe best birding 

spots in the US. We have our own water aquifer that supplies the Island as well as a maritime forest all being a part 

of an Audubon Reserve. All these valuable and irreplaceable assets are in extreme jeopardy due to this massive 

catastrophe. 

Along with other businesses on the Island, ACP has suffered economically for the past 5 years primarily due to the 

unusual frequency of hurricanes that impacted us and our neighbors. Tvan in 2004, Katrina in 2005, and the others 

such as Arlene, Cindy, Dennis, Rita, and indirectly Tke and Gustav all visited us in one form or another. We were 

also considerably impacted over the last two years by the national economic meltdown and the reSUlting real estate 

c.rash. We have fought hard to survive and for the first time in five or six years, most businesses here came into 

2010 with an increase in future business projected. We were well on our way to experiencing one the best years 

financially due to recovering economy, the upbeat tourist projections and early reservations that started coming in 

for the summer months. 

Since the collapse of the oil rig in mid April, the news media started its coverage of the oil spill and its projected 

impact on the Gulf Coast. By the 1" of May, we started receiving cancellations for primarily all of the summer 

months. In just four weeks, we received approximately 150 such cancellations reflecting a loss of $265,000 in gross 

revenues. While we were busy taking the negative calls, we also noticed a complete drop off of incoming 

reservations. With few exceptions, the majority of any new reservations have been taken at discount rates requested 

by the many contractors hired by BP that chose to use Dauphin Island for staging purposes for some of their 

management teams, We are glad to have this smaller source of income to help us through. 

900 BIENVILLE BOULEVARD DAUPHIN ISLAND, ALABAMA • 36528 

251-861-3311 866-861-3311 TOLL FREE 251-861-3366 FAX wwwacpinfocom 
48 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 76584A.012

ACP Real Estate, Inc. Robin Linn, Qualifying Broker I Owner 

Toni Knox, Associate Brok.er 

Kelby Unn. OWner I Broker- Holiday Isle 

Jamie Barron, Realtor 

Rose Raica, Realtor 

Marion Laney, Realtor 

Charles Gaba, Associate Broker 

StephanIe Willis, Realtor 

Amy Vice. Vacation Specialist 

Bridges, The Office Cat and Greeter 

Unfortunately. our large repeat rental base which we have worked hard to develop over the past nine years is being 

completely eroded due to both the spill and the negative press we receive daily. The island's future as a vacation 

rental destination has been severely impacted for years to come. Our businesses obviously will follow that same 

catastrophic economic path. 

So. what is being done at this stage to help us? First and foremost. I applaud the Federal Government for its 

outstanding prompt preparatory response. Having experienced slower federal responses in the past to Hurricanes 

Ivan and Katrina, I can truly say we had help arriving on the island almost immediately once the situation was 

accurately defined. Alabama State agencies were not that responsive in the past. nor have they been as responsive 

now. 

A BP Claims office has been established here on Dauphin Island. So far they are only handling small claims and 

passing larger Small Business claims on to Hammond, Lousiana for consideration. While small advance payments 

of $5000.00 are being made quickly to individuals such as oystermen, the process lor small businesses appears to be 

much slower. ACP has chosen to hire an attorney to work on financial recovery from BP for us so that we can focus 

on keeping the business in operation. Our monthly overhead averages around $60,000 per month. This includes 

payroll for five employees and typical operational expenses such as rent, utilities, equipment rentals, advertising, 

telephone expenses, and internet presence. We are also indirectly responsible for providing work to another 20 or so 

contract laborers here on the island who do cleaning, small jobs and maintenance, plumbing, and electrical repairs 

on the rental units for the owners of the properties. 73% to 75% of our gross annual revenues are received during 

the three summer months. Memorial Day to Labor Day. We come into this season at our lowest cash flow point, 

which is obviously now. To lose any income during this key prime season will seriously hamper our ability to stay 

in business until this catastrophe can be contained and turned around and we can start the rebuilding process again. 

In not having a lot offaith that BP will succeed in providing a timely payment process for small businesses, ACP 

has also applied for yet another SBA Loan in hopes to be able to obtain operating capital in a timely fashion. So far 

the SBA has been quick to respond and has immediately deferred current existing loan payments for twelve months. 

We are hoping the application process will move quickly so we can continue to fight for our survival while we wait 

for true financial reimbursement for economic damages from BP. 

And last, what has happened to our personal quality of life0 Our primary residence is on Dauphin Island. All of our 

employees live here as well. While we are grateful to see the quick response ITom the government and BP 

contractors, their presence here on the Island has been quite a disruption. National Guard convoys coming to and 

ITom the Island, staging areas with hundreds of workers in waiting for the actual arrival of the oil, all contribute to a 

feeling of being under siege. Most of us who fish and have small boats are taking them out of the water for fear of 

damage; swimming is now discouraged by the Alabama Dept. of Public Health. All that made this Island a small 

paradise to live on and work on, is viItually gone for now and with no end to this disaster in sight. 

Do not let us down in your oversight ofBP. Do not allow BP's gross negligence to stop ACP and others in our 

efforts to be successful small businesses employing local people and providing stability to the community. BP must 

be held responsible morally and financially to bring us back the quality of life and the economic well-being we have 

been striving to maintain. 

Thank you, 

900 BIENVILLE BOULEVARD DAUPHIN ISLAND, ALABAMA 36528 

251-861-3311 866-861-3311 TOLL FREE. 251-861-3366 FAX www.acpinfocom 
49 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Mr. Duplessis, you may want to pull 

that up there a little bit, please. 

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE DUPLESSIS, OYSTERMAN 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Yes. First, I want to also express my condolences 

to the two very, very strong young ladies that spoke earlier. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee on energy and 

commerce for allowing me to tell how this tragic loss spill has effected me and my family. The worst part of this tragedy for me has 

been the unknown. 

A brief note about myself. My name is Clarence Duplessis. I was 

born in a small fishing community named Davant just north of 

Point a La Hache, Louisiana in 1945. My family settled in 

Plaquemines Parish six generations before me. After high school, 

I joined the United States Marine Corp and served a tour of duty 

in Vietnam. 

While in the military, I met my beautiful wife, Bonnie, who was 

in the Navy. After the military, I worked here in Chalmette for 

Kaiser Aluminum. I was laid off in 1989 after the plant was shut 

down. After that, I went to full-time commercial fishing. 

In 2005, my wife and I lost everything we owned to Hurricane 

Katrina, then just a few weeks ago we were faced with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This one was the worst of all these stressful 

and economic tragedies. 

Now, before the critics lower their heads and say no way, I’ll explain. During my tour in Vietnam, I was faced with an enemy that 

wanted to kill me. This was a problem with a solution: Kill them 

first, survive for 13 months, and the problem was solved. 

When Kaiser Aluminum shut down, I had a young family to feed, 

clothe, and educate. This also was a problem with a solution. I had 

experience with fishing, oysters, and also shrimping. I had saltwater in my veins from birth. I went fishing and my children paid 

their college tuition by working as deckhands on boats, and I might 

mention they loved every minute of it. 

In 2005 Hurricane Katrina hit us with a crippling blow, a major 

problem. Even then, though the entire region was wiped out and 

the insurance companies packed their bags and left us, there was 

still a solution. And just in case there is anyone here who has not 

yet noticed, the people of south Louisiana and the fishing communities of south Louisiana are some—some of the hardest working, 

most defiant, yet kindest people on God’s earth. After the storm, 

we faced a difficult task of rebuilding, but that was the solution. 

Now, five years later we are facing the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill. This is the worst of our problems because there are no answers, no solutions, only questions. As we watch our livelihoods 

and even an entire culture being washed away by crude oil and 

chemicals that no one knows the long term effects of, we ask will 

we have the mortgage payment next month? Will we be able to go 

to bed tonight instead of falling asleep in front of the TV hoping 

for some good news? What if they don’t stop the leak? How long 

will this last? Will I be able to go oystering next year or ever 

again? How long will it take the fisheries to recovery? Will BP 

come around with the much needed monies they promised? Will BP 

do the right thing or will they also pack their bags and leave us 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

like the insurance companies did? What can I do to survive? What 

if we get a tropical storm or hurricane in the Gulf? How can I get 

a loan when the SBA still holds the mortgages on all my property 

from Katrina? I have a thousand questions and no answers. I hope 

now you can understand why this is the worst tragedy of my lifetime. 

I thank you for your time and may God bless you all. 

[The statement of Mr. Duplessis follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 76584A.013

Statement of Clarence R. Duplessis 

Commercial Fisherman 

DaVllIlt, LollisiaDa 

United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and COXlllnenle 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

June 7, 2010 
52 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 76584A.014

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce for allowing me to tell you how this tragic oil spill- has affecte<l me and my 

family. The worst part ofthls tragedy for me is the unknown. 

A brief note about myself: I was born in a small fishing community named 

Davant. just north of Poin:te .. a-la-Hache, La. in 1945. My family settled in Plaquemines 

Parish six generations before me. After hlgb school I joined the United States Marine 

Corps and served a tour of duty in Vietnam. 'While in the tPilitary I met my wife who was 

in the Navy. After the military I worked here in Chalmette for Kaiser Aluminum. I "''as 

laid off in 1989 after the plant was closed. After that I went in to full time commercial 

fishing. 

In 2005 my wife and I lost everything we owned in Hurricane Katrina. Then.just 

a few weeks ago we were faced with the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. This one was the 

worst of all these stressful and economic tragedies. 

Now, before the critics hang their heads and wh.lsper, "NO WAY." I,will explain. 

During my tour in Vietnam I was faced with an enemy that wanted to kill me. This was a 

problem with a solution. Kill them first. survive fur 13 monlhs and the problem was 

solved. 

When Kaiser Aluminum shut down I had !l, young family to feed,., clothe., and 

educate. This also was a prol;llem with a solution. I was still yo-ung and had experience 

with shrimpiDg and oystering. 1 had salt water in my veins at birth. I went fishing and 

my ~ paid their college tuition by working as deckhands. 
53 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 76584A.015

In 2005 Hurricane Katrina hit us with a crippling blow. WOW! A major problem! 

Even then, though the entire region was wiped out and the insurance companies packed 

their bags and left us; there was a still a solUtion. And just in case there is anyone who 

has not yet noticed, the fishing communities and people of South Louisiana !n'6 some of 

the hardest working, defiant yet kindest people on God's earth. After the storm we :fuced 

the difficult task of rebuil&ng, but thi.t was the solution. 

Now, five years later we are facing the Deev Water Horizon oil spill. This is the 

worst of our problems because we have no answers, no solutions, only questions. 

As we watch our livelihood and even an entire culrure being washed away by 

crude oil and chemicals that no one knows the long term effects of we ask; win we have 

the mortgage payment next month? Will we be able to go to bed tonight insttlad of 

fulling asleep in front of the TV hoping for some good news? What if they don't stop the 

, 

leak? How long will this last? Will r be able to go Qysteting next year or ever again? 

How long will it take the fisheries to recover? W'JJI BP ever come around with the much 

needed money they promised. WJlI BP do what is right or will they pack their bags and 

leave us like the insilIallce companies did? What can I do to smvive? What :if~"'e get a 

tropical storm or hurricane in the Gulf? How can I get a loon when the SBA still holds 

the mortgage on my property from Kat:rinll? r bave a thousand questions and no answers. 

Now, I hope you can understand why this problem is the worst of my life! 

I thank you for your time. May God Bless You all. 
54 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Dr. Solangi, your testimony, please, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MOBY SOLANGI 

Mr. SOLANGI. I thank the committee to invite me to testify. And, 

again, my condolences to the young ladies, Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. 

Kemp. This is certainly a tremendous tragedy. 

My name is Moby Solangi. I received my Ph.D. in Marine Biology 

in 1980 from the University of Southern Mississippi, and little did 

I know that the subject of my research which was the effect of 

south Louisiana crude oil on benthic and pelagic fishes would come 

in handy. 

Research focused on the pathological changes of organs of these 

fishes exposed to both whole crude oil and its water-soluble fractions and the potential recovery once these toxicants were removed. 

For the past 30 years I worked with marine mammals, specifically 

dolphins and sea turtles in the region. 

The waters of the Mississippi, Chandeleur, Breton Sounds and 

the adjacent waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico are home to one 

of the largest dolphin populations in the United States. The Sounds 

are also inhabited by several other endangered, threatened, and 

protected wildlife species. 

Dolphins are an important part of the ecosystem, and being on 

top of the food chain, are a good biological indicator of the health 

of the environment they inhabit. 

They are constantly impacted by a variety of both natural and 

anthropogenic factors. In the aftermath of the Horizon oil spill, it 

is now even more necessary and important to study the potential 

changes that may occur in both the dolphins and their habitat as 

a result of the oil spill. 

The Institute for Marine Mammal Studies was established in 

1984 as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to education, 

conservation, research on marine mammals and their environment 

in the wild and in captivity. It serves as a liaison between public 

and private entities interested in marine mammal science. The 

subjects of research have covered a broad range of scientific disciplines including population dynamics, underwater acoustics, 

health, genetics, microbiology, endocrinology, behavior, biomagnetism and ecology. The institute has conducted studies in cooperation with scientists from the University of Southern Mississippi, 

Mississippi State, Jackson State, Oklahoma State, Portland State, 

University of Miami, University of California Berkeley, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Naval Oceans Systems Center, Louisiana 

State, and the Naval Research Laboratory. 

The institute is the only organization in the Gulf Coast states of 

Mississippi and Alabama with the capability and expertise to care 

for sick and injured marine mammals while simultaneously conducting programs in education, conservation, and research of marine mammals. The institute has been a participant in the National 

Stranding Network for over 25 years, and as a National Marine 

Fisheries designee, has been involved in the care and rehabilitation 

of sick and injured marine mammals in Mississippi, Louisiana, and 

Alabama. In fact, the institute has developed a full service marine 

mammal research and rehabilitation center in Gulfport, Mississippi. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

It is really fortunate that in this case that we have a facility that 

can at least help in the rescue and recovery and rehabilitation of 

some of our endangered and threatened species. So far we have 

handled the largest number of sea turtles, which is over a hundred. 

Only a few of them have been involved in oil—oil spill related activities. 

The majority we have had no evidence of any oil damage. We 

have had close to eight or nine dolphins in our area, and so far 

none of them have been involved in any oil spill activity. 

The Horizon oil spill is one of the largest in U.S. history. The 

Mississippi Sound and adjacent waters are a very unique habitat 

consisting of bays, bayous, estuaries, marshes, and barrier islands. 

The northern Gulf is shallow, has a mud and clay bottom, and the 

tidal exchange is low as compared to other areas. The region is also 

very rich in fishery resources and produces a substantial amount 

of seafood. If the oil well is not capped quickly, the effects of the 

oil spill on the habitat and its wildlife could be catastrophic; and 

the time for recovery would be dependent on the amount of oil 

spilled in the environment and the time of exposure. 

Crude oil is a very complex chemical compound and it’s degradation is extremely complex as well. Many crude oil components can 

enter the food chain and affect the productivity of the ecosystem. 

The potential effect of the oil spill including the large amount of 

dispersants used will not only effect the ecosystem but could also 

effect the livelihoods of commercial and recreational fishermen and 

tourism. This in turn could be a domino effect, have a domino effect 

on the regional and national economies. 

