If there is one thing Canadian offshore oil companies can learn from BP, it’s ensuring that future drilling is done safely. A few of weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was reported as saying that his government would continue to enforce environmental standards in Canada, prompted by concerns about the safety of offshore drilling amid the wake of the oil spill disaster. By the same token, Harper noted that there are strong rules in Canada:
“There are rules for relief wells. The National Energy Board does not allow drilling unless it is convinced that the safety of the environment and the safety of workers can be assured. Let me assure all members of the House that we will continue to enforce stronger environmental standards in this country.”
Still, is this enough?
Two weeks prior to the oil spill incident in the Gulf Coast of Mexico, President Obama had made a decision to lift a ban on offshore drilling off most U.S. shores, allowing for new oil and natural gas platforms in waters along the southern Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and part of Alaska. This decision was made under the assumption that it would produce jobs and assist the nation’s voracious thirst for energy (perhaps he has changed his take on the subject since). Now, three months later, it looks as if the future of offshore drilling hangs in the balance.
But was BP concerned with the safety of its workers and the environment, or were they more concerned with profits? BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward, has denied on multiple occasions any “reckless behavior” by the company, but the facts seem to prove otherwise.
According to the Toronto Star, documents provided to the House of Representatives were released that showed BP implemented a series of money-saving shortcuts and blunders that dramatically increased the danger of a destructive spill from a well; a well an engineer ominously described as a “nightmare” just six days before the April blowout. Investigators too found that BP was poorly behind schedule, losing hundreds of thousands of dollars with each passing day, only to cut corners in well design, cementing, drilling efforts, and the installation of safety devices.
Then, there was the estimation of exactly how much oil was spewing into the Gulf Coast in the first place. According to The Globe and Mail, a team of government scientists reported that oil had been flowing at a rate of two and a half to five times higher than previously estimated by BP and the Coast Guard. In other words, scientists calculated the well was spewing between 504,000 gallons to upwards of more than a million gallons per day; definitely not the 210,000 gallons that BP had originally presumed.
It’s in no way acceptable either that it took an offshore oil company like BP, a multinational oil company and the UK’s largest corporation, a series of attempts to stop the flow of oil that had been pouring out since the explosion occurred back in mid April.
BP’s “need to cut corners” cost them 11 workers, threatened industries and wildlife near the U.S. coast, and affected the local fishing industry. In addition, the company’s stock has lost half its value since the April 20spill. Earlier last week, BP struck a deal with the Obama administration to create a $20-billion fund to pay the cost of cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico, and compensate victims.
Staring at the facts, if BP had taken the necessary precautions in the first place, perhaps the disaster could have been avoided altogether. Nevertheless, there is something we can all learn from this. Sometimes it’s just better to do the right thing no matter the cost, then to cut corners, and pay far worse for the consequences.
Image courtesy of stock.xchng
Comments
Post new comment