Oil exploration, like many other activities, has its benefits and 

risks. We believe that prudent development and use of our resources require adequate safeguards as well as safety net to protect 

the environment and those that make a living from it. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Solangi follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 76584A.016

Testimony of Dr. Moby SoJangi 

Before the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

June 7, 2010 

My name is Moby Solangi. I received my Ph.D. in marine biology in 1980 from the 

University of Southern Mississippi. The subject of my research was the effects of south 

Louisiana crude oil on benthic and pelagic fishes, which focused on the pathological changes 

in vital organs of these fishes exposed to both whole crude oil and its water-soluble fractions, 

and the potential recovery once the toxicant was removed. For the past 30 years I have 

worked with marine mammals, specifically dolphins, and sea turtles in the region. 

The waters of the Mississippi, Chandeleur, and Breton Sounds and the adjacent waters of the 

north central Gulf of Mexico (nGOM) are home to one of the largest dolphin populations in 

the United States. The Sounds are also inhabited by several other endangered, threatened, and 

protected wildlife species. Dolphins are an important part of the ecosystem, and, being on the 

top of the food chain, are good biological indicators of the health of the environment they 

inhabit. They are constantly impacted by a variety of both natural and anthropogenic factors. 

In the aftermath of the Horizon oil spill, it is now even more necessary and important to 

study the potential changes that may occur in both the dolphins and their habitat as a result of 

the oil spill. 

The Institute for Marine Mammal Studies ("IMMS") was established in 1984 as a non-profit 

501 (c) (3) organization dedicated to education, conservation, and research on marine 

mammals and their environment in the wild and in captivity. It serves as a liaison between 

public and private entities interested in marine mammal science. Subjects of research have 

covered a broad range of scientific disciplines including population dynamics, underwater 

acoustics, health, genetics, microbiology, endocrinology, behavior, biomagnetism and 

ecology. The Institute has conducted studies in cooperation with scientists from the 

University of Southern Mississippi, Mississippi State University, Jackson State University, 

Oklahoma State University, Portland State University, University of Miami, University of 

California, Berkeley, National Marine Fisheries Service, Naval Ocean Systems Center, 

Louisiana State University, and the Naval Research Laboratory. 

IMMS is the only organization in the Gulf Coast states of Mississippi and Alabama with the 

capability and expertise to care for sick and injured marine mammals while simultaneously 

conducting progranls in education, conservation, and research of marine mammals. IMMS 

has been a participant of the National Stranding Network for over 25 years, and, as a 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designee, has been involved in the care and 

rehabilitation of sick and injured marine animals in the Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama subregion. In fact, the Institute has developed a full service marine mammal research and 

rehabilitation center in Gulfport, Mississippi. 

The Horizon oil spill is one of the largest in US History. The Mississippi Sound and adjacent 

waters are a very unique habitat consisting of bays, bayous, estuaries, marshes, and barrier 

islands. The nGOM is shallow, has a mud and clay bottom, and the tidal exchange is low as 
57 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 76584A.017

compared to other areas. The region is also very rich in fishery resources, and produces a 

substantial amount of seafood. [f the oil well is not capped quickly, the effects of the oil spill 

on the habitat and its wildlife could be catastrophic, and the time for recovery would be 

dependant on the amount of oil spilled in the environment and time of exposure. 

Crude oil is a very complex chemical compound, and its degradation is extremely complex as 

well. Many crude oil components can enter the food chain and affect the productivity of the 

ecosystem. The potential effects of the oil spill, including the large amount of dispersants 

used, will not only affect the ecosystem, but could also affect the livelihoods of commercial 

and recreational fishermen, and tourism. This in turn could have a domino effect on the 

regional and national economy. 

Oil exploration, like many other activities, has its benefits and risks. We believe that prudent 

development and use of our resources require adequate safeguards, as well as a safety net to 

protect the enviromnent and those that make a living from it. 
58 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Ms. Subra, your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF WILMA SUBRA, PRESIDENT, SUBRA COMPANY 

Ms. SUBRA. Thank you for the opportunity of presenting to this 

subcommittee. My name is Wilma Subra, and I’m providing testimony on behalf of Subra Company, Louisiana Environmental Action Network and the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper. 

There are two human populations that are experiencing the most 

exposure due to the BP crude oil spill. One, community members 

along the coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the 

upper Florida coast; and two, fishermen and workers employed to 

install booms and clean up the crude oil spill. 

BP’s ongoing crude oil spill has resulted in the formation of crude 

oil aerosols in the air. The aerosols have moved onshore way ahead 

of the crude oil slick and continue to move onshore along with the 

crude oil slick. 

These crude oil slick aerosols have caused and/or continuing to 

cause community members to experience odors along the coast of 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the upper Florida coast. 

In Louisiana and the other states, the crude oil aerosol has resulted in health impacts, including headaches, nausea, respiratory 

impacts, irritation to eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and asthma attacks. These health impacts have been experienced by people living 

along the Louisiana coastal areas in St. Bernard, where we are 

here today, Plaquemines, Jefferson, Lafourche, and Terrebonne 

Parishes, as well as the metropolitan area of New Orleans. 

New Orleans is at mile marker 100. That means it is 100 miles 

south of the mouth of the Mississippi and it is—people in New Orleans are also having these severe health impacts. 

These symptoms have also been experienced by workers and fisherman in the general area of the crude oil slick and the marshes 

and the estuaries where the oil has come ashore. The EPA Web 

site clearly says some of these chemicals may cause short-lived effects like headaches, eye, nose and throat irritations and nausea. 

In order to offset the loss of livelihood, BP was encouraged to 

hire the local fishermen who have first-hand knowledge of the wetlands, marshes, and water bodies. These fishermen were hired to 

install the booms and to start cleaning up the spilled oil and the 

absorbent pads. 

On May the 4th, 2010, Louisiana Environmental Action Network 

and Louisiana Riverkeeper received and began distributing protective gear to the fishers to utilize during their cleanup activities. 

These protective gear consisted of face respirators with organic cartridges, goggles, gloves and sleeve protectors. LEAN and LMRK 

continue to distribute these equipment to the fishing community 

and to individuals who have gone into the polluted area. 

Workers hired by BP began reporting health symptoms such as, 

severe headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, and dizziness. However, the workers were very reluctant to speak out because they 

were scared they would lose the job and this was the only source 

of income they had. The wives, however, were speaking out because 

they were very concerned about their husbands. And then all of a 

sudden, the wives got really quiet because they were scared their 

husbands were going to lose the jobs if they testified. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

LDEQ and L–Department of Health and Hospitals has stated 

that oil cleanup workers should avoid skin contact and oral cavity 

or nasal passage exposure to the oil spill products by using appropriate clothing, respiratory protection, gloves, and boots. 

On May 7th we went to U.S. District Court on behalf of the fishermen because they were challenging BP, who didn’t want to provide them proper training and proper equipment; and a consent decree was signed by BP that they would be responsible for appropriate training as well as proper protective equipment, yet BP continued to fail to provide adequate protective gear to the fishermen. 

Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK have provided information to 

the EPA on the lack of compliance by BP with the terms of the consent decree as well as OSHA not being there to protect the workers 

as they dealt with the oil. 

On May 16th OSHA finally issued a detailed directive of the 

kinds of training that were required for each different kind of task 

as well as having required BP to provide the appropriate gear. Still 

BP failed to provide respirators to the workers exposed to the crude 

oil and the workers experienced health impacts over and over and 

over again. However, when the—some of the fishers brought their 

respirators on the boats with them, BP told them to put the respirator away or leave the job, you are fired. 

Shrimpers that have been employed to do the booms are actually 

pulling in the booms with the oil on it from their shrimp boats with 

bare hands and no protective gear. As stated earlier, on May 26th 

and 28th, there were workers that were injured and brought to the 

hospital and they complained of headache, nausea, dizziness, and 

chest pains, then OSHA finally began to inform BP of their deficiencies as far as their worker safety programs. 

Let me just say that even after OSHA did this, the issue now becomes heat stress. One of the issues OSHA was pointing out to BP 

was they didn’t have adequate protection of the workers from heat 

stress. So now the word on the street is you cannot use a respirator 

because it increases your risk of heat stress. However, if we are in 

a situation where the workers are being exposed to heat as well as 

the toxic organic chemicals from the spill, they should be protected 

against both insults, not using heat stress to allow them to continue to inhale the toxic chemicals. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Subra follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 76584A.018

Subra Company 

P. O. Box 9813 

New Iberia, LA 70562 

Testimony of Wilma Subra 

Subra Company 

Louisiana Environmental Action Network 

Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

of the House Energy and Commerce Committee 

on 

Local Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 

Human Health and Environmental Impacts Associated 

with the Deepwater Horizon Crude Oil Spill Disaster 

June 7, 2010 

St. Bernard Council Chambers, Chalmette, Louisiana 

My name is Wilma Subra and I am testifying on behalf of Subra 

Company, Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) and the 

Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper (LMRK). Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify on the issues of human health and 

environmental impacts associated with the Deepwater Horizon 

Crude Oil Spill 
61 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 76584A.019

I have been involved with oil and gas drilling and production 

issues and the associated environmental and human health impacts 

for more than 30 years and serve as a technical advisor to 

community groups on the issues. I have served on the EPA 

Common Sense Initiative, Petroleum Refining Sector Subcommittee, 

the National Commission on Superfund, the EPA Permit Reform 

Committee, EPA Toxics Data Reporting Committee of the National 

Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, EPA 

RCRA Remedial Waste Policy Advisory Committee, Vice-Chair of EPA 

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology 

(NACEPT), Co-Chair of the EPA NACEPT Standing Committee on 

Industrial Sectors, EPA NACEPT Petroleum Refining Sector 

Workgroup, EPA National Advisory Committee (NAC) to the U.S. 

Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

(CEC), EPA National Environmental Justice Advisory Council 

(NEJAC), Superfund Subcommittee, EPA National Environmental 

Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), Co-Chair of the Pollution 

Prevention Work Group, EPA National Environmental Justice 

Advisory Council (NEJAC) Cumulative Risk/Impacts Work Group, EPA 

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) Gulf Coast 

Hurricanes Work Group, EPA Class II Injection Well Advisory 

Committee, board member of the State Review of Oil and Natural 

Gas Environmental Regulations Board (STRONGER), board member 

of EARTHWORKS, founding member of the Oil and Gas 

Accountability Project, advisor to the Texas Oil and Gas 

Accountability Project, and member of the STRONGER workgroup 

that developed Hydraulic Fracturing Guidelines. 

Human Health and Environmental Impacts Associated with 

the Deepwater Horizon Crude Oil Spill Disaster 

On April 20, 2010, the BP Deepwater Horizon drilling rig 

exploded and burned in the Gulf of Mexico, 50 miles off the 

Louisiana coast. The explosion resulted in the deaths of 1 1 

2 
62 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 76584A.020

workers on the drilling rig. On April 22, 2010, Earth Day, the 

Deepwater Horizon drilling rig sank into the Gulf of Mexico. The rig 

separated from the riser pipe that had connected the rig to the 

well head (5,000 feet below the surface) on the Gulf of Mexico 

floor. Crude oil and natural gas flowed from the riser pipe into the 

Gulf of Mexico and created the largest spill in US history. 

The crude oil spill resulted in and continues to result in severe 

environmental damage to the Gulf of Mexico and the coastal 

wetlands and estuaries along the coastal areas of Louisiana The 

crude oil spill has also resulted in human health impacts to 

residents in the coastal communities and to workers toiling to 

contain and clean up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico and the coastal 

wetlands and estuaries. 

Louisiana has 7,721 miles of tidal shorelines, The coastal 

areas of Louisiana are the most abundant and vulnerable to 

negative impacts from the crude oil spill. The fragile wetlands, 

estuaries and near shore waters of Louisiana serve as spawning 

and nursery grounds for Louisiana seafood that provides or did 

provide a large portion of the seafood consumed in the United 

States. These wetlands and estuaries in eight of the nine coastal 

parishes, St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, Lafourche, 

Terrebonne, St. Mary, Iberia, and Vermilion parishes, have received 

floating crude oil, dispersed crude oil plus dispersants and tar 

balls from the BP Deepwater Horizon Drilling Disaster. The 

wetlands and estuaries in these parishes have been severely 

impacted and continue to be impacted as the crude oil continues 

to come on shore. 

Fishing grounds from the mouth of the Mississippi River to 

Pensacola, Florida were shut down on April 30, 2010. The fishing 

grounds west of the mouth of the MIssissippi River to Grand Isle 

were shut down in early May. As the crude oil plume moved to 

the west, additional fishing ground were closed. The livelihood of 

3 
63 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 76584A.021

the fishing community was instantly removed. The environmental 

impacts of the crude oil spill will negatively impact the wetlands, 

marshes and estuaries for decades into the future. 

Crude Oil Aerosols and Associated Health Impacts 

BP's crude oil spill and ongoing failure to control the source of 

the spill have resulted in the formation of crude oil aerosols in the 

air which have moved on shore ahead of the crude oil slick and 

continues to move on shore. These crude oil aerosols have 

caused community members along the coast of Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to experience odors. In Louisiana, 

the crude oil aerosols have resulted in health impacts including 

headaches, nausea, respiratory impacts, irritation to eyes, nose, 

throat and lungs and asthma attacks and have been experienced 

by people living along the coastal areas in St. Bernard, 

Plaquemines, Jefferson, Lafourche and Terrebonne parishes as 

well as in the New Orleans metropolitan area. These symptoms 

have also been experienced by workers and fishermen in the 

general area of the crude oil slick and areas where tar balls have 

washed onshore. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) web site state 

"some of these chemicals may cause short-lived effects like 

headache, eye, nose and throat irritation, or nausea." 

Local Fishermen Hired To Contain and Cleanup the Crude 

Oil Spill and Resulting Health Impacts 

In order to offset the loss of livelihood, BP was encouraged to 

hire local fishermen, who have first hand knowledge of the 

wetlands, marshes and water bodies, to install booms and 

absorbent pads to protect the coastal areas and estuaries and to 

participate in the crude oil cleanup activities. As part of the 

4 
64 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 76584A.022

agreement for employment, the fishermen were required to sign 

an agreement that seriously compromised their existing and future 

rights and potential legal claims. After a court appearance in U. S. 

District Court on May 2, 2010, Judge Berrigan indicated the 

language in the agreement was over broad and Legal Counsel for 

BP agreed to enter into a stipulated judgment holding that the 

offensive provisions were without effect. 

On May 4, 2010, Louisiana Environmental Action Network 

(LEAN) and Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper (LMRK) received and 

began distributing protective gear to the fishermen to utilize 

during cleanup activities. The protective gear consisted of half 

face respirators with organic cartridges, goggles, gloves and 

sleeve protectors. LEAN and LMRK have continued to provide 

protective gear to fishermen and individuals going into the 

polluted areas. 

Workers hired by BP began reporting health symptoms such as 

severe headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, and dizziness. 

However, the workers including the fishermen were reluctant to 

report their health symptoms for fear they would lose their jobs. 

The wives of the fishermen spoke out over concern for the health 

of their husbands. Soon the wives stopped speaking out for fear 

their husbands would loose their jobs. 

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and 

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospital (LDHH) stated that oil 

cleanup workers "should avoid skin contact, and oral cavity or 

nasal passage exposure to oil spill products [by] using 

appropriate clothing, respiratory protection, gloves and boots." 

On May 7, 2010, returning to U.S. District Court, the fishermen 

challenged BPs attempt to put the responsibility for compliance 

with technical safety laws related to hazardous substances on the 

5 
65 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 76584A.023

fishermen. Judge Engelhardt ordered a consent agreement 

wherein BP agreed to take responsibility to ensure workers 

were properly trained in Haz-mat protocol and provided all 

necessary equipment at BP's expense. 

BP continued to fail to provide adequate protective gear to 

the fishermen. Subra Company, LEAN, and LMRK provided 

information to the EPA on the lack of compliance by BP with the 

terms of the consent agreement in not providing proper training 

and protective gear to the employed fishermen, and the lack of 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

enforcement of worker safety regulations in conjunction with the 

response efforts. 

On May 16, 2010, OSHA issued a detailed directive on the 

training required for specific task responders and stated that 

OSHA has officials monitoring the training and observing cleanup 

efforts to insure that the cleanup workers are provided 

protective equipment and comprehensive instruction. 

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 respirators. 

Shrimpers employed to use their shrimp boats as oil skimmers 

have not been provided with the appropriate protective gear. 

The oily skimmers and pads are being pulled into the shrimp boats, 

by the boat crews, with bare hands and no protective gear. 

On May 26, 2010, a number of worker became ill on the job 

and were transported to the hospital. The workers reported 

6 
66 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 76584A.024

headaches, nausea, dizziness and chest pains. On Friday, Nay 28 

two additional workers became ill with severe headaches and 

chest pains and were also transported to the hospital. 

The protection, safety and health of the fishermen and other 

workers performing the deployment of booms, collecting the 

crude oil residue and cleaning up the environment are of great 

concern to Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK. 

Decisions Have Resulted in Detrimental Impacts to Human 

Health and the Environment 

Decision have been made that have and will continue to result 

in detrimental impacts to human health and the environment as a 

trade off for attempts to reduce the quantity of crude oil from 

reaching the shores, estuaries and wetlands of the northern Gulf 

of Mexico. 

The actions to reduce the quantity of crude oil slick from 

reaching the shores, estuaries and wetlands of the northern Gulf 

of Mexico have included burning of the floating heavy portions of 

the crude oil slick, application of dispersants to the floating crude 

oil slick and subsurface application of dispersants to the crude oil 

near the point it flows into gulf waters near the well head, 5,000 

feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. These actions have 

resulted in negative impacts to human health by polluting the air, 

by burning of the heavy portions of the crude oil slick, and by 

aerial and ship board application of dispersants. The actions have 

had detrimental impacts to the water column, sediment, biota and 

wetland areas by dispersing the crude oil into the water column, 

sediments and wetland areas. The dispersing of the crude oil also 

has resulted in a much larger area of impact in the Gulf of Mexico 

than has been covered by the surface crude oil spill. 

7 
67 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 76584A.025

The failure to control the source of the crude oil spill has 

resulted in the shutting down and evacuation of five production 

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico due to the presence of the crude 

oil slick in the area of the platforms. Other well locations have 

been warned to be prepared to shut-in their production and 

evacuate. One rig had to be shut-in due to workers on the rig 

becoming ill from the air emissions from the crude oil slick. 

Surface and Subsurface Application of Dispersants 

BP is using the dispersants Corexit 9527 and Corexit 9500 to 

disperse the surface crude oil as well as the crude oil as it exits 

the well head, 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. 

These dispersants were preapproved for surface application for 

oil spills on water. The dispersants were not preapproved for 

sub-surface applications. Corexit 9527 contains propylene glycol 

and 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE). Corexit 9500 contains propylene 

glycol. The other components in the dispersants are proprietary. 

Propylene glycol and 2-BE are toxic and bioaccumulate up the food 

chain. 

Initially BP used Corexit 9527 to disperse the crude oil on the 

surface of the Gulf waters through the use of air planes. When 

the supply ran out, BP switched to the slightly less toxic Corexit 

9500. Additional supplies of Corexit 9527 were secured and are 

currently being used on an ongoing basis. The application of the 

dispersant to the crude oil on the waters surface is being applied 

by air planes and boats. 

Because the dispersants were not preapproved for sub-sea 

application, the Environmental Protection Agency required that the 

use of the dispersant sub-sea be suspended until test could be 

performed. The first two testing efforts were flawed. The third 

test was performed May 10th and 11 tho As a result of the 

8 
68 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 76584A.026

testing, the EPA and NOAA approved the use of the dispersant for 

subsurface application on Friday, May 14, 2010. The use of the 

dispersant for sub-sea application must follow requirements 

established in the EPA's Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment 

Directive. The Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive 

should have included requirements to monitor sediments, 

establishment of requirements for a monitoring grid system and 

frequency of monitoring, establishment of action levels which 

require discontinuation of application of the dispersant when the 

action levels are exceeded, and analysis of the dispersants in the 

water column and the air. 

The dispersants being used by BP suspends the crude oil from 

the surface water into the entire water column and the sediment 

of the Gulf of Mexico. The dispersed crude oil and dispersants 

distribute throughout the water column, contaminate the water 

and sediment and damages and destroys aquatic species. The 

dispersed oil will be washed on shore and contaminate the 

wetlands and estuaries, will be distributed in the Gulf waters and 

sediments and serve as a source of contamination that will 

bioaccumulate up the food chain for a long period of time. In 

addition, the dispersed crude oil and dispersants will add 

additional stresses to the Dead Zone off the Louisiana coast. 

The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Department 

of Environmental Quality and Department of Wildlife and Fisher 

expressed their concerns to BP about the potential dispersant 

impacts on Louisiana's wildlife and fisheries, environment and 

public health. The agencies are concerned about the impacts of 

the use of the dispersants and requested BP's commitment that 

the dispersants being used will not cause irreparable, short-term 

or long-term harm to our wetlands, coast, environment, marine life 

wildlife or people. 

9 
69 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 76584A.027

NOAA has issued predicted maps of the location of the oil slick 

plume along the coastal areas of the northern Gulf of Mexico on a 

daily basis. Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK have consistently 

requested that the federal agencies prepare and issue maps of 

the dispersed oil plume in order to prepare for the consequences 

of the movement of the dispersed crude oil and dispersants. 

Work of Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK 

Each decision being made in response to the Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill event has some positive and some very negative 

impacts to human health, the environment and the ecosystems 

along the coastal areas of the Northern Gulf of Mexico. These 

decision are being made for the most part by the federal agencies 

that make up the Incident Command and with limited input from the 

populations most impacted by these decisions. 

Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK have worked extensively with 

the communities being impacted by this catastrophic disaster to 

monitor the ongoing activities and detrimental impacts, provide 

information, education, and methods of addressing the situations, 

engage the communities in the response efforts and decision 

making processes and provide protective gear to community 

members and workers being exposed to the environmental 

impacts of the disaster. 

Health Survey Instrument 

In order to capture and document the human heath impacts 

resulting from the various aspects of the Deepwater Horizon 

crude oil and natural gas spill, Subra Company developed a human 

health survey instrument and through LEAN, provided the 

instrument to community members in the impacted areas and areas 

to be impacted. The results of the human health impacts 

10 
70 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 76584A.028

documented in the surveys will be used to assess the severity 

and magnitude of the human health impacts associated with the 

Deepwater Horizon disaster. 

Request 

Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK need the assistance of the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Energy and 

Commerce Committee and the federal governmental agencies in 

order to protect the health of coastal community members and 

the fishermen from the destructive impacts associated with the 

crude oil disaster and desperately need the existing laws and 

regulations to be enforced. 

Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK would like to thank the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the opportunity 

to provide information on the human health and environmental 

impacts associated with the Deepwater Horizon crude oil spill 

disaster. 

11 
71 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. And thank you all for your testimony. 

We will begin with questions, if we may. I’ll begin on Dr. Solangi. 

In your testimony, I’m looking at the second page, you indicate 

that if the oil well is not capped quickly, the effects of the oil spill 

on the habitat, on its wildlife, could be catastrophic and the time 

for recovery would be dependent upon the amount of the oil spill 

in the environment and the time of exposure. But my question is: 

You know, how do you cap the well, stop the flow of oil, but then 

you have to have some cleanup and it’s still going to be around for 

a time before the water waste purges itself of this oil, correct? 

Mr. SOLANGI. That’s correct. One of my—part of my research 

was—in the ’80s was, of course, you expose animals to oil for different concentrations and the question was how soon can they recover. And so it was really dependent upon the time of exposure, 

for how long did you expose both the pelagic and benthic organisms 

and how long it took for them to recover. And we did find amazingly that nature has a way to recover, but the speed of recovery 

depends upon how much they are exposed to and how long they are 

exposed to it; and that’s what I was referring to. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, I showed this ad earlier by—by British Petroleum, and I bring it out because yesterday we were down south of 

Venice there where the mouth of the Gulf Coast and in the 

marshes there we saw some oil. There’s really no way you can get 

in there and clean that up, is there? 

Mr. SOLANGI. It is very difficult and it’s going to take a natural 

process. One of the biggest problems with this particular disaster 

is that it’s very difficult to mitigate these issues. You know, we are 

all very familiar with hurricanes and earthquakes. We can build 

roads, but it’s—you know, it’s going to take time for nature to fix 

itself. 

Mr. STUPAK. In the area we were yesterday, Pass a Loutro—am 

I saying that right—Pass a Loutre ́ or Pass a Loutre ́, they said 90 

percent of that area is affected; and the only way you can really 

flush this out, clean this out is really through the Louisiana or Mississippi River flushing itself naturally, right? 

Mr. SOLANGI. That’s—that’s correct. That’s one part of it. Of 

course, there will be natural degradation; there will be bacteria; 

there will be other processes that will take care of eliminating the 

oil, but it will take time depending upon how much oil there is. 

Small amounts for small periods of time, nature has its way of taking care of it. 

We do have natural seepages of oil in different places and nature 

takes—but this has been the most concentrated amount of oil that 

is coming through; and if it continues to come through, you are 

going to see a prolonged exposure and a prolonged effect. 

Mr. STUPAK. So the initial effects of the oil on animals or—or any 

of our aquatic life really depends on the time of exposure; and I’m 

sure each species must depend on what amount initially affects it. 

It just depends on each species, right? 

Mr. SOLANGI. Yes, Congressman, that’s an excellent question. 

The lady to my left had mentioned about inhalation, and probably 

it’s a hundred miles away. Many of these animals breathe right on 

the surface or close to where the oil spill is, so you do get respiratory problems, marine mammals specifically. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

And just like you and I, they breathe the air and they give birth, 

they give milk to their young ones and they eat the fish that is contaminated, so it’s really compounded considerably when these animals are very close to the surface or to the spill. And so I think 

it’s going to be a very significant issue in mitigating the after effects. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Duplessis, did you indicate—did you receive the $5,000 check from BP initially for your loss of revenue? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Yes, I did. 

Mr. STUPAK. Nothing since then. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. No. I met just yesterday with an adjuster and he said that I would be getting another $5,000 check. 

Mr. STUPAK. I was reading that shrimpers can go out, maybe 

earn 5 and 6,000 a day if they have a good day, right? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. That’s—that’s right. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. So like Mister—so like Mr. Cooper, Acy Cooper, 

was going to testify today, but he was asked to go out and do some 

cleanup. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Right. 

Mr. STUPAK. So he’s been, what, head of the Louisiana Shrimp 

Association, so this was his opportunity, so unfortunately he 

couldn’t be here today. He took the opportunity to work. 

I also read like it’s almost like a lottery, like—or I don’t want to 

say a lottery, but you might work for a few days on the cleanup, 

but it’s a month later before you are called again. So you get the 

$5,000 check for working for a few days or I guess like an initial 

payment? I guess I’m trying to figure it out. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. The $5,000 checks that they have been giving out 

to the commercial fishermen is supposed to be to—in mitigation for 

lost wages, for lost income. Now—— 

Mr. STUPAK. But that’s only a day’s work. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Right. 

Mr. STUPAK. For shrimpers. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Yes. Well, don’t—I mean we—shrimpers make— 

we might make $5,000 per day, but then we have these long down 

periods that we don’t. 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. We don’t have income at all. But, for example, 

the first time I met with the adjuster, my wife and I sat there and 

he asked the question, ‘‘Well, how much are you losing this month 

and how much do you expect us to—to pay you?’’ 

Mr. STUPAK. Right. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Well, my wife went through the paper and she 

said, ‘‘Well, last May we made $27,000.’’ And he says, ‘‘Well, we are 

going to give you a check for $5,000 now and you give us your proof 

of income and next month we’ll—we’ll finalize these adjustments.’’ 

Well, I just met again with them yesterday and another $5,000 

check is what we are going to get, what they promised to me anyway. 

Mr. STUPAK. So you are still $17,000 short for one month. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. For one month, yes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, let me ask you this: BP puts out things, these 

daily statements on what they are doing; and they said more than 

2,600 vessels are now involved in response effort including skimVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:09 Feb 09, 2013 Jkt 076584 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A584.XXX A584

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

mers, tugs, barges, and recovery vehicles? So that would be some 

of the shrimpers and other people working in the Gulf going out 

there. There’s not 2,600 vehicles out there today. There’s been— 

that’s like the cumulative amount over the last seven weeks, 49 

days, since this spill’s been going on, right? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Well, my name’s been on the list from day one. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. And I have yet to get a call from BP to go to 

work. 

Mr. STUPAK. So your boat’s never been out there. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. My boat’s never been out there. 

Mr. STUPAK. So you might be out on—you might be one of those 

2,600 vessels that they speak of, but your boat’s never seen the 

water. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. That’s a possibility. I don’t know. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. My time is expired. Thank you. Mr. Burgess for 

questions. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr.—no, let’s stay with you for just a moment. Now, the $5,000—and, again, as a student of the 

consumable crustacean, I thank you for what you do and your contribution to the country’s economy, and it is important that we get 

you up and running. The $5,000 payment that you get, is that like a—how is that 

being treated, as business interruption insurance? 

Are you taxed on that? Is that to go—just to pay your overhead 

that you are not able to pay but not anything for—for your income? 

What—what is that—what does that $5,000 represent? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. BP’s explanation is this is payment in lieu of 

final settlement. 

Mr. BURGESS. OK. So it’s a—it’s a temper rising measure on 

their part. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. That’s their explanation to me. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I would never tell the IRS, but how are you 

and your accountant handling that; is that taxable income to you. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Oh, I would imagine it is. Yes, I would say it is? 

Mr. BURGESS. It’s not treated as business interruption insurance, 

which obviously would be an insurance payment that would come 

to your business that would then not be taxed. At least that’s my 

understanding, but I’m not an accountant, so don’t take that to the 

bank. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Yes. I would have to talk to my accountant about 

that. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Linn, you are from Alabama. Mr. Stupak is 

not the only one in a newspaper. Wall Street Journal, this morning 

reading on the plane down here on the way from Texas, talking 

about the—how emotions are boiling over in Alabama. A BP official 

met with local leaders on Saturday to discuss cleanup efforts and 

he was threatened with incarceration. ‘‘I’ve got a solution. We can 

put you in our jail and you can sit there until you figure it out,’’ 

Edward Carol, the city councilman in Orange Beach, Florida [sic], 

told Bob Fryer, a BP senior vice-president. Is that pretty reflective 

of the—of the feeling back home? 

Mr. LINN. It is rapidly escalating in terms of frustration. We— 

the gentleman here was talking about the boating situation of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

2,600 vessels. We were told—we had—we invited BP to speak at 

a chamber meeting, too, for our local businesses. They told us basically that there they had 1,400 vessels. 

They had 400 contracted, they had 400 in waiting, and 50 on the 

water, which kind of blew us away. 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes. 

Mr. LINN. Now, we were not in—we were beginning the war with 

the tar balls and the things. You know, we weren’t totally slammed 

at that point, but that was sort of the attitude. 

The money situation is the same—same thing. The 5,000 has 

been given out just almost as if it’s more a marketing ploy than 

it really is an accounting ploy. They are coming back with second 

payments to some of the folks, but the vessels of opportunity folks 

that have signed on that actually have been called and are working 

have not seen monies as of this morning at 9:00 when I called. The businesses, when you talk about $5,000, we have a $60,000 

a year—a month overhead for my business, so I would get two and 

a half days out of that. That’s why I ended up saying, OK, I’ve got 

to do something else. I’ve got to go—I am now doing an SBA loan, 

which I had no intentions of having to try to borrow again but this 

is on and above another one that we had from the hurricanes, of 

course. It’s the only way we are going to keep our business alive 

is to have cash flow. We do not feel that BP is going to be stepping 

up to the plate. 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, but an SBA loan with no end in sight to this, 

I mean how—how are you going to manage that aspect of the cash 

flow? 

Mr. LINN. Our problem right now is survival over the next six 

months. I feel that between you guys, everybody stepping into the 

plate up here and then helping us out, I feel that there will have 

to be some help from BP coming down the road. We have approximately two months left of cash flow. 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes. I’m going to interrupt you. I agree with you 

there. There will have to be some help. 

Dr. Subra, let me just ask you a question. You detailed the safety 

concerns that you have. Where is the EPA in this? I mean this is 

federal oil. These are federal hydrocarbons produced on federal 

land. You talked about OSHA, you know. You talked about Louisiana Health and Human Services, but should not the EPA be out 

there front and center issuing—to heck with what BP says. The 

EPA should be giving the directive for these people to have protective gear. 

We just finished a very contentious 9-11 bill in our committee 

where the EPA, under a different administration, was excoriated 

for not having done more to protect the people who were sent to 

do the cleanup of the 9-11 site, and now Congress is—is left taking 

care of—taking care of their disabilities for the rest of their natural 

lives. Why is the EPA not more proactive in this—in this environment, in this emergency? 

Ms. SUBRA. We’ve been—we have been working with the EPA 

from the very beginning on this, and they have put up monitors on 

the shore on—on the solid land. There are three in Chalmette from 

Arabi south, and then there are three in the Venice area and then 

they also have mobile monitors. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

EPA is telling us that BP is responsible for doing the monitoring 

out in the areas over the slick and in the boats and in the area 

that the workers are working in. That data supposedly has been 

given to EPA, but EPA has not made that public. And we have 

asked for that now for over a week and a half, to receive the BP 

data so we can see exactly what they are monitoring and if they 

are monitoring for the right thing and what kind of conditions because we know the fishers are sick. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, it seems like the EPA should assert its authority and cause BP to put protective gear—make the protective 

gear available to the people who are involved in the cleanup. After 

all, it was BP’s fault that they are out there having to clean the 

stuff up in the first place. Just my observation, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Mr. Braley for questions, please. 

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to focus on 

the BP claims process because BP has repeatedly stated to this 

committee and to the public and the press, we will pay all legitimate claims. 

And when I missed the tour of the marshes last night because 

of a flight delay in Dallas, I got in the car and I drove down to Venice in a monsoon. And as I was driving back last night, I saw a 

sign on the side of the road that I think captures the attitude of 

most people in the Gulf Coast toward BP right now, and it said, 

‘‘Damn BP, God bless America.’’ 

And I think that’s how these witnesses who have gone through 

so much in the past 40 days feel about what’s happening to them, 

their way of life, their families, and that’s why this hearing is so 

important. Because when I was down in Venice, I saw a lot of vessels that were sitting in dock. And when I talked to the folks down 

there, they told me they hadn’t been out in days or weeks, even 

though they were hired by BP. 

So one of the things I want to talk to Mr. Duplessis and Mr. Linn 

about is this BP claims process. We have heard that they created 

a claims process for fishermen and for small business owners impacted by the spill. And, Mr. Duplessis, you talked a little bit about 

how that claims process worked; but as I understand it, you are required to present documentation, and if you are a boat captain or 

a deckhand, you can receive from 5,000—up to $5,000 per check up 

front. Can you tell us a little bit about how that process actually 

works; do you know? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. From the start or when they started the program, they sent out a list of things that we would need for proof 

of income for them to mitigate this. They wanted three years of income tax records; they wanted trip tickets, which are tickets that 

we use on most of the shrimping and oystering logbooks for the 

oyster people; and I went in with everything they requested. The 

guy almost looked like he didn’t want it. He just—he took the three 

years of income tax records because my wife had already made— 

made copies for them to take. I—I almost had to—I forced him to 

take it. 

Here, you want it, I’ve got it. And they issued me the following day—gave me a check for $5,000 and said that this was not payment in full. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

And I might add when the payment process—when they first 

started the program, I—I was a week or two into the process before 

I—I did mine. The attorneys, local attorneys and the state’s attorneys read the paperwork that they had the fishermen sign, and 

they were actually signing paperwork that was releasing BP from 

liability when they signed this paperwork. 

Mr. BRALEY. So they—they were requiring you to sign—— 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Yes. 

Mr. BRALEY [continuing]. A waiver against future—— 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Exactly. 

Mr. BRALEY [continuing]. Claims in order to get this upfront payment? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Exactly. 

Mr. BRALEY. And I’ll bet you nobody explained that to you when 

you applied for that first payment? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Well, by the time I got there, the state’s attorney 

was all over BP and made them do away with this paperwork. 

Mr. BRALEY. But it was after some of the—— 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Oh, yes. 

Mr. BRALEY [continuing]. Had already received payments and 

signed that paper for them to waive claims? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Yes. But they also made them take those paper— 

papers and null and void them. 

Mr. BRALEY. Now, you indicated in your opening statement you 

had a thousand questions and no answers. Is there anything about 

your experience with the BP claims process you would like the 

American people to know, Mr. Duplessis? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. It’s a cluster. It’s a total mess. Just three days 

ago, there were three adjusters in this building taking claims. 

Three fishermen would walk out and each one was told different 

things from each individual adjuster. One fisherman, he’s a good 

friend of mine, told me that the adjuster basically threatened him 

by telling him that, hey, you have a big—very large top line here 

on your taxes and your—your bottom line is very small. We want 

to put you on notice that you are going to get payment on this bottom line, not your gross income. 

Mr. BRALEY. Mr. Duplessis, my father enlisted in the Marine 

Corps when he was 17 and served on Iwo Jima, and I just recently 

interviewed my cousin who served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam 

during the Tet Offensive. You are the embodiment of the Marine 

Corps motto of Semper Fidelis, always faithful, and I’m very grateful you came here and shared your story here with us today. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Thank you so much. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Those adjusters, are they BP representatives or insurance companies for BP? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. I think they are hired, contracted adjusters. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Mr. Markey for questions, please. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, said 

that BP would pay for all legitimate claims of fishermen, of tourism—tourism based industries. You presented your bills, your profits from last May and it was $27,000, but they only gave you a 

check for $5,000. What did they say to you? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. They said that this was not a final settlement, 

that there would be—this was only the beginning of the process. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

In—in other words, what they are saying is that they—they are 

just giving this amount of money to us to hold us over until 

final—— 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS [continuing]. Mitigation, but—— 

Mr. MARKEY. BP made $6 billion in January and February and 

March of 2010. They say they are going to pay every legitimate 

claim. You walk in with your tax records proving that last May you 

made $27,000, so what did BP say to you? They’ll wait later or are 

they just waiting you out? Are they just waiting for the—kind of 

the storm to pass and they won’t have to pay all these claims for 

all of the fishermen? Because that’s what I suspect their real plan 

is. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. I’m just hoping that it doesn’t end up the way 

I’m thinking it will: When the storm’s over, they’re going to pack 

their bags and leave us. 

Mr. MARKEY. You know, there’s a law right now that does protect 

them against having to pay—— 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. I know that. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. Any more than $75 million to all of the 

fishermen of the Gulf, to all of the tourism industry of the Gulf. 

They are only really responsible for cleaning up the mess out in the 

ocean. But in terms of the impact on you, there’s a limit of $75 million. 

Would you support repealing that law so that there is unlimited 

liability for BP to ensure that all of you are paid, not because BP 

out of the goodness of their heart determines that they are going 

to give you a check, but because the law requires that they have 

unlimited liability? Would you like to see that law repealed? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. 100 percent. 

Mr. MARKEY. How about you, Mr. Linn? 

Mr. LINN. No doubt about it. If you—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Repeal that law. How about you, Mr. Solangi? 

Mr. SOLANGI. I agree with you. 

Mr. MARKEY. How about you, Ms. Subra? 

Ms. SUBRA. I agree. 

Mr. MARKEY. All right. So we got agreement on that. How about 

the—how about the Jones Act, do you want to repeal that law, you 

know, the limitation on damages for families, Mr. Linn? 

Mr. LINN. No doubt about that one at all. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Of course, yes. 

Mr. SOLANGI. I agree with you. 

Ms. SUBRA. I agree. 

Mr. MARKEY. Agree. Now, I think what we are seeing already is 

business as usual at BP. Giving you $5,000 when you have incontrovertible evidence that last May your family made $27,000 is just 

the beginning of a long story that we are going to have. 

And as Dr. Burgess just said, we just had a big debate nine years 

later about the health impacts on people who were working on 9- 

11, people exposed on 9-11, and there’s still a debate as to whether 

or not we should basically take care of those people. We are having 

a hard time doing that now. And the lesson we learned, Ms. Subra, 

is that we have to get in at the beginning. We have to give them 

the protection at the beginning. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

Do you think that BP is providing the resources necessary in 

order to ensure that the equipment is there, the training is there, 

to protect these people who are being exposed to these chemicals? 

Ms. SUBRA. Not adequately, and that’s what we have been working on since the very beginning. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Solangi, do you think that BP is doing the 

work to ensure that there is a full understanding of the impact 

these chemicals are having on the ocean, on all of the unintended 

consequences of shooting dispersants into the ocean in terms of the 

impact that it can have upon the livelihoods of the people who live 

down here in the Gulf? 

Mr. SOLANGI. I don’t think they were prepared for it and I think 

not enough is being done yet. 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. BP did not stand for being prepared. We know 

that for sure. But we don’t want to see them nickel and diming 

each one of these issues either in order to ensure that there is full 

protection. In terms of tourism, Mr. Linn, what has BP done to ensure that there is some anticipatory help for you in Alabama? 

Mr. LINN. They granted—they granted $25 million to the state 

of Alabama, which is—— 

Mr. MARKEY. How much did you say? 

Mr. LINN. 25 million—— 

Mr. MARKEY. 25 million. 

Mr. LINN [continuing]. To the state of Alabama. Part of this is 

for preparation, part of it was for advertising, you know, to try to 

counter all the things that are being said in the press. 

Mr. MARKEY. How much does the—how much does the tourism 

business make in Alabama? 

Mr. LINN. I’m not sure of the grand total. I know Orange Beach 

and Gulf Shores are the big brothers. We are the smaller brother. 

I think we bring in somewhere in a range of around—as a state 

it could be in the range of $70 million, but I’m not sure. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Seven—— 

Mr. LINN. $70 million, I think, as a state, Alabama, but I’m not 

sure—— 

Mr. STUPAK. You are running over. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. LINN. Does that work? 

Mr. STUPAK. Go ahead. Finish your answer. 

Mr. LINN. The—the trickle down effect on that is $10 million is 

going to Baldwin County. Ten million is going to Mobile County, 

which is on our side. Baldwin has the Orange Beach, Gulf Shores 

guys. That’s being broken down to—approximately seven million of 

it on our end was going to preparatory use to prepare a second protective sand barrier to try to stop the oil on the beach. They are 

not doing it in the water because of surf and things like that. It 

trickles down from there to—a good sizable sum was going back to 

the fishing community to help there, again, back to the vessels of 

opportunity. And I think we ended up with the Dauphin Island 

Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with the town of 125,000. 

Mr. MARKEY. My goal is going to make sure they have unlimited 

liability to protect each and every one of you and your families in 

this incident. 

Mr. STUPAK. Ms. DeGette, questions, please. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Linn, I want to 

follow up on—on something—on—on some of these questions that 

Mr. Markey was asking because Mr. Duplessis also confers, but 

then you said in your written testimony while it is grossly inadequate that some of the fishermen and the shrimpers are getting 

some payments for like $5,000 in a month; but what you said in 

written testimony is for the small businesses like you, you have 

overhead of $60,000 a month, that the claims process seems to be 

much more cumbersome. Have you been getting any payment from 

BP? 

Mr. LINN. None whatsoever. 

Ms. DEGETTE. You have got no payment whatsoever from BP? 

Mr. LINN. No, ma’am. We started out talking directly to BP. I 

was transferred from one department to another department because they had not dealt with a small business, according to the 

adjuster that I had or the—you know, the guy on the other line 

with BP. 

It is now my understanding that while we have on Dauphin Island and Bayou La Batre, our neighboring city, two claims offices, 

they are not geared at doing anything more than gathering information from the small businesses. Everything is going to Hammond, Louisiana and it’s processing four states worth of small business activity. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Have you—have you been given any indication 

when you might start getting some compensation? 

Mr. LINN. No, ma’am. I—in my—in my case I did go to an attorney, local attorney, to start helping me with the process because I 

was getting nowhere. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And are you having to pay that attorney to get 

your compensation? 

Mr. LINN. I’m afraid it will be coming up, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And that bill will be coming in the mail? 

Mr. LINN. That is why, again, the SBA became important to me. 

It’s not that I want another loan. It’s that I have to keep active. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So—so now you’re having to take out loans? 

Mr. LINN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Stupak was talking about this. You’re now 

having to take out loans to keep yourself afloat because the claims 

process is so slow? 

Mr. LINN. Exactly. Exactly. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And do you think this claims process could be 

made more easy? I guess let me back up. Mr. Duplessis, I think, 

has the most organized wife, maybe as organized as my husband 

is. You can even—you can—is she here? 

[Mrs. Duplessis indicating.] 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. So—so you can find out from May of 

last year what your income is. I assume you have similar records. 

Mr. LINN. I do. I have good records. In fact, the same information 

that we are supplying to the SBA is pretty much the same information—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. And—and so they should be able to determine what kind of compensation you are going to get—— 

Mr. LINN. Yes. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

Ms. DEGETTE [continuing]. If as—if as Mr. Markey says, Mr. 

Hayward—he—by the way, when he said this, he was under oath 

just like you are today, that everything would be made clear. So 

do you expect that’s going to happen? 

Mr. LINN. My real hope—and this is the only statement on this 

part I’ll make. We as individual small businesses, the fishermen, 

ourselves, have—have not—we do not have a chance of fighting BP. 

We will not win that battle. You guys can help us. The SBA can 

help us. I should not be borrowing money from the SBA. I should 

be getting a grant from SBA that BP pays and you guys get the 

money from BP. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, guess what? We intend to—we intend to 

help you, so we’re—— 

Mr. LINN. Because we can’t do it on our own. 

Ms. DEGETTE. As you heard, we are going to stay on this until 

we do. 

Mr. LINN. I really appreciate that. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I just have a couple questions, Ms. Subra, about 

the environmental impacts because you talked in your written and 

your oral testimony about these dispersants and your great concern 

for the Gulf Coast residents. The EPA has also expressed concerns 

about the burning of oil and the use of oil dispersants, and they 

have asked BP to use less of the toxic dispersants. Do you know 

what BP’s response was? 

Ms. SUBRA. Well, EPA used—asked them to use less toxic ones. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. 

Ms. SUBRA. And they came back basically justifying the existing 

one, and then EPA asked them to use less. One of the major concerns I have is that most of the constituents of the two dispersants 

they are using are proprietary so when the workers were ill—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. You mean the chemicals that are in the dispersant? 

Ms. SUBRA. Right. The chemicals that are in the dispersants are 

proprietary. So when the workers are ill and they go to the hospital, the workers don’t know what potential chemicals they are exposed to and so they don’t know how to treat them, and it’s an 

issue that we have been working on for a long time, but that kind 

of information needs to be available to the general public, but if not 

to the general public, it needs to be available to the medical community—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. To the first responder? 

Ms. SUBRA [continuing]. Immediately so that they know how to 

handle the cases. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now—now, is there some alternative to these 

dispersants to start to begin to clean this up? 

Ms. SUBRA. Wait. Could you ask that again? 

Ms. DEGETTE. Is there some alternative way to clean this up, to 

minimize the risk than using the dispersants? 

Ms. SUBRA. Well, the alternative ways are to have it as a slick 

and recover it from the slick and disperse it into the water column, 

which has a huge environmental impact when it’s dispersed into 

the water column. And both the slick and the dispersed chemical— 

chemical in the water column come onshore. It’s just when it’s dispersed in the water column it’s not as visible as when you see it 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

coming onshore, as you-all saw when you-all went—went on the 

tour. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Let members know we’re going to try 

and go two rounds here if we have time here. We are trying to 

wrap up by 2:00, but let’s get one round through and, if we can, 

we’ll get a second round on the panel for questioning. 

Ms. Schakowsky, questions, please. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. Ms. Subra, you have told us that 

BP forced commercial fishermen who signed up to work on the 

cleanup to sign waivers that severely eliminate—limited any future 

legal claims, but that was resolved. Was that in court that these 

waivers were removed from employment agreements or did you just 

get them to do it? How did that happen? 

Ms. SUBRA. We went to court on May 2nd, Sunday afternoon, as 

a result of the inappropriate waivers they were making the fishers 

sign and BP signed an agreement that those waivers would no 

longer apply; and that was limited to the State of Louisiana. So 

even when he talked about them not knowing, once—once we get 

a decision in court, it’s not enforced. 

Five days later we went to court, and the court said BP must 

train and provide the protective gear. And, again, it’s not being enforced, so we have done all the right things. 

It’s lack of enforcement and lack of engagement with a lot of the 

agencies. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So, first of all, though the agreement only applied to Louisiana. In the context of this, did BP ever explain their 

rationale for saying that they wanted to remove any liability for 

themselves? 

Ms. SUBRA. No. They just agreed in court that afternoon and 

signed an agreement that it wouldn’t be appropriate and therefore 

it wouldn’t hold water on any of the agreements that had been 

signed previous—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. In Louisiana? 

Ms. SUBRA [continuing]. Or it wouldn’t be included in the new 

agreements. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. In Louisiana? 

Ms. SUBRA. In—well, the—they did the agreement, and then the 

states of Mississippi and Alabama stated if it was to apply in those 

states the case would have to be brought in those case—states. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I see. 

Ms. SUBRA. They made that decision. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Now, are you saying that BP still is not providing any kind of appropriate protective gear? 

Ms. SUBRA. They are providing Tyvek suits in some cases. In the 

case of those shrimpers, they weren’t providing that. They are not 

providing the respiratory protection; and that’s where you get the 

inhalation of the toxic chemicals off the spill and any dispersants. 

And, in fact, if the workers bring a respirator that we have provided them and others have provided them, they tell them they are 

going to fire them unless they put the respirator away. 

And now since OSHA said you need to protect them against heat 

stress, they are using heat stress as an excuse not to have them 

where the respirators. And, in fact, you can’t deal with heat stress 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

and just ignore the inhalation stress. You need to address both 

issues. And yes, it’s very hot in Louisiana, it’s very humid, but this 

is a workplace environment and they need to be protected against 

both situations. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So your organizations have provided, at its expense, these private organizations with equipment that now they 

are prohibited from using? 

Ms. SUBRA. That is what BP is doing. They are prohibiting the 

workers from using the respirators. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And tell me the role that OSHA has played or 

the role that you think OSHA should play? 

Ms. SUBRA. I think they should be out there enforcing the regulations that they have to have appropriate workplace safety and protection for the workers. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But to the extent that, well, that’s their job, 

but have you seen them and is this work being performed? 

Ms. SUBRA. Well, they were a little slow in coming on the scene. 

We had to work through EPA to demonstrate that they were 

really needed, and then they issued a directive on exactly what 

kind of training and the protective gear and it was required by BP 

to provide that. And now, we are seeing when they are going out 

and evaluating they are really taking on BP and focusing a lot on 

the heat stress, and still the workers are getting sick when they 

inhale the off gassing from the slick and from the aerosol. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And I assume you have brought that to 

OSHA’s attention as well as to the company. What’s the response 

to that in terms of the respirators? 

Ms. SUBRA. The—the issue of the heat stress versus not wearing 

the respirators just came to light after I had prepared my testimony over the last four days, so we are trying to figure out what 

kind of response we can get through EPA and to OSHA to BP, so 

we are working on that right now. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Some of these economically stressed workers 

who were hired to do this job apparently expressed fear that they 

would be fired if they complained? 

Ms. SUBRA. Right. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Is that accurate? 

Ms. SUBRA. Yes. And I’m hearing that from fishers all the way 

across Louisiana as well as in Mississippi and Alabama. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And—and were they fired because—or how did 

they get that impression that if they complained they would be 

fired? 

Ms. SUBRA. From working for BP or BP’s contractors. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And have people been fired that are complaining? 

Ms. SUBRA. The fishers will tell me and tell a lot of the NGO’s 

this; but when it comes down to telling it to someone that will do 

an affidavit, they are very reluctant because they are desperate for 

these jobs. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Thanks. Ms. Christensen for questions, 

please. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like 

to thank the witnesses for taking the time to be here with us this 

morning; and thank you for two rounds. 

Ms. Subra, in your testimony you say—and this kind of follows 

onto what my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, was asking. You said decisions have been made that have and will continue to result in 

detrimental impacts to human health and the environment as a 

trade-off for attempts to reduce the quantity of crude oil from 

reaching the shores, estuaries, and wetlands to the northern Gulf 

of Mexico. Both are important. 

Why can’t we do both? Why can’t we protect the health and environment as well as protect the shorelines, the estuaries, and the 

wetlands? Is it not possible to do both? What is it that you think 

needs to be in place to make sure that we can do both because both 

are important? We need to protect the wetlands and the estuaries 

and we need to protect the health and the environment. This is an 

advanced country. This is the leader of the free world. Can’t we do 

both? 

Ms. SUBRA. First of all, the response that BP has provided as the 

oil moved closer to shore and came onshore in the wetlands and on 

the sandy beach areas and dispersed into the water column and 

came on shore in the water column has not been adequate. It has 

allowed the slick and the dispersant to come onshore and contaminate the wetlands and all. 

But the issue of the workers, the workers should have been protected from the very beginning. It’s a bad enough situation we have 

with the oil coming ashore and contaminating things, but there’s 

no reason why these workers shouldn’t be hired and shouldn’t be 

put in the position to be totally protected as they do their jobs for 

BP. 

If BP had a job site on a rig, you would expect them to have total 

protection and safety for the workers, and yet these people seem 

to be treated as if they are expendable; and if they try and protect 

themselves, they are threatened with being fired and losing their 

job. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So it comes down to the protection issues, the 

protective gear, the mask, and so forth. That’s what it comes down 

to. That’s—that’s what we need to focus in on. 

Ms. SUBRA. Right. When they are dealing in the area with the 

crude oil, they need protection to stop the inhalation pathway of exposure. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. And, you know, in all of the areas, as 

I’ve said in my opening statement, I’ve asked about protection, protective gear and have been assured that that was in place; so those 

assurances obviously didn’t mean anything because it wasn’t until 

your organization and other organizations and regulations forced 

the issue that it began to take—be put in place, so thank you. 

Thank you for your work that you have been doing. 

Mr. Linn and Mr. Duplessis, obviously with this being the largest 

oil spill in the history of our country, there’s lots of media attention. On balance from your perspective, has it been—has the overall impact and balance been positive for your businesses or negative? 

What has been the end path on tourism and fisheries? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

Is the full story being told by our media or is it just the bad side, 

and what has the impact of the media been? 

Mr. LINN. Start here? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. 

Mr. LINN. The impact on us by the media has been pretty much 

90 percent negative. It’s hard to have a positive impact when the 

only thing that they can bring to the table is the ultimate contamination of the island, the picture—the awful pictures of the birds, 

the environmental quality. 

We have been fielding so many calls regarding people trying to 

cancel in our case. And this is—I’m—I really am speaking for pretty much most of the Alabama tourism coast with this. The—the 

questions they are asking are do we have to go out and look at 

these dead birds laying on your beach? This is the impact that the 

press has had. 

Our PR guy for the town of Dauphin Island did a quick study 

and, you know, these numbers are approximate, but they—they 

looked at the average advertising cost. If we had gone out and 

bought the—bought the time, it’s $7.5 million in negative advertising. 

Now, we have a $40,000 a year advertising budget for the Chamber of Commerce, so we have got a battle that’s uphill. But that’s— 

our—our impact has—has been terrible as a matter of fact. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Duplessis. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Just like Mr. Linn has said, everything that 

comes on the TV is birds that are being—that are oiled and this 

is all negative, negative, negative. 

Now, our area, our seafood and promotion board, did manage to 

get some money from BP and they are running some—some pretty 

good advertisement about our seafood that is still safe, which is— 

it’s hard to convince people that the seafood is safe when you’ve got 

oyster areas that are being opened and closed daily and shrimping 

areas are being closed and not re-opened. It’s hard to—to convince 

people that the seafood is safe and it’s negative. 

And as far as the media is concerned and the TV and everything, 

I am up to my neck in advertisements saying if you have been affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I am up to my neck in 

it. I am just—— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. You’ve had enough. And to you Mr. 

Duplessis, the Louisiana promotion—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Time’s up. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. My time’s up. 

Mr. STUPAK. Yes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Didn’t hear it. 

Mr. STUPAK. I’m running a little tight and we all want a second 

round. Mr. Melancon, questions, please. Five minutes. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Subra, let me 

ask you—and, of course, there’s been a lot of issues about 

dispersants, whether it’s helping or hurting long-term, but I guess 

where I’m going with it is with or without dispersants, what do you 

see? We shutdown the oil tomorrow, which would be wonderful, but 

what do you see in the time frame for recovery for the Gulf and 

for the estuaries should they be impacted. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

Ms. SUBRA. I see a very long-term recovery. I think that estimate 

is better served after we’ve stopped the flow of oil and we’ve gotten 

rid of the slick as well as the dispersed water column oil; and then 

we will have information about the contamination, both in the 

marshes, the wetlands, as well as the sea bottom and then we’ll be 

able to figure out an estimate of how long recovery will take. 

Mr. MELANCON. That’s—that’s why I was using if we shut it 

down tomorrow, which I pray that it would happen, or at least get 

it closed off. Because it’s somewheres in the range of half a million 

barrels to a million barrels a day is, I think, where the numbers 

are. That’s five—that’s 12 to 19,000 or 20,000 barrels a day, so 

that’s—I’m sorry—million gallons a day. 

Mr. Duplessis, in light of the fact that this may be a decade long 

degradation problem to the estuaries to the place where the shrimp 

start their life cycles, where the speckled trout, the red fish, the 

snapper, and all that that comes out of the estuaries, what’s in 

your mind? What’s in your thoughts? What are you feeling right 

now is the future for you and the communities like Gulf Shores, 

Grand Isle, Venice, Point a la Hache? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Mr. Melancon, just like you, I am a sport fisherman and hunter, and I’ve—I’ve been trying not to discuss it, but 

I have four children and 14 grandchildren. All four of my children 

hunt. We are big time duck hunters; and as my grandsons grow up, 

we—we are teaching them. We are taking them out in the marsh 

hunting, and this part of our culture is—it’s really—it’s devastating 

to just think about it. I can’t—I won’t—it’s a possibility that I won’t 

be able to take my grandkids out and hunt with them. 

And the other side, the economic side of it, I’m 65 years old now. 

I’m not young anymore. I can’t—I can’t change my livelihood, so 

it’s—it’s going to be—it’s going to be a rough ten years ahead of 

me. 

Mr. MELANCON. It—it’s exactly the feeling I have. Mr. Linn, you 

are on the opposite side in—in one respect, but I remember Dauphin Island when it was like a Grand Isle. Of course, it’s probably 

more condominiums than more of a beach now, but what—what do 

you feel? I mean we can clean the beaches quicker, but you have 

got those estuaries right behind the island that are important to 

the fisheries. That’s what brings people to Dauphin Island. How 

are you feeling about this short-term, long-term? 

Mr. LINN. I—I think that’s the—the biggest difficulty that we are 

all having with this. None of us can get our arms around it like 

you can a hurricane, which, you know, no one wants to hug one, 

but we can see an end, we can fix things, we can get on with our 

life. Dauphin Island really hasn’t changed that much, sir, at this 

point. We have a couple of condos, but the—the culture, the—the 

whole life I—I fear is—it’s going to be decades. And that’s—that’s 

even an if because the stigma of what is going on here, how long 

it will be. 

We are still being told that our island was cut in half by Katrina, 

when actually it was part of the uninhabited part. That’s five years 

later. This kind of a stigma of oil on our beaches, the shrimping, 

the estuaries, the oysterman, the culture, it’s—it’s gone. And none 

of us from day-to-day know how we are going to cope through this. 

We are talking short-term keep your business alive. A year from 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

now are we going to be able to survive in the same business or is 

it just pack it up and get off the island, and none of us know. 

Mr. MELANCON. Yes. When—when this first started and the SBA 

came and said we’ll do—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Time’s up. 

Mr. MELANCON. If I can just finish the thought real quick. 

Mr. STUPAK. Real quick. 

Mr. MELANCON [continuing]. Started talking about the emergency loans, which they can defer payments for a year which will 

give you the opportunity, I thought well, oh, great, you know, because that would give the business owners and the fishermen and 

those people that are impacted an opportunity to see where this 

thing’s going to play out. But if we are talking about a decade or 

decades, it’s not going to play out in our lifetime and it may not 

play out in my son’s lifetime. 

Mr. LINN. And I—I will say one thing on SBA. One phone call 

and my two deferred—my two loans were deferred for 12 months. 

It was not a hassle. It was we are here to help, so I have to give 

them that credit. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Scalise for questions, please. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Subra, when you 

were talking about the testing that EPA’s doing, it’s over land and 

you said BP’s doing the testing over water right now for air quality? 

Ms. SUBRA. That—that is how it is now. EPA’s doing the land, 

and BP is supposed to be doing it over the water and in the work 

area where the workers are. 

Mr. SCALISE. But we are not getting access to—to those air quality reports over water? 

Ms. SUBRA. We have asked for it over the last week and a half. 

When we found out that EPA was receiving the data from BP 

and not putting it up on their Web site, then we asked for it at 

that time. 

Mr. SCALISE. Why—why isn’t EPA putting that data on their 

Web site; have you not gotten an answer on that? 

Ms. SUBRA. I haven’t gotten an answer. 

Mr. SCALISE. Then we will get that answer for you because there 

is no reason if—— 

Ms. SUBRA. It would be very helpful to have that data. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. EPA is monitoring the air quality and 

that’s—that’s what their job is, they’re tasked with doing that, why 

they would send parts of that to BP, I don’t know. But if they’ve 

got the access to the data, either they should be doing it or they 

should be getting the data and making it public, but it shouldn’t 

be withheld from the public for sure, so we will—I know my office 

will work on that and—and if we get the committee to—to dig 

deeper there, too, to get some real—to get some real transparency 

from EPA on that air quality. 

I want to talk about the chain of command; and maybe, Mr. 

Duplessis, Mr. Linn, you-all can touch on this. One of the problems 

we have been having is getting—getting things done when—when 

our locals who are doing everything they—they know how to try to 

protect the marsh, to try to protect our way of life, it seems like 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

we just keep running into road blocks and locals are told to go talk 

to BP and you can’t get answers there sometimes. 

What have you-all found from the defensive efforts? I know we 

fought for weeks to try to get the sand barrier plan. It took us over 

three weeks to get an answer from the federal government on putting sand barriers in front of the marsh to try to at least protect 

the marsh. 

What are you-all seeing when it comes to protecting beaches, protecting marsh? Are you directed to go talk to BP to get approval? 

Who’s—Who’s telling you to go where? 

Mr. Linn first, then Mr. Duplessis. 

Mr. LINN. Basically what would have normally been a Corps of 

Engineer type project on our island in terms of beach re-nourishment and things like that was all put aside. 

Between BP and—and the federal government, I believe—I know 

the national guard was highly involved, they came in and within 

three weeks time we had a protective sand barrier along our—our 

main road, which is where the water and sewer infrastructure runs 

in order to try to protect. 

Because of the hurricanes, our island has lost a lot of sand on 

the far west end where all the tourism really is. 

Any high tide with a—with a southerly wind can actually cause 

an over wash on that west end, which brings stuff right into the 

sewer system, so that was the reason for that protective berm. 

The—— 

Mr. SCALISE. And you-all got approved from BP or who—— 

Mr. LINN. It—it was actually a BP start. It was clean harbors, 

Doctor—oh, he—he’s helping us actually with the town of Dauphin 

Island in doing a study of the beach. 

Mr. SCALISE. I’m glad you-all did because—— 

Mr. LINN. Yes. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Like I said, it took us over three weeks 

and we still went round and round. 

Mr. LINN. Yes. 

Mr. SCALISE. I don’t even think they started dredging in the sand 

yet in our marsh. 

Mr. LINN. Yes. We—we had action quickly on Dauphin Island. 

We truly did in terms of actual emergency protection devices. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK. Mr. Duplessis. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Well, I’m from Plaquemines Parish, as you know, 

and Billy Nungesser, bless his heart, they’re going to—BP is going 

to cause his demise. 

Mr. SCALISE. I’ve been in talks with Billy. I tell him to take care 

of his health, because he’s working hard I know. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Right. With the—the berm or the rebuilding of 

the Chandeleur and Breton islands, we have been trying to get this 

done for years, as you know, and trying to get—I really don’t know 

what the problem was with—we had the Corps of Engineers. We 

needed approval from the Corps of Engineers and they took, what, 

three weeks, four weeks and finally they got approval of part of it 

and then—— 

Mr. SCALISE. They still have only approved one-fourth of the—— 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. One-fourth of it. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Plan and again I don’t think they’ve 

even started dredging sand—— 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Right. It’s—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. And we are six weeks into this disaster 

now. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. I don’t know if the problem is—is not knowing 

the effects, the long-term effects, as they say from studies and 

stuff; but as far as my side of it, they have been studying this for 

years. They have been studying it for years, so why should we have 

to start new studies. 

Mr. SCALISE. And I think it’s most irritating to us—— 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. We know that it’ll help. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Is when they say we need environmental studies and in the meantime our environment’s being destroyed. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Right, right. 

Mr. SCALISE. But I know I’m out of time, but we have got to set 

a better chain of command; because I know the president keeps 

saying he’s in charge and then every time something’s not happening nobody wants to be accountable for it. When you can’t get 

booms, when you can’t get berm, when you can’t get—and there’s 

still things like this happening every day. 

And even though the president says he’s in charge, we are not 

getting the resources we need and nobody wants to say they are 

in charge when things go wrong. Well, that’s when you need leadership. So we need to protect your oyster beds, we need to protect 

those seafood beds, we need to protect Dauphin Island. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Well, I understand that. At the same time—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I don’t think enough’s being done. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Yes. And at the same time I can also understand 

our president’s position. If—if—just like with the—with the drilling, if everyone says, well, you know, don’t stop the drilling, don’t 

stop the drilling. But if—if he says, go ahead and drill and next 

week we get another oil spill, the same people that are saying, you 

know, go ahead and drill, they going to say, hey, you dummy. You 

shouldn’t have done that. We just had an accident. 

Mr. SCALISE. Right. We just want to make sure they follow the 

safety guidelines that are already there and clearly they weren’t 

doing that. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Right. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Scalise, I’m in charge, so I’ll take control here. 

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. I’m going to ask the members to respect the time— 

the five minute time so we can get through another round of questions. Everyone’s expressed interest of doing another round, so let’s 

get another round in if we can because we promised we’d finish up 

here by 2:00 o’clock. 

Let me ask this sort of quick throwaway questions, do any of you 

believe that estimate of oil coming from that blown well as BP 

says? 

Mr. LINN. No. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. No. 

Mr. STUPAK. You are all shaking your heads no. OK. Dr. Solangi, 

let me ask you this. In your statement, your last line, you said, we 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

believe that prudent development and use of our resources requires 

adequate safeguards as well as a safety net to protect the environment and those making a living from it. 

What are the safety nets you’re—you’re looking at? 

We were down, as I said, way down south yesterday in the 

marshes outside Venice and you could see oil rigs only six or seven 

miles from the places where—of concern, endangered species of 

birds, insects, animals live. We were all alarmed to see how close 

the rigs to places where people and animals live. We were surprised how many rigs were clear and visible to the coastal land. 

Dr. Cowan told the committee staff that platforms—and I don’t 

think you have it for the witnesses, but we have this document 

here. There’s like 3,500 oil and gas platforms in the Gulf very, very 

close to the shoreline along your 1200 miles of coast here. I, for 

one, believe in oil, drilling for gas and oil, but I just think there’s 

some environmentally sensitive areas you really shouldn’t do it. 

It took me a long time but I got the ban on oil and gas drilling 

in and under the great lakes, which my district comprises three of 

the five great lakes. I don’t think we should be drilling for oil and 

gas there, so—And—and I was surprised it looked like there was— 

right in the marsh there was a well being drilled as we were on 

the fan boats there yesterday; so what are the safeguards we 

should have here? 

Mr. SOLANGI. I think this is an engineering issue, as you have 

said, that for decades, you know, it’s a fact of life. Oil and gas is 

crucial to this country and its survival and it can be done properly. 

There are many, many safeguards, engineering issues, that can be 

done. This is an anomaly. We have had really a lot of questions 

why it happens. It is something that both nature—I mean a lot of 

people go to the rigs to do fishing. Rigs can become a part of the 

ecology of the system where you can see increased productivity, so 

it’s not all negative, but if it’s done properly, if it is done safely 

with all the proper safeguards. And I think it is your job to make 

sure that accidents like this don’t occur. Small issues can be reconciled. I mean that’s human. 

Mr. STUPAK. It seems like the engineering to drill deeper and 

drill in more sensitive areas has been developed, but the technology, the engineering, if you will, the science behind the clean up 

is the same science that we did back in the 19—early 1900’s: Burn 

it off, try to mop it up. 

There doesn’t seem to be, at least from where I sit—and I’m no 

expert in this area—there doesn’t seem to be the emphasis on what 

if something goes wrong, how do they contain it? How do we shut 

it down? It seems like we have developed one side of the equation 

but not the other. 

Mr. SOLANGI. You are absolutely right. I think that is the side 

of the equation people are having difficulty with as to what do we 

do now? How do we respond to emergencies like that? And we are 

lacking in that aspect considerably. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. Ms. Subra, what’s the long-term effects of inhalation of oil? You also mentioned hauling in these booms with their 

hands, oil on their hands. What’s the long-term effect? 

Ms. SUBRA. Well, first of all, there are two major components of 

the crude oil: There’s volatile organics, which it’s contended that 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

they off gas really quickly, but in a lot of cases it’s not off gassing 

real quickly; but one of the components is benzene, a known 

human cancer causing agent. 

The other mentioned component of the crude is polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and a large number of those components are 

known and suspected to cause cancer. 

So when they start inhaling it, they take it into their body and 

they are out there working and they will be out there working for 

an extended period of time, and if they are not protected, they are 

having acute impacts, which is what I described, and then they can 

have the long-term impacts. 

They can have cancer, but they can also have heart and lung 

problems that can increase with the increased efficiencies of 

breathing in it each time into the body, going home at night, coming back out, getting exposed again. 

So it’s the chronic, the heart, the lung, and the potential of cancer that are for the long-term. And what we don’t want is we don’t 

want to create a population that became contaminated because 

they weren’t provided with proper protection. 

Mr. STUPAK. You mentioned enforcement, you get a court decree 

and then they don’t enforce it. Who’s responsible for enforcement, 

OSHA, state and federal OSHA? 

Ms. SUBRA. OSHA primarily because it is a workplace issue. The 

agencies at the federal level have the oversight. And the one that 

are at the command center could do something to require that BP 

actually provide the protective gear, which the court has said, 

which the agencies have said, and which OSHA has said; so it’s a 

big enforcement issue as well. 

Mr. STUPAK. Supplement your testimony with a request for that 

air monitor information you want and also the dispersant and I’m 

sure our committee can get some answers. 

Mr. Burgess for questions. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Ms. Subra, let me 

stay with you for a second. You said the EPA is monitoring on land 

and BP is monitoring on the water; is that correct, the air quality. 

Ms. SUBRA. That—that is how it’s divvied up at this point, yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. And is the—is the land monitoring data being 

made available real time on the—on the EPA’s Web site. 

Ms. SUBRA. Could you ask that again, please? 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, do you have access to the—to the levels that 

are—that are being recorded on land. 

Ms. SUBRA. That EPA is monitoring for, they put them on their 

Web site usually with one or two days delay, but they are up there 

on a regular basis. 

Mr. BURGESS. Now, you said the concern about the off gassing 

and the crude oil aerosolization, the EPA had the official statement 

wrote down that there were only short-lived effects; is that correct? 

Ms. SUBRA. Correct. 

Mr. BURGESS. And yet, if the levels of these hydrocarbons and 

benzene are higher, there could be long-term effects; is that correct? 

Ms. SUBRA. Right. The concentrations in the aerosol are being 

detected in the monitors that they have on land and the monitors 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

on land are some distance from the marsh. The workers—the workers are exposed to a lot higher concentrations. 

Mr. BURGESS. But my understanding from watching some of the 

news shows, that there are people who are not involved in any of 

the work at all but just who simply live in the area who have complained of some of the respiratory complaints, some of the dizziness 

and nausea. Is that happening. 

Ms. SUBRA. Could you ask that again please? I’m sorry. 

Mr. BURGESS. People who are not involved in the cleanup, people 

who just live in the area—— 

Ms. SUBRA. Right. 

Mr. BURGESS [continuing]. Are they being effected. 

Ms. SUBRA. Right. They are having the effects from the aerosol 

that’s in the air that’s being carried onshore when there’s a south 

or southeast wind. 

Mr. BURGESS. So whose responsibility is the protection of those 

individuals? Obviously, OSHA would not be the—the federal agency. 

Ms. SUBRA. The federal health agencies. 

Mr. BURGESS. OK. And are they—are they fulfilling their—their 

obligation under the—under the law. 

Ms. SUBRA. They—they are starting to send some of their mobile 

clinics. 

Mr. BURGESS. That’s a yes or no question, not ‘‘they’re starting 

to’’. Are they fulfilling their obligation. 

Ms. SUBRA. Not adequately. 

Mr. BURGESS. What are—what are some of the levels of benzene 

that are being recorded on land by OSHA’s monitors. 

Ms. SUBRA. I’m sorry. I couldn’t quite understand. 

Mr. BURGESS. The OSHA monitors that are now up and deployed, what are the levels of benzene that they are—they are recording. 

Ms. SUBRA. The amounts of benzene that they are picking up on 

the land—— 

Mr. BURGESS. On the land. 

Ms. SUBRA [continuing]. In the six monitoring locations do not 

exceed the ambient standard in Louisiana, but they are very close 

to the ambient standard. And the ambient standards are established to determine where in the general area it exceeds that 

standard and what are the sources and work on reducing the 

sources. 

Mr. BURGESS. So is that the 1.4 parts per billion standard. 

Ms. SUBRA. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. And to date with—with the people complaining of 

the odor from the—from the spill, those—those levels are not being 

exceeded. 

Ms. SUBRA. The benzene level, but the cumulative impacts of all 

the chemicals, all the volatiles that are being detected, the cumulative impacts are sufficient to cause the health impacts. And we 

have asked over and over again for an analysis of the semi-volatiles 

and they have not started that yet. 

Mr. BURGESS. The EPA has not. 

Ms. SUBRA. EPA, correct. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

Mr. BURGESS. On the—would it be surprising to learn that the— 

the application that was submitted by BP to the Minerals Management Service suggested that they did not have to provide environmental data in a worst case scenario. 

I know Mr. Dingell and myself brought that—this up at our very, 

very first hearing, and the application that BP submitted was woefully inadequate, so shame on them for not—not filling that application out but shame on Minerals Management Service for not taking that application back to them and saying, this is not acceptable. You will have to show us how you are going to mitigate the 

environmental effects. If you’re drilling a well that is capable of 

producing a hundred thousand barrels of oil today, if this thing 

gets away from us, you are going to have to show us how you are 

going to mitigate those effects. But that, unfortunately, was lacking 

in the application submitted to MMS. 

Mr. Linn, let me just ask you a question. I am so concerned 

about your—and I appreciate that the SBA has been good to work 

with, but having to run a business myself, I understand when you 

start borrowing for operational expenses, you can only do that for 

so long. Are you the—the sole signatory on those SBA loans. 

Mr. LINN. My wife and I. It’s a corporation. 

Mr. BURGESS. Is there—is there a line there where BP can sign 

on. 

Mr. LINN. That’s what I’m sure hoping you can find, but they 

have not offered it yet. 

Mr. BURGESS. One thing, if they go away as a consequence of 

this, then you are going to be left holding those loans; is that correct? 

Mr. LINN. Totally, yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. You know, that just seems like an unsatisfactory 

arrangement, one we should try to remedy. 

Mr. LINN. It’s—it’s like being on the second floor of a building on 

fire though. You have a choice of burning up or jumping and taking 

a 50 percent chance you will live on the fall. That’s why we are getting loans. We—we know BP’s not going to hold up at this point 

in time within a timely fashion. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. Mr. Braley for questions, 

please. 

Mr. BRALEY. Dr. Solangi and Ms. Subra, I want to follow up the 

point that Dr. Burgess was just raising because it seems like this 

process was upside down and backwards from the beginning in 

terms of the leasing approval process and the environmental analysis. Because we know that the way the courts have traditionally 

looked at this type of environmental impact analysis, they are supposed to have a more exacting review of that environmental impact 

as drilling becomes eminent, and yet the exact opposite happened 

here; because we know that the multi-sale economic impact statement done in the preliminary stages of the review did examine the 

possibility of a larger offshore spill for these particular leases and, 

even though it never just analyzed the impact of those spills, it 

reached the conclusion that a spill larger than 10,000 barrels had 

greater than a 99 percent chance of happening during the 40-year 

lease period under consideration. And yet despite that information 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

in the permitting process, a conclusion was reached by MMS that 

an offshore spill larger than 1,000 barrels would not have a significant environmental impact. What do you think of that conclusion, 

Dr. Solangi? 

Mr. SOLANGI. I think it was inadequate. Those are all hypothetical considerations and really, you know, it wasn’t about those 

practices. 

Mr. BRALEY. Ms. Subra. 

Ms. SUBRA. I think it’s almost impossible to have a spill the size 

that they said and not have any environmental impact, and yet 

this obviously got accepted and the process moved forward. 

Mr. BRALEY. One of the other things we know is that BP had discussed a worst case scenario response in its initial exploration plan 

for this lease, which is referred to as Mississippi Canyon Block 252, 

indicating that it considered a potential large scale spill. And their 

exploration plan said that the worst case scenario would be a blowout at the exploratory stage leading to a spill of a 162,000 gallons 

or 3,800 barrels per day of crude oil; and their exploration plan indicated that their regional oil spill response plan for a worst case 

scenario had been approved by MMS, and yet we know that during 

the hearing we had previously, the CEO of BP testified that they 

were capable of handling a release of 250,000 barrels per day without having a disastrous impact on the environment. 

And yet their initial representations is this spill we’ve been talking about was releasing somewhere between a thousand and 5,000 

barrels per day. So what do you think of BP’s representations to 

MMS during the permitting process in terms of their capability of 

handling a catastrophe of this magnitude? 

Mr. SOLANGI. I think at this time they have not demonstrated 

that they had the capability of handling a catastrophic oil spill 

which was a couple hundred thousand barrels. I mean, right now, 

I believe it’s more than 5,000 barrels; and ultimately, you know, we 

are going to find out that this wasn’t very well thought out. 

Mr. BRALEY. Ms. Subra. 

Ms. SUBRA. It gets back to enforcement or oversight. And if they 

put this forward as they were able to handle it, they should have 

had to have a mechanism to demonstrate they could. And obviously, they didn’t have the capability because this spill hasn’t been 

contained and has caused environmental damage. 

So how much, as you review these applications, do you just accept as face value and how much do you require them to provide 

sufficient information of how exactly they would handle such a situation. 

Mr. BRALEY. Well, one of the things that’s hard for me to understand, given the magnitude of this spill and the region it’s affecting, is how a company like BP can get an exemption at the later 

stages of the leasing process that prevents them from having to do 

an environmental impact study, considering all of these different 

scenarios based upon where that well is located. Because if you 

look at the regulations and then notice that MMS issued on May 

1st of 2008, if you are in Florida, and Florida can be an affected 

state, you have to do the more detailed analysis. 

And, Dr. Burgess, I’m also shocked to see that if you are in 

Texas, and Texas is a potentially affected state, then during the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

initial exploration plan, you have to go into more detailed analysis 

of the impact of such a spill, and yet we know that in the central 

Gulf region where this well is located they are not subject to those 

same requirements under MMS’s own regulations. 

So I think we need to have MMS look closely at this issue because I don’t care where you are in the Gulf. I don’t care how big 

the economic impact from the oil and gas industry, we have to protect the livelihoods of the people like we have here today. And I 

yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Braley. Mr. Markey, questions, 

please. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Subra, you mentioned that BP wasn’t publishing BP’s air quality data, which my 

staff asked EPA why not. EPA told us that it can only post its own 

quality control data, but on May 20th EPA and the Department of 

Home Land Security ordered BP to publish that data on its own 

and they have complied, and it is on BP’s Web site if you want access to it. Have you had an opportunity to look at that? 

Ms. SUBRA. No, I haven’t and I will. Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, ma’am. So I’m told that’s the case that—— 

Ms. SUBRA. But it would also be great if EPA would also publish—— 

Mr. MARKEY. I agree. I—I think that the more information we 

can put out there, the better. But the good news is that it’s on BP’s 

Web site. After today’s hearing, we will make sure that it is vital 

that everyone has access to it, but it is out there. 

Dr. Solangi, what do you think could be the long-term consequences to the health of marine life as a result of exposure to 

these dispersants? 

Mr. SOLANGI. I think it can be devastating. The area that they 

are looking at is very unique. It’s unlike Valdez or the Prince William Sound. These are bays, bayous, estuaries, muddy bottom, 

very—the flushing, you know, the tidal fluctuation is very minimum, one to two feet per day versus 10 to 12 in other areas. 

I’m sure you—you are going to hear about mud masks, you know, 

when you go to a beauty parlor or somebody—mud actually retains 

oil, and most of your mud from here on to the mouth of the river 

has mud and clay, and it’s going to retain quite a bit of these toxicants in that mud. 

Mr. MARKEY. What is—what is your concern, Dr. Solangi, that 

this combination of oil and chemicals that is creating a toxic stew 

out in the Gulf of Mexico could have on the food chain that human 

beings are exposed to? Are you concerned about the health impacts 

on human beings? 

Mr. SOLANGI. Absolutely, sir. I think this will go through the food 

chain, smaller organisms eating larger organisms, and through bioaccumulation, through biomagnification, you will see some of these 

contaminates go through the system. However, nature has its way 

of trying to get rid of them, and as I’ve pointed out in my testimony, that the amount of exposure and the time of exposure will 

determine how nature will fix itself. Eventually it will take time 

to fix it. We have had, during the war in Iraq, 500,000 gallons was 

spilled in the Arabian Gulf and it has taken time to recover. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

But, again, there are serious consequences from the area, especially the wetlands and the bays and the bayous that are the area 

where critical habitat for young fish and shrimp and others to develop. 

Mr. MARKEY. So—so we could have health impacts that come 

from human beings eating seafood in the future—— 

Mr. SOLANGI. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. That have unfortunately been exposed 

to this toxic stew of chemicals and oil? 

Mr. SOLANGI. That’s correct. 

Mr. MARKEY. And we have human beings right now who are 

being exposed to chemicals and oil that could have long-term negative impacts on the health of Americans. 

I just think that there should be no expense spared to ensure 

that we put in the preventative health care guarantees that we are 

not going to allow for this to affect the people down here in the 

Gulf especially, but ultimately all across the country. Because this 

food chain starts here, but it goes right up the Mississippi and 

right up the Atlantic coast as well. Many of the fish that spawn 

here wind up being caught by fishermen up in George’s bank off 

of New England. Dr. Solangi. 

Mr. SOLANGI. Yes, sir. You could—you could take over my job. 

You have very eloquently summarized my testimony. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, again, I’m only reflecting your testimony, 

what you say in your testimony. 

Mr. SOLANGI. Yes, sir. It’s very appropriate and you eloquently 

summarized what I was wanting to say. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is—it is powerful what we are hearing here 

today. This is—— 

Mr. SOLANGI. And one of the things we do is by monitoring the 

dolphins, being on top of the food chain, like we are on top of the 

food chain in the terrestrial environment, the smaller fish eat larger fish and eventually the dolphins become the good canary in the 

mind. And by monitoring them, we can monitor the environment. 

What ultimately happens to the dolphins will happen to us. 

Mr. MARKEY. You have—all of you have laid out a blistering, 

scalding indictment of what BP has left as a legacy for the Gulf for 

the generation to come. We—we very much empathize with all of 

your problems, and we are going to try to do our best to make sure 

that BP and the federal government are there for you as long as 

we have to. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Ms. DeGette, questions, please. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much. Dr. Solangi, I want to follow up please on—on the questions about dolphins because you 

said that so far you have seen eight to nine dolphins that have— 

treated that have not had oil damage. I—I assume you expect to 

see some oil damage as it works its way up that food chain? 

Mr. SOLANGI. Absolutely. This time of the year, this is the birthing grounds for the dolphins. We have approximately 3 to 5,000 

dolphins that inhabit the area from Breton, Chandeleur, and Mississippi Sound. They come to shallow waters to give birth, so we 

have double jeopardy. We have a whole bunch of baby dolphins and 

baby turtles all out there, and these are very inquisitive animals. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

They go into these lakes. The first thing they do is they inhale, 

they have respiratory problems, then they have skin problems and 

they contaminate the fish. 

Ms. DEGETTE. How long would you expect to see before you start 

seeing those effects? 

Mr. SOLANGI. I would say in the next couple of weeks we will 

start seeing many of these mammals coming to shore. 

Ms. DEGETTE. We heard last night from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service from the state that there were about a hundred dolphins 

that they had seen, only one confirmed died from oil damage, but 

they are also expecting to see more, so we should expect to see 

these—these impacts occur. And—and do you have any projection 

about how—how large the impact will be on these dolphins? 

Mr. SOLANGI. I think it could be a very serious consequence. As 

I mentioned, we have about 3 to 5,000 estimated in this area; and 

with the large number of young babies having being born, it could 

be very serious. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Ms. Subra, I had a question based largely on the 

fact that I’m from Colorado where heat stress is not a big worker 

issue. And my question is: You talked about how people are 

being—workers are taking—being told to take off their respirators 

and not use them because of the—of the heat stress. 

Is there some kind of a—a way that people can’t—that we can 

treat both of those issues at once, that they can both use the respirators so that they don’t suffer, so that they don’t inhale these 

contaminates, and at the same time that they can be relieved from 

this heat stress? 

Ms. SUBRA. OK. First of all, they are not giving them the respirator in the first place, but they are using the heat stress as a 

reason not to give it to them. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Not to give it to them. 

Ms. SUBRA. Yes. Right. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But is there a way they both have to use the respirator and also treat them for stress? 

Ms. SUBRA. Sure. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And how would that work? 

Ms. SUBRA. One of the ways you avoid the heat stress is you provide sufficient shade and enough cool liquids to keep you hydrated. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. 

Ms. SUBRA. And then if you are hydrated and you are not being 

impacted by the heat, then you can use the respirator and 

work—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Ms. SUBRA [continuing]. And not have it stress your body that 

much more. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But that would seem like to me—seem like to me 

that the breathing was really related to the coolness and the shade 

part? 

Ms. SUBRA. Right. And it’s difficult to breathe through a respirator, but you have to remember that the majority of the people, 

even though we have heard testimony differently, are fishers from 

this local area or that’s what we had gotten an agreement on. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

Ms. SUBRA. And those fishers are used to working on the 

water—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. In heat. 

Ms. SUBRA [continuing]. For long periods of time in the heat and 

the sun. 

So if they provide them with what they need and don’t depend 

on the fishers to bring out sufficient food, drinks, and a mechanism 

of shade, then they can work with the respirators and not stress 

their bodies—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Ms. SUBRA [continuing]. And protect their bodies. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I’d like to hear Mr. Duplessis’ opinion on this because he’s been fishing in these waters. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. I think BP’s thing with the respirators is more 

of a public relations thing, if for the camera, see these people with 

respirators. They going to say, hey, this is dangerous. Even though 

they know it’s dangerous, I think it’s a PR thing more—more than 

anything else, that plus the good respirators are expensive. That 

could be part of the problem also. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So—but what—what Ms. Subra is saying is that, 

if people are inhaling these chemicals, that could be a very bad 

health damage. And what she’s saying is, if you gave people the 

respirators, don’t make them buy them themselves but BP pays for 

them, they put them on and they have sufficient shade and they 

have sufficient hydration, they could both have the respirator to 

protect their health but also not get the heat stress. Would you 

agree with that? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Exactly. The people down here are used to the 

heat and—and the humidity. I think it would be less stressful on 

the body with the heat rather than the fumes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes, right. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. And less harmful, no doubt less harmful. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you 

for coming and sharing your wisdom with us. There’s—there’s no 

substitute for going out in the field and hearing exactly what’s happening. We really, really appreciate it. We have learned a lot today. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. Ms. Schakowsky for questions, please. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes. I want to echo my colleague’s statement 

of gratitude. Coming here really does equip us, I think, with a different perspective when we go back on what really, not only is happening, but what needs to be done, so thank you very, very much. 

I would—used to spend a week every summer with my family at 

the Navarre Beach, which is right next to the national lakeshore 

near Pensacola on that—in that amazing white sand, sugar white 

sand beach; and I saw a piece on television last night where one 

of the local officials had called on BP because there was some— 

there were these oil globs that they wanted BP to get to work on 

and it took a long time to get any response. And at the end, they— 

hours later, they—in any case, the response was inadequate from 

BP. It sounded to me like they were going to get some local, either 

volunteers or government, so I have a couple of questions. 

One, what has been the experience in terms of the timing of the 

response for help from the—the requests for help from BP? And, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

secondly, what has been the state and local response and is there 

decent coordination going on. 

One of the things that we thought when we came down for the 

hearing on Katrina was that the bureaucratic stacks of various levels of government really postponed the kind of responses that 

should have happened. So first, Mr. Linn, if you would tell us your 

experience? 

Mr. LINN. Dauphin Island itself, which as I said, we are the little 

brother of the Alabama coast line, we actually had an adept 

amount of preparation and almost an overkill at the time. They 

were using us as a staging ground. It became pretty much the command center, shall we say, for clean harbors, O’Brien Interstate. 

All of the major cleanup contractors had been hired by BP. 

Also in Mobile was a—was a strong strategic point, so we—we 

had a lot of people wandering around, hundreds of people wandering around on the beach in HAZMAT suits when there was absolutely nothing there, which also had its own issues. 

You may have seen the child in the swimming water—in the 

swimming suit playing on the beach with the HAZMAT people behind them walking around. That made national news and helped 

us a lot. 

Besides that, our initial preparation was we did have people on 

the ground when it came time. They are working in the range of 

20 to 30 minutes, an hour we were told, again, because of the heat 

stress issues that are going on out there. 

Orange Beach and Gulf Shores seem to be much less prepared, 

and I don’t know if that was from government response, local effort. I really don’t know about what happened there. It is my understanding, though, that they were going after quick training to 

try to pull unemployed folks in the area to get them out there and 

start helping. 

I think part of the problem is they did not think it was going to 

get to them. 

Dauphin Island is always sort of on the west side of the bay. We 

sort of catch all the grief and all the stuff. Mobile Bay comes out 

and washes to the—to the west. I think everybody is surprised at 

the enormity of this thing and that it’s now at Navarre, that’s it’s 

now at Pensacola, and that Apalachicola is right down the road. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So, again, one of the things you want people 

to know is that Dauphin Island has talk come on down for the 

summer; is that what you want people to say—— 

Mr. LINN. Yes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY [continuing]. To hear that, you know—— 

Mr. LINN. We would have liked to have seen that, but now even 

that’s a hard thing to explain. Even on our own Web site, the first 

thing on our home page is a 0 to 5 impact. We had to do it. I mean 

we’re an upfront company. You tell people to come down, but when 

we have odors in the air, we have tar balls on the beach, changing 

environment every day, National Guard on one end of the island, 

three command centers on the island, it’s—it’s not—and sand— 

sand protection, sand barriers, which we are so glad they are there, 

but you got to climb over to see a beach let alone get to it. We are 

not a vacation heaven right now. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Got it. Any other comments about the role of 

local, state, and federal government and how that coordination is 

going, any other comments on that? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Well, down in Plaquemines Parish, which is more 

or less the epicenter, in the beginning was mass chaos. We had 

people and news media and BP and everyone was crowding down 

to Venice, Louisiana. That’s where most of the boats were leaving 

out, Venice. That was the closest land point from—from the—the 

actual rig site. And it was—it was pretty bad at first, but now 

it’s—it’s kind of calming down. 

But it seems in this area it’s been a parish by parish operation. 

Each parish is doing things a little differently from the next parish. 

It’s not like during the hurricane evacuations when all—everybody 

is—you know, it’s been planned and we evacuate and things run 

smoothly with the contraflow and everything all the way up to Mississippi. Everybody is pulling together. But this thing here—and 

nobody—no one with plans. It was a surprise. We were ambushed, 

but now it’s—it’s—the local government’s kind of getting it together. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mrs. Christensen for five minutes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Solangi, you said that the dolphins can be the canary in the 

mine or in this case the sea, I guess, when you were talking about 

the food chain, the impact of the ingestion of oil toxins in the food 

chain. What is—what do we know about the impact on dolphins living ingesting oil toxins, at least, or other sea life that has ingested 

oil toxins? What has been the impact on the dolphins? 

Mr. SOLANGI. OK. We have been studying dolphins for the last 

20 or 30 years. We are part of the stranding network. Any animal 

that dies, we get to bring him and do necropsies and pathologies. 

And I have in the room Dr. Chevis who’s our veterinarian, does an 

outstanding job with us since 1993; and we have been able to develop some sort of a background profile and by studying the environment and the animals, we have really positioned to understand 

what is going to happen to this particular—in this environment in 

response to this particular episode. So we not only see what the ingestion is going to do, but what the other environmental factors. 

We swim in it. The animals swim in this. We eat the food, they 

eat the food, so it is—it is a good model. 

And that is one of the things that I think we are capable of 

doing, that we’ll be using one particular model to give us a big 

broad understanding of what may be happening. When you see a 

large number of animals showing up on the beaches, we can be assured that we would be next. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Dr. Solangi. Mr. Linn and Mr. 

Duplessis, I’m concerned about workers that—I’m assuming you 

have employees. Have you had to layoff employees during this period? And if not you, what about other people in your industries 

and what is happening with those workers that might have been 

laid off? Are they being employed by BP or are they just still looking for work. 

Mr. LINN. From a—of course, the individual, the oysterman, the 

fisherman, that group, a lot of them are under contract or have at 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

least been able get some sort of income started up. The retail businesses, the real estate businesses, property management companies, most are taking—I know of some layoffs that have already 

taken place. In our particular case, actually, we added a person to 

handle the overflow in the deterioration that was going on. 

Back to the small business loan, I hate to bring it up, but that’s 

another reason is our primary interest is to keep the employees 

that we have. It’s been a family effort, not as family goes, but they 

have worked for us for years, so we are their only hope on that island. There’s no other jobs. You can’t go to work for Wal-Mart. 

We have 20 to 25 contractors that work the base, that fix houses, 

that do all of these things. Without having companies such as ours, 

and this is across the board, I don’t know where people are going 

to turn. They are an independent bunch. That’s why they are there. 

So I really don’t know what they are going to do. 

I hope—I hope that somehow with your help in this whole situation, we will be able to turn the tide and survive, and I think they 

all feel the same way. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Our company is a small family company also. 

And most of the workers that we employ are deckhands that work 

seasonal. And when I don’t work, they don’t work, so they are not 

employed either. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I think I’ll yield back my time. 

Just let me, again, join my colleagues in thanking all four of you 

and the previous panel for coming out and testifying and sharing 

this information with us. Thanks. 

Mr. STUPAK. Before I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, I 

would point out that when you gave me that lighted pendant for 

St. Bernard’s Parish, I didn’t know I’d be yielding five minutes to 

you sitting here; so I would yield to Mr. Melancon for five minutes. 

Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Braley. Let me—let me try and 

put some things in perspective for the committee. 

Stafford Act applied to a natural disaster—disaster declaration 

by the president. Basically, when that disaster’s declaration is put 

forth on a natural disaster, all agencies, everything the government 

has can be applied. 

Under NORA, the event of national impact, it is a totally different response because we have not the vessels, not the equipment, not the technology. The only thing we can basically put is 

the boots on the ground and try and help get the boom that’s coming down and other things to make the Coast Guard, of course, be 

more forceful rather than just being—get along, go along, which it 

appeared the perception was early on. 

Wilma, it took me two weeks to get a mobile health clinic to Venice. There is—West Jeff has put a facility on Grand Isle, but BP 

would rather put people that get ill or whatever in an emergency 

unit and send them up to Lady of the Sea, which is about 30, 40 

miles away. The closest hospital to Venice is about 80 miles away, 

which is Ochsner across the interstate from Belle Chasse. So the 

frustrations of the expectation of what the government should or 

shouldn’t or could or couldn’t have done is kind of out there and 

it’s blurred, and so there’s frustrations all around. 

One last point: After Katrina in an effort—because Stafford Act 

was not adequate and we are finding out that the National Oil 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

Spill Response is not adequate and we need to reform and amend 

and take care—Because this isn’t a spill, this is a leak. And 

Katrina, Stafford Act didn’t take care of all our problems and we 

found reforms we had to do there because it lacked adequacy. 

So with those two things, regardless, I am finding in our first 

hearing that an agency of the federal government waived the law 

so that a permit could be issued to drill, and I couldn’t get a federal 

agency to waive a rule after Katrina to help the people in this region. Waiving a law, I don’t think—I think that’s basically breaking 

a law, so we need to look as deep as—as possible to find out what’s 

going on with that. 

What little time I have left, let me offer to—and since you are 

one of my constituents, Mr. Duplessis—the four of you, if you’ve got 

anything that you have not been asked or you wish that you would 

like to express, please? 

Mr. Duplessis, first, if you have got anything or if anybody else 

has anything they would like to just add? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Just one little comment. The gentleman here was 

talking about the dolphins. My wife is heartbroken because one of 

her favorite things to do was when we were shrimping to hand feed 

the dolphins. When we would shut down at the end of the day or 

go on anchor, she would hand feed the dolphins. I couldn’t get her 

to work for two hours. That’s all. And it’s going to be sad if we lose 

these dolphins. 

Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Linn? 

Mr. LINN. I think we have really—I think you have asked some 

very astute questions, and I hope that we have kind of given you 

a feeling for one of the frustrations that really the dire straights 

we—we truly are in at this point in time. 

Mr. MELANCON. Dr. Solangi. 

Mr. SOLANGI. I think the reason why people are here is the way 

of life. If that changes, it could be a very significant impact, not 

only on this region, but for the entire country. There’s a huge impact. It’s just not a Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama issue. And I 

think nobody should look at it prudently that we should go into 

emotional decisions, but let’s make some good decisions, rationale 

decisions so that everything is balanced. I think that’s what gets 

lost in, you know, panic situations where you lose rationale. And 

so there’s a lot of things that we need to think about and fix and 

make sure that this never happens again. 

Ms. SUBRA. In that same vein, I think we have to be very aware 

as we go through it because each day there’s a new issue, a new 

rule that comes forward and accumulate that information as well 

as what happens when the flow stops and how long it takes. After 

that, learn from those and put together some mechanism. 

I wanted to respond to her issue of them not responding quickly. 

When the slick hit St. Mary, Iberia, and Vermillion, BP said that 

they could not respond and start doing any cleanup until they had 

samples taken and analyzed to be sure it was proven to be their 

crude oil. And if that’s the same thing that’s happening as the slick 

is moving in Mississippi and Alabama and Florida, that’s something—it’s clearly coming from the rig site and moving across the 

Gulf. There’s no question whose it is. And that you lose very valuVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:09 Feb 09, 2013 Jkt 076584 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A584.XXX A584

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

able time in addressing the problem immediately versus waiting 

three, five or seven days for the lab to get the results back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Melancon. 

During Katrina, Mr. Melancon kept our committees deep in the 

fire, as I mentioned when we came down here. But we’re going to 

have more of these hearings for the regulators to waive the rule. 

We will have those hearings probably later this month; and if we 

are not doing the formal hearings as Charlie insisted we did on 

Katrina, we would invite the parties up and we would put them in 

the room and tell them the results of these differences and cut 

through the red tape. 

So I just want you to know your delegation, especially, Mr. 

Melancon—because we saw him on Katrina—is always there representing and fighting for your interest. 

With that, Mr. Scalise, questions, please. Five minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. 

I know one of the many things that we are dealing with and 

fighting with is trying to maintain the integrity of—of what Louisiana seafood means, and obviously for so long we had built that 

up. It’s a—it’s a prized commodity. It’s—Our chefs are world famous in many ways because of the things that they have done and 

taught the world how to do with Louisiana seafood. I don’t think 

there’s anything better than the taste of a fresh Louisiana oyster. 

With that, Mr. Duplessis, there’s a lot of people that have misunderstandings. You know, there is tremendous testing done. And 

anybody who can buy Louisiana seafood today, they are getting 

good quality seafood. The problem is how limited is that commodity 

and how much is available, how much will be available in the future. 

Can you tell me, first, how many seafood beds are—are still open 

today because they’re in areas where there’s no oil versus how 

many are closed because of the threat of the oil right now? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Today, I can’t tell you. Yesterday, we had—I 

think out of 14 areas, there was like six areas open for the oysters. 

I can’t be certain of that. 

But the shrimping, there’s a small area left on the—on the West 

Bank that’s still open and the East Bank is—I’d say 80 percent of 

the East Bank is open presently, but they are talking about starting to close it. 

Mr. SCALISE. You are talking about the East Bank of the Mississippi River—— 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. Right, right. I’m sorry. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. For my colleagues that don’t know. 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. The East Bank of the Mississippi River. That’s 

from the Mississippi state line to Mississippi—I mean to the Mississippi River. I’m sorry. 

But what’s happening with the shrimping, because all the other 

areas are closed, it’s caused a concentration of boats in one area 

and the shrimp can’t handle that being pounded round the clock so 

hard. And what’s happening is the shrimp are leaving. When normally they would stay, they are leaving, so it’s a problem. It’s—we 

don’t have the area to work. We have a lot more people that are 

working the small areas that are left. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
103 

And the oysters, right now the oyster industry is faced with a lot 

of regulations that just started this year with us with the refrigeration requirements and all this other stuff, and this is also a problem for the oyster fisheries because the oystermen have to move to 

different areas in order to work and it puts them further away 

from home base and it’s creating a problem with—with the guys 

that have refrigeration and don’t have refrigeration. 

Mr. SCALISE. Yes. And I know, you know, a lot’s still being done 

to try to—to mitigate the disaster. Early off everybody was talking 

about what they are going to do after the oil hit, and so many of 

our people were saying hold on a second, we want to be proactive. 

We want to stop the oil before it hits the marsh because, once it 

gets into the marsh, it’s going to be a whole different challenge, a 

much tougher challenge to clean it out than if you just keep it out 

in the first place. 

And that’s why we, of course, the top priority is still to get this— 

this well plugged but also to—to put a barrier in front of the marsh 

so that the oyster stays away from the marsh and the seafood beds 

and then hopefully stops any of the real long-term damage from 

being done to areas that haven’t already experienced it, so that’s 

something that we have to continue to push. 

One of the things I wanted to ask about. We hear all of these 

ideas and there’s—I’m sure Charlie and I, at least, and the others 

on the committee, we get more ideas from people; and some, you 

know, maybe somebody didn’t get enough sleep and some sound 

like they are brilliant ideas and you wonder why they are not getting tried. And you see the hay that’s put in the water and it absorbs the oil, you’ve heard of the super tankers in Saudi Arabi, 

you’ve got—Kevin Costner came here with a machine that—that 

transfers—displaces the oil from the water. 

You don’t see any of these being tried. There’s more than enough 

good ideas that they should all be being tried throughout the Gulf 

right now; and if 10 of them work and 20 of them don’t, you—you 

do more of the 10 that work and you keep doing more. But it just 

frustrates all of us to see that nothing is being tried from all of 

these brilliant ideas that you’ve heard. Have you—have you seen 

any of these put into action from all the things that you have seen 

and heard? 

Mr. DUPLESSIS. No, I have not. And I don’t know why BP—it 

would—it would seem that it would be in BP’s best interest to try 

some of these ideas because it would help them to get this thing 

cleaned up. And I really don’t know. 

We were talking about Kevin Costner. The last I heard about 

that is he was going to come in this area and demonstrate it, and 

I haven’t heard anything from them. 

Mr. SCALISE. And I saw the demonstration. It looked like it 

worked. We have got to try some of these things. That’s why we 

need a real chain of command instead of everybody’s in charge and 

nobody’s in charge and nothing’s getting done. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thanks, Steve. Thanks for your help coming down 

too. Well, that concludes all questions. I want to thank our witnesses for coming today and thank you for your testimony. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

I want to thank St. Bernard Parish for being a gracious host. 

Their staff has been great to work with in lending us this building 

today. 

And also, the area of Chalmette, we appreciate the—the opportunity to be here with you. Our committee is continuing a thoughtful investigation of this incident. We are looking at all the major 

factors and all the major entities that play a role or should have 

prevented this disaster from happening. This subcommittee will 

continue to investigate and hold hearings until we get the answers 

that we are looking for, and at times we will order members of 

those responsible parties into Washington. We will try to get them 

to work out some of these problems that are confronting the local 

residents that’s why it’s so important for us to be down here to 

learn firsthand, so we thank you for being here. 

We plan on three more hearings yet this month just in this incident alone, so we just don’t do one hearing and forget about it and 

leave. We are going to stay with you through this whole process. 

We would ask some of the witnesses to supplement your testimony. We would like you to do that, if you could, within ten days. 

And members will also have ten days to submit questions that we 

can address to the appropriate witnesses. Again, thank you all for 

being here. That concludes our hearing. The meeting of the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING