Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling · 2011
Chapter Five: "You're in it now, up to your neck!" Response and Containment
Chapter Five: "You're in it now, up to your neck!" Response and Containment
¶No single story dominated newspaper headlines on April 21 and 22. America's most-read papers led with articles about the progress of financial reform legislation; the Supreme Court's 8–1 ruling in a case about video depictions of animal cruelty and the First Amendment; the death of civil rights leader Dorothy Height; and the Food and Drug Administration's plans to target sodium content in packaged foods.1 Brady Dennis and Shailagh Murray, "GOP Changes Tone on Financial Bill," Washington Post, April 21, 2010; Edward Wyatt and David M. Herszenhorn, "Bill on Finance Wins Approval of Senate Panel," New York Times, April 22, 2010; Jim Puzzanghera, "In N.Y., Obama to Push for Financial Overhaul," Los Angeles Times, April 22, 2010; Adam Liptak, "Justices Reject Ban on Depicting Animal Cruelty," New York Times, April 21, 2010; Joan Biskupic, "High Court Negates Animal Cruelty Law as Too Broad, 8-1" USA Today, April 21, 2010; Jess Bravin, "Court Voids Law on Animal Cruelty," Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2010; Bart Barnes, "A Movement's Matriarch," Washington Post, April 21, 2010; Andrew Zajac and Melissa Healy, "FDA Puts the Pinch on Salt," Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2010. Editors appear to have viewed these as slow news days. The New York Times, for example, ran a front-page story on April 22 about how travelers in Europe were coping with flight cancellations caused by volcanic ash, titled "Routine Flights Become Overland Odysseys, Minus Clean Socks."2 Neil MacFarquhar, "Routine Flights Become Overland Odysseys, Minus Clean Socks," New York Times, April 22, 2010.
¶A reader who flipped 12 more pages into the Times would have encountered a less lighthearted headline: "11 Remain Missing After Oil Rig Explodes Off Louisiana."3 Campbell Robertson, "11 Remain Missing After Oil Rig Explodes Off Louisiana," New York Times, April 22, 2010. USA Today and the Wall Street Journal covered the Deepwater Horizon explosion on their front pages on April 22.4 Rick Jervis, "Gulf Blast Appears to be 'Blowout'," USA Today, April 22, 2010; Ben Casselman, Russell Gold, and Angel Gonzalez, "Blast Jolts Oil World," Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2010. The articles described the tragic accident and ensuing search- and-rescue operation—USA Today said it "could be one of the worst offshore drilling accidents in U.S. history"5 Jervis, "Gulf Blast Appears to be 'Blowout.'"—but did not discuss the potential for environmental calamity. As the Los Angeles Times put it, "Coast Guard experts worked to assess any environmental cleanup that may be necessary. . .
¶Shrimp boats skim oil off the coast of Louisiana in mid-May. At its peak, the response to the spill involved over 45,000 people and thousands of watercraft, including private "vessels of opportunity" put to work by BP. The well was finally capped on July 15—87 days after the explosion.
¶< Tyrone Turner/Photo courtesy of National Geographic
130¶[b]ut the main focus was on the missing workers."6 Richard Fausset, "Oil Rig Explodes; 11 Missing," Los Angeles Times, April 22, 2010. Other dimensions of the disaster would emerge in the days that followed.
¶The Early Response (April 20–28) On the night of April 20, as the Deepwater Horizon burned and the rig's survivors huddled on the Bankston, the response began. Coast Guard helicopters from the Marine Safety Unit in Morgan City, Louisiana searched for missing crew members. The first Coast Guard cutter to join the search was the Pompano, with others to follow. An offshore supply vessel found two burned life rafts. Coast Guard responders knew that approximately 700,000 gallons of diesel fuel were on the rig and could spill into the Gulf. By 10:00 the next morning, planes involved in the search for survivors reported a variably-colored sheen, two miles long by half a mile wide, on the water.
¶The Captain of the Marine Safety Unit, Joseph Paradis, directed these preliminary efforts. He became the first Federal On-Scene Coordinator under what is known as the National Contingency Plan, a set of federal regulations prescribing the government's response to spills and threatened spills of oil and other hazardous materials.* Under the Plan, when a spill occurs in coastal waters, the Coast Guard has the authority to respond.7 40 C.F.R. § 300, Subpart D.
¶As the search and rescue continued on April 21, the oily sheen grew, more Coast Guard personnel and resources became involved, and Rear Admiral Mary Landry took over as Federal On-Scene Coordinator. The commander of Coast Guard District 8 (which includes, among other regions, the Gulf coast from Texas to the Florida panhandle), she would remain Federal On-Scene Coordinator until June 1. While the firefighting efforts continued, she told reporters, "We are only seeing minor sheening on the water. . . . We do not see a major spill emanating from this incident."8 Paul Purpura et al., "Search continues for 11 missing in rig blast," Times-Picayune, April 22, 2010. At this point, Admiral Landry's concern was the fuel oil that could spill from the rig, though she cautioned, "We don't know what's going on subsurface."9 Paul Rioux and Chris Kirkham, "Search for 11 Workers Missing After Oil Rig Explosion Is Expected To Be Called Off Friday," Times-Picayune, April 22, 2010.
¶As Coast Guard vessels continued the search and rescue operation, private offshore supply vessels sprayed water on the fire. Transocean hired Smit Salvage Americas, a salvage company, to try to save the rig. There was confusion about whether Transocean, the Coast Guard, the salvage company, or anyone at all was directing the firefighting operations.† Captain James Hanzalik, Chief of Incident Response in District 8, would later say that the Coast Guard, which was focused on the search and rescue and then on the spreading oil, "monitored what was going on, but [was] not directing any firefighting resources."10 Testimony of Captain James Hanzalik, Hearing Before the Deepwater Joint Investigation Team, October 4, 2010, 29- 30. By the morning of April 21, the rig was listing. At 11:53 that evening, it shifted and leaned even more.
¶At 10:22 a.m. on April 22, the rig sank, taking with it the diesel fuel still on board. By that time, the Coast Guard had established an Incident Command Post in a BP facility in Houma, Louisiana. BP had formed a command post in its corporate headquarters in Houston, Texas shortly after the explosion, and the Coast Guard established an Incident Command Post there as well.
¶Created in 1968, the National Contingency Plan has been amended and expanded in the years since. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 substantially expanded the Plan in response to the Exxon Valdez spill.
¶The Coast Guard/Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation Team, which plans to issue a report in March 2011, is examining the firefighting efforts.
131¶These Incident Command Posts, along with one in Mobile, Alabama, and others established later, would become the centers of response operations, with their activities directed by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator as part of the government's Unified Command. The latter is a command structure, created and implemented by the National Contingency Plan, which integrates the "responsible party" (here, BP) with federal and state officials "to achieve an effective and efficient response."11 40 C.F.R. § 300.305(c). The Coast Guard established a Unified Area Command— headquarters for the regional spill response—on April 23 in Robert, Louisiana, later moving it to New Orleans. It eventually included representatives from the federal government, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and BP.
¶Other federal agencies—including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Minerals Management Service (MMS)*—immediately sent emergency responders to the Unified Area Command and Incident Command Posts. A host of senior officials, including Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, briefed the President on their departments' efforts on the afternoon of April 22.12 Press Release, White House, Statement by the Press Secretary on the President's Oval Office Meeting to Discuss the Situation in the Gulf of Mexico, April 22, 2010. Members of the National Response Team, drawn from the 16 federal agencies responsible for coordinating emergency preparedness and response to oil- and hazardous-substance-pollution incidents,13 40 C.F.R. § 300.175(b). began conducting daily telephone meetings.
¶Even before the rig sank, BP and Transocean directed their attention to the 53-foot-tall blowout preventer (BOP) stack sitting atop the Macondo well. At about 6:00 p.m. on April 21, BP and Transocean began using remotely operated vehicles to try to close the BOP and stop the flow of oil and gas fueling the fire.
¶These early operations primarily attempted to activate the BOP's blind shear ram and seal off the well. During the attempts, MMS officials were embedded, as observers, in the operations centers at Transocean and BP headquarters in Houston. Because of the emergency, on-scene personnel from BP, Transocean, and Cameron (the company that manufactured the BOP) made decisions without the need for government approvals. Beginning on April 21 and continuing throughout the effort to control the well, Secretary Salazar received daily updates through conference calls with BP's technical teams.
¶The initial news was encouraging. On April 23, Admiral Landry told the press that, according to surveillance by remotely operated vehicles, the BOP, although "[i]t is not a guarantee," appeared to have done its job, sealing off the flow of oil and preventing any leak.14 Leslie Kaufman, "Search Ends for Missing Oil Rig Workers," New York Times, April 23, 2010. The good news did not last. The Coast Guard suspended its search for the 11 missing workers later that day. And, when Admiral Landry spoke, remotely operated vehicles had not yet surveyed the entire length of the broken riser pipe—previously
-
¶
- On June 18, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar ordered that the Minerals Management Service be officially renamed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. For consistency, throughout this chapter, we refer to the agency as the Minerals Management Service (MMS), its name at the time of the April 20 blowout.
connecting the well to the now-sunk Deepwater Horizon—that still jutted out of the top of the BOP. By mid-afternoon on April 23, the vehicles had discovered that oil was leaking from the end of the riser, where it had broken off from the Deepwater Horizon when the rig sank. By the next morning, the vehicles had also discovered a second leak from a kink in the riser, located above the BOP. On April 24, Unified Command announced that the riser was leaking oil at a rate of 1,000 barrels per day.15 Press Release, Unified Command, Unified Command Continues to Respond to Deepwater Horizon, April 25, 2010. This number appears to have come from BP, although how it was calculated remains unclear.16 Interview with Coast Guard official, August 27, 2010.
As BP realized that the early efforts to stop the flow of oil had failed, it considered ways to control the well other than by triggering the BOP. A primary
¶Oil spews unchecked from the Deepwater Horizon's option was to drill a relief well to intersect the severed riser in this video frame taken May 26. When the rig sank, the riser broke off, settling on the sea floor. Macondo well at its source and enable a drilling rig © BP p.l.c to pump in cement to stop the flow of oil. While it could take more than three months to drill, a relief well was the only source-control option mentioned by name in BP's Initial Exploration Plan.17 BP, Initial Exploration Plan, Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (February 23, 2009), § 2.6. Industry and government experts characterized a relief well as the only likely and accepted solution to a subsea blowout.18 Doug Suttles, interview with Commission staff, October 13, 2010; Interviews with Minerals Management Service officials, October 15, 2010; Interview with well control expert, October 14, 2010. BP had begun looking for available drilling rigs on the morning of April 21; it secured two, and began drilling a primary relief well on May 2 and a back-up well insisted upon by Secretary Salazar on May 17.19 Press Release, BP, Work Begins To Drill Relief Well To Stop Oil Spill, May 4, 2010; White House, Ongoing Response Timeline, May 17, 2010; David Hayes, memo to Commission staff, November 12, 2010.
¶Responders, meanwhile, shifted their focus to the release of large amounts of oil. Although the National Contingency Plan requires the Coast Guard to supervise an oil-spill response in coastal waters, it does not envision that the Coast Guard will provide all, or even most, of the response equipment. That role is filled by private oil-spill removal organizations, which contract with the oil companies that are required to demonstrate response capacity. BP's main oil-spill removal organization in the Gulf is the Marine Spill Response Corporation, a nonprofit created by industry after the Exxon Valdez disaster to respond to oil spills. The Marine Spill Response Corporation dispatched four skimmers within hours of the explosion.20 Joe Stephens and Mary Pat Flaherty, "Oil Industry Cleanup Organization Swamped by BP Spill," Washington Post, June 29, 2010. BP's oil-spill response plan for the Gulf of Mexico claimed that response vessels provided by the Marine Spill Response Corporation and other private oil-spill removal organizations could recover nearly 500,000 barrels of oil per day.21 The Response Group on behalf of BP, Regional Oil Spill Response Plan-Gulf of Mexico (June 30, 2009), App. H: 40.
¶Despite these claims, the oil-spill removal organizations were quickly outmatched. While production technology had made great advances since Exxon Valdez (see Chapter 2), spill-response technology had not. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, by requiring double hulls in oil tankers, had effectively reduced tanker spills.22 Jonathan Ramseur, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background, Governance, and Issues for Congress (Congressional Research Service, 2008), 2. But it did not provide incentives for industry or guaranteed funding for federal agencies to conduct research on oil-spill response. Though incremental improvements in skimming and boom had been realized in the intervening 21 years, the technologies used in response to the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez oil spills were largely the same.23 Joint Industry Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Task Force, Joint Industry Recommendations to Improve Oil Spill Preparedness and Response (September 3, 2010), V-3, V-5; Henry Fountain, "Advances in Oil Spill Cleanup Lag Since Valdez," New York Times, June 24, 2010.
133¶If BP's response capacity was underwhelming, some aspects of its response plan were embarrassing. In the plan, BP had named Peter Lutz as a wildlife expert on whom it would rely; he had died several years before BP submitted its plan. BP listed seals and walruses as two species of concern in case of an oil spill in the Gulf; these species never see Gulf waters. And a link in the plan that purported to go to the Marine Spill Response Corporation website actually led to a Japanese entertainment site.24 Sarah L. Milton et al., "Obituary Peter L. Lutz," Journal of Experimental Biology 208 (2005): 2817–18; Regional Oil Spill Response Plan-Gulf of Mexico App. F:19, § 11:7, App. E. (Congressional investigation revealed that the response plans submitted to MMS by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell were almost identical to BP's—they too suggested impressive but unrealistic response capacity and three included the embarrassing reference to walruses.25 Opening Statement of Chairman Edward Markey, "Drilling Down on America's Energy Future: Safety, Security, and Clean Energy," Hearing Before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 111th Congress (June 15, 2010). See Chapter 3 for more discussion of these plans.)
¶By April 25, responders had started to realize that the estimated spill volume of 1,000 barrels per day might be inaccurate. Dispersants applied to break up the surface slick were not having the anticipated effect. Either the dispersants were inexplicably not working, or the amount of oil was greater than previously suspected. Between April 26 and April 28, BP personnel within Unified Command reportedly said that they thought 1,000 to 6,000 barrels were leaking each day.26 Interview with NOAA scientist, August 20, 2010; Interview with NOAA scientist, October 13, 2010.
¶To alert government leadership that the spill could be larger than 1,000 barrels per day, a NOAA scientist created a one-page report on April 26 estimating the flow rate at roughly 5,000 barrels per day. He based this estimate on other responders' visual observations of the speed with which oil was leaking from the end of the riser, as well as the size and color of the oil slick on the Gulf 's surface.27 NOAA Scientist, Estimation of the Oil Released from Deepwater Horizon Incident, April 26, 2010; Mark Miller, e-mail to Martha Garcia, June 14, 2010. Both methodologies, the scientist recognized, were highly imprecise: he relied on rough guesses, for example, of the velocity of the oil as it left the riser and the thickness of the surface slick. He told a NOAA colleague in Unified Command that the flow could be 5,000 to 10,000 barrels per day.28 Interview with NOAA scientist, August 30, 2010; Interview with NOAA scientist, October 13, 2010. At a press conference on April 28, Admiral Landry stated, "NOAA experts believe the output could be as much as 5,000 barrels" (emphasis added).29 Press Conference, Admiral Mary Landry and Doug Suttles, New Orleans, LA, April 28, 2010.
¶Although it represented a five-fold increase over the then-current figure, 5,000 barrels per day was a back-of-the-envelope estimate, and Unified Command did not explain how NOAA calculated it. Nevertheless, for the next four weeks, it remained the official government estimate of the spill size.
¶The Response Ramps Up (April 29–May 1) At the peak of the response, more than 45,000 people participated.30 Press Release, Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center Update: The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, July 15, 2010. In addition to deploying active-duty members to the Gulf, the Coast Guard called up reservists. Some 1,100 Louisiana National Guard troops served under the direction of Unified Command.31 Paul Purpura, "Guard Troops Going Home," Times-Picayune, October 21, 2010. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NOAA, and other federal agencies shifted hundreds of responders to the region.
¶Consistent with the Unified Command framework, BP played a major role from the outset. Most Coast Guard responders had a BP counterpart. For instance, Doug Suttles, BP's Chief Operating Officer of Exploration and Production, was the counterpart to the Federal On- Scene Coordinator. BP employees were scattered through the command structure, in roles ranging from waste management to environmental assessment. Sometimes, a BP employee supervised Coast Guard or other federal responders.
134¶In a joint press briefing, BP Chief Operating Officer of Exploration and Production Doug Suttles takes the podium alongside Federal On- Scene Coordinator and Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry. The Coast Guard considered BP a co-combatant in the effort to battle the oil.
¶U.S. Coast Guard photo/Petty Officer 3rd Class Cory J. Mendenhall
¶The preference under the National Contingency Plan is for the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to supervise response activities while the responsible party conducts—and funds—them. When a spill "results in a substantial threat to public health or welfare of the United States," the Plan requires the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to direct all response efforts.32 40 C.F.R. § 300.322(b). The Coast Guard also has the option to "federalize" the spill—conducting and funding all aspects of the response through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and later seeking reimbursement from the responsible party.33 40 C.F.R. § 300.305(d). But in most spills, especially when the responsible party has deep pockets and is willing to carry out response activities, federalizing is not preferred. Coast Guard leaders, shaped by their experience implementing the National Contingency Plan through a unified command system, viewed the responsible party as a co-combatant in the fight against the oil. From their perspective, BP took its role as responsible party seriously and had an open checkbook for response costs.* That did not mean BP was happy to pay. Tony Hayward, the Chief Executive Officer of BP, reportedly asked board members, "What the hell did we do to deserve this?"34 Clifford Krauss, "Oil Spill's Blow to BP's Image May Eclipse Its Cost," New York Times, April 29, 2010.
135¶Though willing to fund and carry out the response, BP had no available, tested technique to stop a deepwater blowout other than the lengthy process of drilling a relief well. Forty years earlier, the government had recognized the need for subsea containment technology. In 1969, following the Santa Barbara Channel spill, the Nixon administration had issued a report recommending, in part, that "[u]nderwater methods to collect oil from subsea leaks should be developed."35 Office of Science and Technology, First Report of the President's Panel on Oil Spills (1969), 9. For deepwater wells, however, such development had never occurred. Within a week of the explosion, BP embarked on what would become a massive effort to generate containment options, either by adapting shallow-water technology to the deepwater environment, or by designing entirely new devices. Different teams at BP's Houston headquarters focused on different ways either to stop the flow of oil or to collect it at the source. Each team had what amounted to a blank check. As one contractor put it, "Whatever you needed, you got it. If you needed something from a machine shop and you couldn't jump in line, you bought the machine shop."36 Interview with well control expert, October 14, 2010.
¶While the Coast Guard oversaw the response at the surface, MMS primarily oversaw source-control operations. BP would draft detailed procedures describing an operation it wished to perform around the wellhead. MMS and Coast Guard officials in Houston participated in the drafting process to help identify and mitigate hazards, including risks to worker safety. At Unified Area Command, Lars Herbst, MMS Gulf of Mexico Regional Director, or his deputy, Mike Saucier, would review and approve the procedures, before the Federal On-Scene Coordinator gave the final go-ahead. This hierarchy of approvals remained in place throughout the containment effort.
¶MMS was the sole government agency charged with understanding deepwater wells and related technology, such as BOPs. But its supervision of the containment effort was limited, in line with its role in overseeing deepwater drilling more generally. Its staff did not attempt to dictate whether BP should perform an operation, determine whether it had a significant likelihood of success, or suggest consideration of other options. This limited role stemmed in part from a lack of resources. At most, MMS had four to five employees in Houston trying to oversee BP's efforts. One employee described his experience as akin to standing in a hurricane.
¶Interviews of MMS staff members involved in the containment effort also suggest that the agency did not view itself as capable of, or responsible for, providing more substantive oversight. One MMS employee asserted that BP, and industry more broadly, possessed 10 * times the expertise that MMS could bring to bear on the complex problem of deepwater spill containment. Another pointed out that MMS had trouble attracting the most talented personnel, who are more likely to work in industry where salaries are higher. A third MMS employee stated that he could count on one hand the people from the agency whom he would trust to make key decisions in an effort of this magnitude. Perhaps most revealingly, two different MMS employees separately recalled being asked—one by Secretary Salazar, and the other by Assistant Secretary Tom Strickland—what they would do if the U.S. government took over the containment effort. Both said they would hire BP or another major oil company.
¶The day the rig exploded, the emergency reserve available to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and not obligated to other ongoing response actions amounted to $18,600,000. In contrast, by November 11, 2010, BP had paid $580,977,461 to the federal government for response costs. BP's total expenditures on the response also included payments to states and to contractors it hired directly. Paul Guinee, e-mail to Commission staff, November 16, 2010; BP, Claims and Government Payments Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Public Report (November 11, 2010).
136¶Though the Coast Guard and MMS believed they had to work closely with BP, others in government did not share this view of the relationship with the responsible party. At an April 29 press conference with several senior administration officials, Coast Guard Rear Admiral Sally Brice O'Hara referred to BP as "our partner," prompting Secretary Napolitano to emphasize, "They are not our partner."37 Transcript, Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing on the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf Coast, April 29, 2010. Secretary Salazar later said on CNN that the government would keep its "boot on the neck" of BP.38 Transcript, State of the Union with Candy Crowley, CNN, May 2, 2010.
¶While struggling to explain its oversight role to the public, the federal government increased its commitment to the spill response. On April 29, a week after the rig sank and a day after the flow-rate estimate rose to 5,000 barrels per day, the Coast Guard designated the disaster a "Spill of National Significance"39 40 C.F.R. § 300.323; Campbell Robertson, "White House Takes a Bigger Role in the Oil Spill Cleanup," New York Times, April 29, 2010.—the first time the government had used that designation. A Spill of National Significance is one "that due to its severity, size, location, actual or potential impact on the public health and welfare or the environment, or the necessary response effort, is so complex that it requires extraordinary coordination of federal, state, local, and responsible party resources to contain and clean up the discharge."40 40 C.F.R. § 300.5. The designation permitted a National Incident Commander to "assume the role of the [Federal On-Scene Coordinator] in communicating with affected parties and the public, and coordinating federal, state, local, and international resources at the national level."41 40 C.F.R. § 300.323(c). Other than the quoted sentence, the National Contingency Plan is silent on the role of the National Incident Commander, who can fill the position, and what tasks he or she will handle. As a result, there is no clear line between the National Incident Commander's responsibilities and those of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator. During the Deepwater Horizon spill response, the National Incident Commander coordinated interagency efforts on the wide variety of issues responders faced, and dealt with high-level political and media inquiries, while the Federal On-Scene Coordinator generally retained oversight of day-today operations. More than anyone else, the National Incident Commander became the face of the federal response. When President Obama visited the Gulf on May 2, a fisherman asked who would pay his bills while he was out of work; the President responded that the National Incident Commander would take care of it.42 Interview with Coast Guard official, November 12, 2010.
¶On May 1, Secretary Napolitano announced that Admiral Thad Allen, the outgoing Commandant of the Coast Guard and then its only four-star Admiral, would serve as National Incident Commander.43 Press Release, Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center, Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen Designated National Incident Commandant For Continued Response To BP Oil Spill, May 1, 2010. Admiral Allen was well known in the Gulf. He had previously overseen the ocean rescue and return to Cuba of Elian Gonzalez in 1999; the Coast Guard's work securing harbors along the Eastern Seaboard after the attacks of September 11, 2001; and the federal response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, after the Bush Administration asked him to replace the stumbling director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown, as the lead federal official.44 Thom Shanker, "Commander Accustomed to Scrutiny and Crises," New York Times, September 10, 2005; Matthew L. Wald, "A New, Experienced Protector for Navy in Home Waters," New York Times, November 9, 2001; Elizabeth Bumiller, "Casualty of Firestorm: Outrage, Bush, and FEMA Chief," New York Times, September 10, 2005. His leadership during Katrina was widely considered a success. A Baton Rouge Advocate editorial published near the end of his time in the Gulf highlighted his local popularity and thanked him for his service.45 Editorial, "Allen Candid About Recovery," Advocate, December 11, 2005. Less celebrated in the media, but no less important for the task facing him as National Incident Commander, was Admiral Allen's role overseeing a 2002 simulation that tested the readiness of the Coast Guard and other agencies to respond to a Spill of National Significance off the coast of Louisiana.46 Jim Tankersley, "The Government's 'Rock Star' in Charge of the Oil Spill," Los Angeles Times, June 1, 2010. As Commandant, Admiral Allen was already participating in the response, and he put off his scheduled retirement when he became National Incident Commander.
137¶Surrounded by orange containment boom, National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen speaks to the press in Venice, Louisiana. The outgoing Coast Guard Commandant postponed his retirement to assume the post, drawing on his experience leading the federal response to Hurricane Katrina and overseeing oil-spill readiness exercises in the Gulf.
¶Steven Johnson/Miami Herald/MCT via Getty Images
¶As the National Incident Command took shape in early May, BP's efforts to stop the flow of oil continued to focus on actuating the BOP, which BP still believed was the best chance of quickly shutting in the well. These efforts were plagued by engineering and organizational problems. For instance, it took nearly 10 days for a Transocean representative to realize that the stack's plumbing differed from the diagrams on which BP and Transocean were relying, and to inform the engineers attempting to trigger one of the BOP's rams through a hydraulic panel that they had been misdirecting their efforts.47 Testimony of Harry Thierens, Hearing before the Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation Team, August 25, 2010, 104–5. (Without properly recording the change, Transocean had reconfigured the BOP; the panel that was supposed to control that ram actually operated a different, "test" ram, which could not stop the flow of oil and gas.48 Henry Fountain, "Notes from Wake of Blowout Outline Obstacles and Frustration," New York Times, June 21, 2010; Non-public BP document, May 6, 2010. BP Vice President Harry Thierens, who was BP's lead on BOP interventions, stated afterward that he was "quite frankly astonished that this could have happened."49 Testimony of Harry Thierens, 106.) While this and other problems delayed BP's efforts, the flow of oil and sand continued to wear down the BOP's parts, making closure more difficult.50 Government science advisor, e-mail to Commission staff, October 7, 2010; Testimony of William Stringfellow, Hearing before the Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation Team, August 25, 2010, 352.
138¶BP stopped trying to close the BOP on May 5.51 BP, Deepwater Horizon Accident Investigation Report (September 8, 2010), 150. By May 7, it had concluded that "[t]he possibility of closing the BOP has now been essentially exhausted."52 Non-public BP document, May 7, 2010. In mid-May, at the suggestion of Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, BP undertook gamma-ray imaging of the BOP, which lacked instrumentation to show the position of its rams.53 David Barstow et al., "Regulators Failed to Address Risks in Oil Rig Fail-Safe Device," New York Times, June 20, 2010; Interview with senior administration official, November 8, 2010. The imaging indicated that, although the blind shear ram had closed at least partially, oil continued to flow past it.
¶State and local officials chafed under federal control of the response. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's advisors reportedly spent days trying to determine whether the Stafford Act or the National Contingency Plan applied.57 Interview with government official, August 24, 2010. On April 29, Governor Jindal declared a state of emergency in Louisiana, authorizing the director of the Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness to undertake any legal activities deemed necessary to respond and to begin coordinating state response efforts.58 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Governor Jindal Issues State Declaration of Emergency for Oil Leak, April 29, 2010. These efforts took place outside of the Unified Command framework. The Governors of Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida followed suit, declaring states of emergency the next day.59 Press Release, Governor Barbour Issues State of Emergency for Mississippi Gulf Coast, April 30, 2010; Press Release, Gov. Riley Declares State of Emergency to Prepare for Oil Approaching Alabama Coast, April 30, 2010; State of Florida, Office of the Governor, Executive Order Number 10-99 (Emergency Management—Deepwater Horizon), April 30, 2010.
¶At the outset of the spill, the pre-designated State On-Scene Coordinators for Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi participated in Unified Command.60 Interview with government official, August 24, 2010; Interview with government official, September 13, 2010; Interview with government official, September 15, 2010. These individuals were career oil-spill responders: familiar with the National Contingency Plan, experienced in responding to spills, and accustomed to working with the Coast Guard. Some had participated in the 2002 spill exercise run by Admiral Allen. They shared the Coast Guard's view that the responsible party is an important ally, not an adversary, in responding to a spill.
¶During this spill, however, the Governors and other state political officials participated in the response in unprecedented ways, taking decisions out of the hands of career oil-spill responders. These high-level state officials were much less familiar with spill-response planning. In addition to the National Contingency Plan, each Coast Guard sector is an "Area" with an Area Contingency Plan created by relevant state and federal agencies. When confronted with a contingency plan setting out how the federal and state governments were supposed to run an oil-spill response, one high-level state official told a Coast Guard responder that he never signed it. According to the Coast Guard officer, the state official was not questioning whether his signature appeared on the document, but asserting that he had not substantively reviewed the plan.61 Interview with Coast Guard official, August 31, 2010. State and local officials largely rejected the pre-spill plans and began to create their own response structures.
139¶Because the majority of the oil would come ashore in Louisiana, these issues of control mattered most there. Louisiana declined to empower the officials that it sent to work with federal responders within Unified Command, instead requiring most decisions to go through the Governor's office. For example, the Louisiana representative at Unified Area Command could not approve the daily agenda of response activities.62 Interview with BP official, October 22, 2010; Interview with government official, October 5, 2010; Interview with government official, August 24, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, August 25, 2010. Responders worked around this problem, but it complicated operations.
¶Local officials were even less familiar with oil-spill planning, though they had robust experience with other emergencies. Under Louisiana law, Parish Presidents exercise substantial authority—mirroring that of the Governor—during hurricanes and other natural disasters.63 La. Rev. Stat. § 29: 727. The parishes wanted to assert that same control during the spill, and many used money distributed by BP to purchase their own equipment and establish their own operating centers outside of Unified Command. Eventually, the Coast Guard assigned a liaison officer to each Parish President, who attempted to improve relationships with the parishes by providing information and reporting back to Unified Command on local needs.
¶Local resentment became a media theme and then a self-fulfilling prophesy. Even those who privately thought the federal government was doing the best it could under the circumstances did not say so publicly.64 Interview with government official, October 8, 2010. Coast Guard responders watched Governor Jindal—and the TV cameras following him—return to what appeared to be the same spot of oiled marsh day after day to complain about the inadequacy of the federal response, even though only a small amount of marsh was then oiled. When the Coast Guard sought to clean up that piece of affected marsh, Governor Jindal refused to confirm its location.65 Interview with Coast Guard official, October 20, 2010. Journalists encouraged state and local officials and residents to display their anger at the federal response, and offered coverage when they did. Anderson Cooper reportedly asked a Parish President to bring an angry, unemployed offshore oil worker on his show. When the Parish President could not promise the worker would be "angry," both were disinvited.66 Interview with government official, October 8, 2010; Interview with government official, October 14, 2010.
¶As the media coverage grew more frenzied, the pressure increased on federal, state, and local officials to take action and to avoid being seen as in league with BP. What Admiral Allen would later call "the social and political nullification" of the National Contingency Plan, which envisions "unity of effort" between the federal government, state governments, and the responsible party, was well underway.67 Testimony of Admiral Thad Allen, National Incident Commander, Hearing before the National Commission, September 27, 2010.
¶Spill Impacts and Efforts To Help Effects on the Gulf economy, environment, and way of life increased as the spill dragged on and oil crept closer to shorelines. Concerns about fisheries took hold immediately. The Gulf of Mexico is home to crab, shrimp, oyster, and finfish fisheries, all of which were affected by the oil. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Department of Health and Hospitals began closing fisheries and oyster grounds in state waters— three miles or less from shore—on April 30. State fishery closures continued piece by piece, beginning on June 2 in Alabama, June 4 in Mississippi, and June 14 in Florida.68 Press Release, In Precautionary Move, LDWF and DHH Announce Closures Due to Oil Spill, April 30, 2010; Press Release, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Some State Waters Closed to Fishing, June 2, 2010; Press Release, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, Revised Precautionary Closure: Portions of Mississippi Marine Waters Reopen to Commercial and Recreational Fishing, June 4, 2010; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Order No. EO 10-29, Emergency Closure of State Waters of the Gulf of Mexico in response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, June 13, 2010. NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration began conducting flyovers and modeling the movement of the oil beginning April 23.69 NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, Oil Forecast Outlook (April 23, 2010). Responders used these daily trajectory forecasts to anticipate where oil would be over the next 24- and 48-hour periods. Based on the forecasts, as well as sampling in or near affected areas, the federal fishery closures began on May 2. Through an emergency rule, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service first closed an area spanning approximately 6,817 square miles, or 3 percent of the Gulf federal fishing zone.70 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Emergency Fisheries Closure in the Gulf of Mexico Due to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 75 Fed. Reg. 24,822 (May 6, 2010); NOAA Fisheries Service, Deepwater Horizon/ BP Oil Spill: Size and Percent Coverage of Fishing Closures Due to BP Oil Spill (November 15, 2010), http://sero.nmfs. noaa.gov/ClosureSizeandPercentCoverage.htm. On May 7, NOAA increased the closed area to 4.5 percent of that zone.71 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Amendment to Emergency Fisheries Closure in the Gulf of Mexico Due to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 75 Fed. Reg. 26,679 (May 12, 2010); NOAA, Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill: Size and Percent Coverage of Fishing Closures Due to BP Oil Spill. A week later, it extended the closures indefinitely.72 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Emergency Fisheries Closures in the Southeast Region Due to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; Amendment 2, 75 Fed. Reg. 27,217 (May 14, 2010). NOAA continued to close additional areas, and on June 2—at the peak of the closures—it prohibited all fishing in nearly 37 percent of the Gulf zone.73 NOAA, Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill: Size and Percent Coverage of Fishing Closures Due to BP Oil Spill.
140¶Although unable to fish, many fishermen were not content to lay idle. As contractors and subcontractors set up camp in towns across the Gulf to carry out response activities, residents viewed them with suspicion. People in Lafourche Parish, for example, worried about the out-of-state oil-spill-response contractors who took over their shores bringing crime and taking away spill-related job opportunities.74 Interview with government official, October 12, 2010. Parish Presidents pushed BP and Unified Command to give clean-up jobs to residents and, in the newly out-of-work fishermen, saw a fleet of experienced captains who were more familiar with the intricate shoreline than any out-of-state oil-spill responders.
¶The Vessels of Opportunity program was BP's answer, and a way for BP to provide some income to affected residents outside of the formal claims process. Through the program, BP employed private vessels to conduct response efforts such as skimming, booming, and transporting supplies. Vessels of opportunity made between $1,200 and $3,000 per day, depending on the size of the boat. Individual crew members made $200 for an eight-hour day.75 BP, "Factsheet on BP Vessels of Opportunity Program" (July 7, 2010), 4, http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/ globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/factsheet_bp_vessels_of_opportunity_program.pdf. But the program had delays and problems. BP and the Coast Guard were slow to develop eligibility requirements (such as an operable VHF-FM radio) for boats.76 National Incident Command, National Incident Commander Strategy Implementation Plan Version 5.0 (2010), 474–75. Initially, there was not enough work. Later, residents and Parish Presidents complained that BP was not sufficiently targeting out-of-work fishermen at whom the program was ostensibly directed, and that wealthy or non-local boat owners were taking advantage of poor oversight to gain spots in the program. Eventually, BP established a verification process that prioritized boats registered with the state before March 2010 and that accepted only one boat per owner.77 BP, Factsheet on BP Vessels of Opportunity Program, 2. The group that may have lost out the most on the program was the large population of Vietnamese-American fishermen. Many had arrived in the region as refugees and struggled with the lack of Vietnamese-language training.78 Bruce Nolan, "Many Vietnamese fishers isolated by language from oil spill aid," Times-Picayune, May 7, 2010; Mireya Navarro, "Spill Takes Toll on Gulf Workers' Psyches," New York Times, June 16, 2010; Jessica Ravitz, "Vietnamese Fishermen in Gulf Fight to Not Get Lost in Translation," CNN, June 25, 2010. (Chapter 6 discusses the impacts of the spill on minority fishing communities.)
¶Angry that BP was deploying non-local boats in his parish waters, Craig Taffaro, President of St. Bernard Parish, started his own program using the commercial fishing fleet based there. He submitted invoices to BP, which it paid. The State of Louisiana also began its own program, as did Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes.79 BP, Factsheet on BP Vessels of Opportunity Program 5. Unified Command struggled to coordinate this floating militia of independent vessels and to give them useful response tasks. Having hundreds of vessels look for oil did not contribute significantly to the response, because aircraft were more effective at spotting oil.80 Interview with BP official, October 22, 2010. Placing boom requires skill and training, and responders differed in their judgments of how much the vessels contributed.
141¶In addition to overseeing the Vessels of Opportunity program, Unified Command needed to ensure that all workers, whether on boats or on shore, were adequately trained and taking safety precautions. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began working with Unified Command at the end of April; under the National Contingency Plan, all response actions must comply with OSHA's training and safety requirements.81 40 C.F.R. § 300.150. OSHA established rules regarding protective equipment and, because the response relied in part on untrained workers, a shortened training course.82 Rebecca Bratspies et al., From Ship to Shore: Reforming the National Contingency Plan to Improve Protections for Oil Spill Cleanup Workers (Center for Progressive Reform, September 2010), 8–9. Residents were eager to take on cleanup jobs, but some worried that, notwithstanding OSHA's involvement, response-related work would affect their health.83 Interview with responder, November 17, 2010; Bryan Walsh, "Assessing the Health Effects of the Oil Spill," Time, June 25, 2010. (Chapter 6 discusses the impacts of response activities on health.)
¶Health issues for non-workers were thornier. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention represents the Department of Health and Human Services on the National Response Team and had participated in recent spill training exercises. The Centers for Disease Control, however, had not foreseen that an oil spill could affect the health of the broader population and had not fully considered the role health agencies might play in a spill response.84 Scott Deitchman, interview with Commission staff, November 29, 2010. Others in the Department, including the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, had not either.85 Nicole Lurie, interview with Commission staff, October 6, 2010. Consequently, the Department had to consider during the disaster how it would fund spill-related activities, because BP would have to pay only for those deemed response measures by Unified Command. The Department was concerned that neither the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund nor BP would reimburse it for activities such as long-term health surveillance, and negotiations over what costs qualified for reimbursement took time.86 Ibid. At the request of Unified Command, Health and Human Services eventually, in June, sent a Senior Health Policy Advisor to support the National Incident Commander on public health issues.87 Deitchman, interview; Lurie, interview; Strategy Implementation Plan, 252.
¶The spill affected wildlife health as well. On April 30, the Times-Picayune reported the recovery of the first oiled bird.88 Molly Reid, "Only One Oil-slicked Bird Rescued so far from Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill," Times-Picayune, April 30, 2010. From then on, crude-covered animals were a fixture in the media coverage and public perceptions of the disaster. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA's Fisheries Service, state wildlife agencies, and academic organizations oversaw animal response and rehabilitation efforts.89 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Cumulative Impacts to Wildlife and Actions to Protect Wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico" (November 25, 2010), http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/CumulativeImpactsBP.pdf. Wildlife responders took recovered animals to one of several treatment centers, washing, monitoring, and then releasing them.90 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Oil Spill Response" (May 2010), http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/OilSpill- FactSheet.pdf. According to the Audubon Society, more than 12,000 volunteers signed up to help with these efforts during a single week in early May.91 Michele Wilson, "Oil Spill Update: Two More Birds Recovering, BP and Other Execs Point Fingers, and More," Audu- bonmagazine.org, May 12, 2010. Not all offers of assistance were accepted. Some groups that could have provided skilled wildlife responders, such as the National Wildlife Federation, felt discouraged from helping; in their view, there was no effective process for integrating skilled volunteers into the response structure.92 Interview with wildlife responder, October 26, 2010; Interview with representatives of wildlife organizations, October 15, 2010. Would-be volunteers worried that animal mortality was greater than it would have been had more rescuers been out looking for oiled animals.93 Craig Pittman, "Bird rescue experts kept on sideline after gulf oil spill," St. Petersburg Times, September 5, 2010; Interview with wildlife responder, October 26, 2010. (Chapter 6 discusses impacts on wildlife in detail.)
142¶Free once more, a pair of pelicans test their wings in Aransas National Wildlife Refuge after being de-oiled and nursed back to health. Taking part in the release are veterinarian Sharon Taylor and Refuge manager Dan Alonso. Over a thousand birds affected by the spill were rehabilitated; thousands of others were not so fortunate.
¶U.S. Coast Guard photo/Petty Officer 3rd Class Robert Brazzell
¶Along with volunteering for wildlife rescue, members of the general public submitted to BP and the Coast Guard numerous ideas for how to clean up the oil or plug the well. For instance, movie star Kevin Costner argued for the use of his oil-water separator, and BP eventually purchased 32 units.94 Testimony of Kevin Costner, "Deluge of Oil Highlights Research and Technology Needs for Effective Cleanup of Oil Spills," Hearing Before the House Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Congress (June 9, 2010); Fountain, "Advances in Oil Spill Cleanup Lag Since Valdez." Citizens without Costner's resources had more trouble getting their ideas reviewed. On June 4, the Coast Guard established the Interagency Alternative Technology Assessment Program to receive, acknowledge, and evaluate ideas.95 Press Release, Deepwater Horizon Joint Information Center, New Effort to Collect; Review Oil Spill Response Solutions Announced, June 4, 2010. The program received about 4,000 submissions.96 Commander Todd Offutt, e-mail to Commission staff, November 17, 2010. Most of the proposals were not viable or required too much time for development into operational response tools.* As ideas came in, the Coast Guard screened them and sent the most promising to the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, who ended up testing about a dozen during the course of the spill. None was implemented on a large scale, but the Coast Guard plans to use some of the proposals in its spill-response research.97 Interview with Coast Guard official, September 2, 2010.
¶Foreign companies and countries also offered assistance in the form of response equipment and vessels. The Coast Guard and National Incident Command accepted some of these offers and rejected others.98 White House Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and National Incident Commander Thad Allen, July 1, 2010; U.S. Department of State, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response: International Offers of Assistance from Governments and International Bodies Chart, June 18, 2010. News reports and politicians alleged that the federal government turned away foreign offers of assistance because of the Jones Act, a law preventing foreign vessels from participating in trade between U.S. ports.99 46 U.S.C. § 688. While decisionmakers did decline to purchase some foreign equipment for operational reasons— * for example, Dutch vessels that would have taken weeks to outfit and sail to the region, and a Taiwanese super-skimmer that was expensive and highly inefficient in the Gulf— they did not reject foreign ships because of Jones Act restrictions.100 Interview with Coast Guard officials, August 3, 2010; API Joint Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Task Force, interview with Commission staff, October 12, 2010; Scott Segal and Kevin Ewing, interview with Commission staff, October 14, 2010; H. Clayton Cook Jr., Letter to the Editor, "Don't Blame Delays on Jones Act," Wall Street Journal, July 20, 2010; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Jones Act Fact Sheet (July 6, 2010), http://www.deepwa- terhorizonresponse.com/external/content/document/2931/784459/1/USCG-Jones%20Act.pdf. These restrictions did not even come into play for the vast majority of vessels operating at the wellhead, because the Act does not block foreign vessels from loading and then unloading oil more than three miles off the coast.101 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Jones Act Fact Sheet; Press Release, Deepwater Horizon Joint Information Center, Admiral Allen Provides Guidance to Ensure Expedited Jones Act Waiver Processing Should It Be Needed, June 15, 2010. When the Act did apply, the National Incident Commander appears to have granted waivers and exemptions when requested.102 Non-public Coast Guard documents, June 29, 2010, June 30, 2010, and July 9, 2010.
¶Although intellectual property concerns prohibit the Coast Guard from disclosing the proposals actually submitted, news outlets reported that individuals suggested ideas like dumping popcorn from airplanes; soaking up the oil with packing peanuts, sawdust, kitty litter, and air conditioning filters; and using liquid nitrogen to freeze the oil. Julie Schmit, "After BP Oil Spill, Thousands of Ideas Poured in for Cleanup," USA Today, November 15, 2010; John W. Schoen, "BP's Suggestion Box Is Spilling Over," MSNBC, May 14, 2010.
143¶In the end, the response technology that created the most controversy was not a mechanical tool like a skimmer or oil-water separator, but a chemical one.
¶Initial Dispersant Decisions (April 30–May 10) Even before they were certain that oil was spilling into the Gulf, responders had readied planes full of dispersants to use in a potential response. Dispersants include surfactants that break down oil into smaller droplets, which are more likely to dissolve into the water column.103 Coastal Response Research Center, Research & Development Needs for Making Decisions Regarding Dispersing Oil (April 2006), 1. On April 24, once Unified Command knew a leak existed and coastal impacts were possible, Admiral Landry told reporters: "We have one-third of the world's dispersant resources on standby. . . . Our goal is to fight this oil spill as far away from the coastline as possible."104 Ramon Antonia Vargas, "Oil is Leaking from Well at Deepwater Horizon Explosion Site," Times-Picayune, April 24, 2010. Faced with what one Coast Guard captain called a "tradeoff of bad choices" between spraying chemicals on the water or watching more oil reach the shore,105 Interview with Coast Guard official, October 29, 2010. responders would wield dispersants in the battle against oil for the next 12 weeks, using novel methods and unprecedented volumes.
¶Dispersants do not remove oil from the water altogether. Energy from wind and waves naturally disperses oil, and dispersants accelerate this process by allowing oil to mix with water. Dispersed oil is diluted as it mixes vertically and horizontally in the water column.106 National Research Council, Committee on Understanding Oil Spill Dispersants, Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects (2005), 2. Using dispersants has several potential benefits. First, less oil will reach shorelines and fragile environments such as marshes.107 Coastal Response Research Center, 1. Second, animals and birds that float on or wade through the water surface may encounter less oil.108 National Research Council, Oil Spill Dispersants, 196, 274. Third, dispersants may accelerate the rate at which oil biodegrades.109 Merv Fingas, A Review of Literature Related to Oil Spill Dispersants, 1997-2008 (September 2008), 18 http://www. pwsrcac.org/docs/d0053000.pdf. Finally, responders to an oil spill can use dispersants when bad weather prevents skimming or burning. But dispersants also pose potential threats. Less oil on the surface means more in the water column, spread over a wider area, potentially increasing exposure for marine life. Chemically dispersed oil can be toxic in both the short and long term. Moreover, some studies have found that dispersants do not increase biodegradation rates—or may even inhibit biodegradation.110 Ibid., 25.
¶At the direction of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, responders first sprayed dispersants on the surface oil slick on April 22.111 Non-public Coast Guard document, April 23, 2010. Long before the spill, interagency "Regional Response Teams" had evaluated and preauthorized the use of specific dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico, with limits as to geographic areas where the chemicals could be applied, but not on overall volume or duration of use.112 RRT-6, FOSC Dispersant Pre-Approval Guidelines And Checklist (2001), iii-iv, http://www.losco.state.la.us/pdf_ docs/RRT6_Dispersant_Preapproval_2001.pdf; Region IV Regional Response Team Response and Technology Committee Dispersant Workgroup, Use of Dispersants in Region IV (1996), ii-1, http://www.nrt.org/production/NRT/ RRTHome.nsf/Resources/DUP/$file/1-RRT4DISP.PDF. The teams included representatives from relevant state governments and from federal agencies with authority over oil spills, including the Coast Guard, EPA, the Department of the Interior, and NOAA. Preauthorization, requiring the concurrence of the Team, allows the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to employ dispersants immediately following a spill.113 40 C.F.R. § 300.910(a). Timing matters, because the chemicals are most effective when oil is fresh, before it has weathered and emulsified.114 S.L. Ross Environmental Research, Ltd., Technology Assessment of the Use of Dispersants on Spills from Drilling and Production Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (December 2000), Summary-1; Robert J. Fiocco and Alun Lewis, "Oil Spill Dispersants," 1 Pure Applied Chemistry (1999): 31. Without preauthorization, responders can still use dispersants during a spill if EPA and state authorities approve.115 40 C.F.R. § 300.910(b). With the permission of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, BP and its contractors applied 14,654 gallons of the dispersant Corexit on the surface during the week of April 20 to 26.116 Figures on the volume of dispersant use are either taken directly from, or calculated based on data in, the Operations and Ongoing Response daily reports for the Deepwater Horizon Response, available at www.restorethegulf.gov.
144¶Dispersant use increased during the first weeks of the spill. From April 27 to May 3, responders applied 141,358 gallons to the surface. The following week, they applied 168,988 gallons. The Coast Guard and other responders had often deployed dispersants to respond to spills, but never in such volumes; during the Exxon Valdez spill, responders sprayed about 5,500 gallons, and that use was controversial.120 National Research Council, Oil Spill Dispersants, 68–69; Samuel K. Skinner and William K. Reilly, The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A Report to the President (May 1989), 17, App. A.
¶Faced with high-volume dispersant use, Gulf residents became concerned that the chemicals were just as bad as the spilled oil itself. Some workers reported nausea and headaches after coming into contact with dispersants.121 David Hammer, "BP Clashes with Critics on Gulf of Mexico Oil Crisis Response," Times-Picayune, May 31, 2010. However, OSHA found no evidence of unsafe dispersant exposure among responders.122 Elana Schor, "BP Continues to Use Surface Dispersants in Gulf Despite EPA Directive," New York Times, June 24, 2010. Environmental groups pressured Nalco, the company that manufactures Corexit, to disclose its formula. Although it had given the formula to EPA during the pre-listing process, Nalco declined to make the formula public, citing intellectual property concerns.123 Ernest Scheyder, "Nalco CEO on Gulf Coast to Defend Dispersant," Reuters, June 3, 2010. This decision did not reassure the citizens of the Gulf.
¶As the volume of dispersants sprayed on the surface grew, BP raised the idea of applying dispersants directly at the well, rather than waiting for the oil to reach the surface a mile above.124 Interview with NOAA scientist, October, 21, 2010; Testimony of Lisa Jackson, Hearing before the National Commission, September 27, 2010. Responders had never before applied dispersants in the deep sea. Within Unified Command, some scientists were cautiously optimistic. They hoped that, in addition to reducing shoreline impacts, subsea application would mean less dispersants used overall, because they would be more effective in the turbulent subsea environment. Responders would later conclude that subsea dispersant application also helped to protect worker health by lowering the concentrations of volatile organic compounds at the surface.125 Dana Tulis and Mathy Stanislaus, interview with Commission staff, October 1, 2010.
¶But responders were concerned about the absence of information on the effects of dispersants in the deepwater environment. No federal agency had studied subsea dispersant use and private studies had been extremely limited.126 Kenneth Meade, e-mail to Commission staff, September 27, 2010. BP's Hayward was less than helpful; he told a British newspaper, "The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume."127 Tim Webb, "BP Boss Tony Hayward Admits Job is on the Line Over Deepwater Oil Spill," The Guardian, May 14, 2010. While federal officials did not possess the scientific information they needed to guide their choices, they had to make choices nevertheless.
145¶From April 30 to May 10, scientists within Unified Command worked intensively to create a monitoring protocol for subsea dispersant use that would detect adverse environmental effects and provide criteria for when the use was appropriate. It was unclear whether the preauthorizations by the Regional Response Teams covered subsea dispersant use. EPA believed they did not and wanted to make decisions about such use at a high level within the agency. But it had trouble establishing clear and rapid communication, both internally and outside the agency.128 Tulis and Stanislaus, interview. This slowed creation and review of the testing protocols, while Coast Guard responders and NOAA scientists chafed at the delay.
¶On May 10, after several rounds of testing and revision, EPA adopted a testing protocol created by NOAA and BP scientists as its directive regarding subsea dispersant use. The directive, as later amended by EPA, limited subsea application to 15,000 gallons per day and required monitoring and compliance with environmental toxicity guidelines.129 EPA, Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive for Subsurface Dispersant Application, May 10, 2010; EPA, Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive for Subsurface Dispersant Application—Addendum 1, May 14, 2010; EPA, Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive, May 20, 2010; EPA, Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive—Addendum 3, May 26, 2010. Administrator Lisa Jackson ultimately gave EPA's approval for subsea dispersant use and would later call it the hardest decision she ever made.130 Testimony of Lisa Jackson, September 27, 2010. Observed toxicity levels never exceeded the guidelines in EPA's directive, and responders continued to apply dispersants at the source until BP capped the well.
¶Deploying the Containment Dome (May 6–8) While scientists tried to determine if subsea dispersant use was even possible, BP engineers simultaneously worked to contain and recover oil until they could kill the well. Within days of discovering the leaks from the broken riser on the sea floor, they began to consider use of a large containment dome. The idea was to place the dome, also known as a cofferdam, over the larger of the two leaks, with a pipe at the top channeling oil and gas to the Discoverer Enterprise, a ship on the surface. BP already had several cofferdams, which it had used to provide safe working space for divers repairing leaks from shallow-water wells following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.131 Richard Lynch, interview with Commission staff, October 13, 2010; Suttles, interview. By May 4, BP had finished modifying for deep-sea use and oil collection a preexisting dome that was 14 feet wide, 24 feet long, and 40 feet tall.132 Press Release, BP, Work Begins to Drill Relief Well to Stop Oil Spill, May 4, 2010. Following an MMS inspection of the Discoverer Enterprise, BP began to lower the 98-ton dome to the sea floor late in the evening of May 6.133 Press Release, White House, The Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill, May 6, 2010; "Deepwater Team Attempts To Put 100-Tonne Box over Blown-out Oil Well," Associated Press, May 7, 2010; Matthew Bigg, "Oil From Gulf Spill Creeps Ashore in Louisiana," Reuters, May 6, 2010.
¶The likelihood of collecting oil with the cofferdam was uncertain. BP's Suttles publicly cautioned that previous successful uses had been in much shallower water.134 Ian Urbina, Justin Gillis, and Clifford Krauss, "On Defensive, BP Readies Dome to Contain Spill," New York Times, May 3, 2010. BP recognized that chief among potential problems was the risk that methane gas escaping from the well would come into contact with cold sea water and form slushy hydrates, essentially clogging the cofferdam with hydrocarbon ice.135 Suttles, interview; Lynch, interview. Notwithstanding the uncertainty, BP, in a presentation to the leadership of the Department of the Interior, described the probability of the containment dome's success as "Medium/High."136 Non-public BP document, May 7, 2010. Others in the oil and gas industry were not so optimistic: many experts believed the cofferdam effort was very likely to fail because of hydrates.137 Interview with well control expert, October 14, 2010; Interview with drilling expert, October 1, 2010.
¶The effort did fail, for that reason. Although BP had a plan to deal with hydrates once the cofferdam was in place, it had not planned to mitigate hydrate formation during installation.138 Lynch, interview. When crews started to maneuver the cofferdam into position on the evening of May 7, hydrates formed before they could place the dome over the leak, clogging the opening through which oil was to be funneled.139 Campbell Robertson, "New Setback in Attempt to Contain Gulf Oil Spill," New York Times, May 8, 2010. According to Richard Lynch, a vice president overseeing the effort, BP never anticipated hydrates developing this early.140 Lynch, interview.
146¶Because hydrocarbons are lighter than water, the containment dome became buoyant as it filled with oil and gas while BP tried to lower it. BP engineers told Lynch that they had "lost the cofferdam" as the dome, full of flammable material, floated up toward the ships on the ocean surface. Averting a potential disaster, the engineers were able to regain control of the dome and move it to safety on the sea floor.141 Clifford Krauss, Henry Fountain, and John M. Broder, "Acrimony Behind the Scenes of Gulf Oil Spill," New York Times, August 26, 2010. In the wake of the cofferdam's failure, one high-level government official recalled Andy Inglis, BP's Chief Executive Officer of Exploration and Production, saying with disgust, "If we had tried to make a hydrate collection contraption, we couldn't have done a better job."142 Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010.
¶Inaccurate estimates of the well's flow also affected the cofferdam effort. According to Suttles, during this time, no one at BP believed the flow was greater than 13,000 to 14,000 barrels per day.143 Suttles, interview. The government's then-current estimate of the flow was 5,000 barrels per day. The far larger volume of the actual flow—about 60,000 barrels per day, according to the government's now-current estimate—may be part of the reason hydrates formed more quickly than expected.144 Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010; Interview with Minerals Management Service official, October 15, 2010; Interview with well control expert, October 14, 2010. Moreover, BP had publicly predicted that the cofferdam would remove about 85 percent of the oil spilling into the sea.145 Sam Dolnick and Henry Fountain, "Unable to Stanch Oil, BP Will Try To Gather It," New York Times, May 5, 2010. But the ship it planned to connect to the cofferdam was capable of processing a maximum of 15,000 barrels per day.146 Clifford Krauss and Michael Cooper, "Cap Slows Gulf Oil Leak as Engineers Move Cautiously," New York Times, June 5, 2010. While BP may have misjudged the probability of success, its decision to deploy the dome instead of another containment device appears to have turned more on timing than on perceived effectiveness: the dome was largely off-the-shelf and therefore ready to use in early May, before other equipment.147 Lynch, interview.
¶With the failure of the cofferdam highlighting the shortage of viable options to contain and control the well, somewhat outlandish suggestions filled the void. In mid-May, a Russian newspaper suggested detonating a nuclear weapon deep within the well to stop the flow of oil, as the former Soviet Union had done on a number of occasions.148 Jeremy Hsu, "Why Don't We Just Drop a Nuclear Bomb on the Gulf Oil Spill?" Christian Science Monitor, May 13, 2010. BP moved on: a little over a week after giving up on the cofferdam, on May 16, it was able to deploy a new collection device. Named the Riser Insertion Tube Tool, the device was a tube, four inches in diameter, that fit into the end of the riser and carried oil and gas up to the Discoverer Enterprise. This tool, BP's first effective means of containment, collected approximately 22,000 barrels of oil over its nine days of use.
¶Flow-Rate Estimates Creep Up (May 27) After Unified Command announced its best estimate of the flow rate as 5,000 barrels per day on April 28, a number of independent scientists began to register their disagreement. BP had contacted scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on May 1 about undertaking diagnostic work on the BOP and measuring the flow using a remotely operated vehicle with sonar and acoustic sensors. But BP cancelled the Woods Hole project on May 6 to instead deploy the containment dome.149 Testimony of Richard Camilli, "Sizing up the BP Oil Spill: Science and Engineering Measuring Methods," Briefing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 111th Congress (May 19, 2010). Based on satellite imagery of the surface slick, other non-government scientists arrived at estimates in late April and early May ranging from 5,000 to 26,500 barrels of oil per day.150 John Amos, "Gulf Oil Spill Rate Must Be Much Higher Than Stated—6 Million Gallons So Far?", Skytruth.org, April 27, 2010, http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/04/gulf-oil-spill-rate-must-be-much-higher.html; John Amos, "Gulf Oil Spill—Bigger Than Exxon Valdez," Skytruth.org, April 28, 2010, http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/04/gulf-oilspill-bigger-than-exxon-valdez.html; John Amos, "Gulf Oil Spill—New Spill Calculation—Exxon Valdez Surpassed Today," Skytruth.org, May 1, 2010,http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-new-spill-rate.html. Using the appearance of oil on the surface to assess flow from a source 5,000 feet below is inherently unreliable, but the outside scientists had no other data. That changed on May 12, when BP released a 30-second video of oil and gas streaming from the end of the broken riser. Within 24 hours, independent scientists had seized on this information and published three new estimates of the combined flow of oil and gas that ranged from 20,000 to 100,000 barrels per day.151 Richard Harris, "Gulf Spill May Far Exceed Official Estimates," National Public Radio, May 14, 2010, http:// www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525. On May 18, BP released another video, this time of the leak at the kink. Combining estimated flow from the two sources, a non-government scientist, Steve Wereley, testified before Congress that approximately 50,000 barrels of oil per day were flowing into the Gulf.152 Testimony of Steven Wereley (Professor, Purdue University), "Sizing up the BP Oil Spill: Science and Engineering Measuring Methods," Briefing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 111th Congress (May 19, 2010).
147¶BP dismissed these new estimates, with spokesman Bill Salvin stating, "We've said all along that there's no way to estimate the flow coming out of the pipe accurately."153 Harris, "Gulf Spill May Far Exceed Official Estimates." The government disagrees with Salvin's claim: according to Marcia McNutt, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, if a similar blowout occurs in the future, the government will be able to quickly and reliably estimate the flow rate using the very oceanographic techniques that Woods Hole was prepared to use on May 6.154 Transcript, Marcia McNutt, Deepwater Blowout Containment Conference, September 22, 2010.* At the time, the government responded to the independent estimates by devoting greater resources to the question of flow rate. On May 19, the National Incident Command created an interagency Flow Rate Technical Group and charged it with generating a preliminary flow rate as soon as possible and, within two months, a final estimate based on peer-reviewed methodologies. On May 23, at Secretary Salazar's recommendation, the National Incident Command appointed McNutt the leader.
¶The Group consisted of both government and non-government scientists, and included subgroups using different methodologies. It published its first estimate on May 27, stating: "The only range of flow rates that is consistent with all 3 of the methods considered by the [the Group] is 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day. Higher flow rates [of up to 25,000 barrels per day] are consistent with the data considered by [one subgroup]."155 Press Release, Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center, Flow Rate Group Provides Preliminary Best Estimate of Oil Flowing From BP Oil Well, May 27, 2010. The Group released little additional information about its calculations. A few days later, it issued a two-page report stating that the 12,000 to 25,000 barrel range represented the "lower bound" of one subgroup's estimates, and that this subgroup had chosen not to release its "upper bound" estimates, deeming them speculative because of "unknown unknowns."156 Marcia McNutt, Summary Preliminary Report from the Flow Rate Technical Group (June 2, 2010).
¶Responders uniformly contended that they were responding to the oil as it appeared on the water's surface, and that the problems with quantifying the flow from the source did not affect their ability to respond. In response to a congressional inquiry later in the summer about dispersant use, however, Admiral Allen indicated that early dispersant decisions were based on the 5,000 barrels per day figure, and that the higher estimate from the Flow Rate Technical Group "spurred responders to consider reassessing the strategy for the use of dispersants as well as other oil recovery methods."157 Admiral Thad Allen, letter to Honorable Edward J. Markey, October 1, 2010, 12.
¶Later studies would conclude that 12,000 to 25,000 barrels a day was still a significant underestimate of the amount of oil streaming into the Gulf.
-
¶
- At the behest of the Coast Guard, Woods Hole used its sonar and acoustic technology on May 31 to gather data that later yielded a flow-rate estimate of 58,000 barrels per day. On June 21, Woods Hole, again with the support of the Coast Guard, collected source samples, which initially demonstrated that 43.7 percent of the total flow was oil, while the remainder was gas. (Woods Hole has since revised this figure to 42.8 percent.)
¶Top government officials work on source control out of BP's Houston headquarters. At center is Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, flanked by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (right) and Director of Sandia National Laboratories Tom Hunter.
¶Unified Area Command, Deepwater Horizon Response
¶The Top Kill and Junk Shot (May 26–28) Throughout May, the federal government increased its presence in Houston, the hub of the well-control effort. In early May, scientists and engineers from three Department of Energy national laboratories began to work on-site with BP on containment. On May 7, Secretary Salazar asked McNutt, who had traveled to the Gulf with him on May 4, to remain in Houston. Finally, on May 10, President Obama directed Secretary Chu to form a team of government officials and scientists to work with BP on source control.158 Press Release, U.S Department of Energy, Secretary Salazar and Secretary Chu To Meet with Scientists and Engineers at BP Houston Command Center, May 11, 2010. On May 11, Secretary Chu called several prominent scientists and asked them to join him the next morning for a meeting in Houston.159 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, November 8, 2010; Interview with government science advisor, October 5, 2010; Interview with government science advisor, October 6, 2010.
¶The May 12 meeting signified the beginning of an oversight role for Secretary Chu and his team of science advisors. Secretary Chu is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who had previously directed the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he had led an effort to expand research into synthetic biofuels.160 Kenneth Chang and Andrew Revkin, "At a Sleek Bioenergy Lab, a Lens on a Cabinet Pick," New York Times, December 22, 2008. Though well known for his wide-ranging intelligence, Secretary Chu was not an oil and gas or drilling expert. During the following weeks, he immersed himself in the finer points of petroleum engineering and became intimately involved in decisionmaking with respect to containment of the well.
¶Although they were highly respected within their fields of study, the members of the advisory team had limited experience with well control and varying levels of experience with petroleum engineering generally. Secretary Chu assumed—correctly—that BP had already hired a host of containment experts, and he wanted advisors known for creative thinking. His principal deputy on the team, Tom Hunter, was about to retire from his position as Director of Sandia National Laboratories. Along with McNutt, Hunter served as a link between the on-site government scientists and engineers and the rest of Secretary Chu's science advisors, who were for the most part based elsewhere. Another team member, Richard Garwin, helped design the world's first hydrogen bomb and had worked to extinguish oil fires in Kuwait following the first Gulf War. Alexander Slocum, an MIT professor who holds about 70 patents, had done some previous work on drilling design. George Cooper had been the head of the Petroleum Engineering Program at the University of California, Berkeley.
149¶The role of both the national laboratories scientists and Secretary Chu's advisors took time to evolve from helping BP diagnose the situation—for instance, using gamma-ray imaging to show the position of the BOP's rams—to substantively overseeing BP's decisions on containment. In part, this was because the Secretary of Energy, his team of advisors, and the national laboratories personnel lacked a formal role within Unified Command. Their supervision was informally grafted onto the command framework.
¶In addition, the national laboratories team did not immediately integrate itself into the existing source-control structure, led by MMS and the Coast Guard. While MMS, the Coast Guard, and McNutt worked out of offices on the third floor of BP's Houston headquarters, the national laboratories team sat on the eighteenth floor.161 Paul Tooms, interview with Commission staff, October 13, 2010; Interviews with Minerals Management Service officials, October 15, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, October 18, 2010. One MMS staff member who was in Houston from late April through early July said that he never interacted with the national laboratories team: they never reached out to him, and he had no idea what they were working on. Perhaps because the lines of authority were unclear, BP's sharing of data with the government science teams was uneven at first. BP gave information when asked, but not proactively, so government officials had to know what data they needed and ask for it specifically.162 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, November 8, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, October 18, 2010; Interview with government science advisor, October 5, 2010. Finally, both the national laboratories team and the science advisors had to educate themselves on the situation, and on deepwater petroleum engineering, before they knew enough to challenge BP and participate in high-level decisionmaking.163 Interview with government science advisor, October 1, 2010; Interview with U.S. Department of Energy scientist, October 26, 2010.
¶With more substantive government oversight on the way but not yet in place, BP moved toward its first attempt to kill the well completely, via procedures called the "top kill" and "junk shot." Those names were fodder for late night comics: Jay Leno suggested that the top kill "sound[ed] like some bad Steven Seagal movie from the '80s."164 "Leno: 'Junk Shot,'" New York Times, June 1, 2010. In fact, both procedures are standard industry techniques for stopping the flow from a blown-out well (though they had never been used in deepwater165 Campbell Robertson, Clifford Krauss, and John M. Broder, "Oil Hits Home, Spreading Arc of Frustration," New York Times, May 24, 2010.). A top kill—also known as a momentum or dynamic kill—involves pumping heavy drilling mud into the top of the well through the BOP's choke and kill lines, at rates and pressures high enough to force escaping oil back down the well and into the reservoir. A junk shot complements a top kill. It involves pumping material (including pieces of tire rubber and golf balls) into the bottom of a BOP through the choke and kill lines. That material ideally gets caught on obstructions within the BOP and impedes the flow of oil and gas. By slowing or stopping the flow, a successful junk shot makes it easier to execute a top kill.
150¶BP's top-kill team began work in the immediate aftermath of the initial efforts to trigger the BOP.166 Lynch, interview. In planning the operation, both BP and federal engineers modeled different scenarios based on different rates at which oil might be flowing from the well. National laboratories engineers used the then-current flow-rate estimate of 5,000 barrels per day.167 Non-public U.S. Department of Energy document, May 17, 2010; Non-public U.S. Department of Energy document, May 19, 2010. Paul Tooms, BP's Vice President of Engineering, recalled that given the planned pumping rates, the top kill was unlikely to succeed with flow rates greater than 15,000 barrels of oil per day.168 Tooms, interview. A senior administration official similarly recalled being told by a BP engineer that the top kill would not work if the flow rate exceeded 13,000 barrels per day.169 Interview with U.S. Department of the Interior official, October 21, 2010.
¶With the approval of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, the top kill began on the afternoon of May 26. Secretary Chu and some members of his science team were in the command center in Houston.170 Interview with government science advisor, October 6, 2010. During three separate attempts over three consecutive days, BP pumped mud at rates exceeding 100,000 barrels per day and fired numerous shots of junk into the BOP.171 Non-public BP document, May 31, 2010. During each effort, pressures within the well initially dropped, but then flattened, indicating that the top kill had stopped making progress.172 Suttles, interview. After the third unsuccessful attempt, BP and the government agreed to discontinue the strategy.173 Interview with government science advisor, October 6, 2010; Suttles, interview; Tooms, interview.
¶As with the cofferdam, BP struggled with public communications surrounding the top kill. At the time, both industry and government officials were highly uncertain about the operation's probability of success. One MMS employee estimated that probability as less than 50 percent, while a BP contractor said that he only gave the top kill a "tiny" chance to succeed.174 Interview with Minerals Management Service official, October 15, 2010; Interview with well control expert, October 14, 2010. But BP's Hayward told reporters, "We rate the probability of success between 60 and 70 percent."175 Robertson, Krauss, and Broder, "Oil Hits Home, Spreading Arc of Frustration." After the top kill failed, that prediction may have lessened public confidence in BP's management of the effort to control the well.
¶The Federal Role Increases (Late May) By late May, the competence and effectiveness of the federal response was under assault. Polls showed that 60 percent of adults thought the government was doing a poor job of handling the spill.176 Mimi Hall, Rick Jervis, and Allen Levin, "Is Oil Spill Becoming Obama's Katrina?," USA Today, May 27, 2010. News articles chronicled local anger that BP appeared in charge of clean-up efforts.177 Matthew Daly, "Month After Oil Spill, Why Is BP Still in Charge?," ABC News, May 21, 2010, http://abcnews. go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10713257. The government's estimate of the flow rate was climbing and, with the failure of the top kill, no end to the spill was in sight.
¶On May 28, President Obama made his second trip to the region to see response efforts and meet with state and local leaders. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser would later claim, incorrectly, that he had not been invited to this important meeting.178 Interview with Coast Guard official, November 12, 2010. He told the Plaquemines Gazette that he had smuggled himself and another Parish President across bays and bayous and through an armada of state boats, gaining access only after threatening to call Anderson Cooper.179 Frank McCormack, "Privateer Perfection," Plaquemines Gazette, June 7, 2010.
¶The meeting with the President occurred at the Coast Guard station in Grand Isle, Louisiana, and included, among others, Governor Jindal, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, Alabama Governor Bob Riley, Louisiana Senators David Vitter and Mary Landrieu, Louisiana Congressman Charlie Melancon, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph, and Parish President Nungesser.180 Paul Rioux, "President Barack Obama in Grand Isle after Touring Beach in Port Fourchon," Times-Picayune, May 28, 2010. President Obama emphasized the seriousness with which the government was treating the spill, announcing at a press conference after the meeting that he would triple the federal manpower and equipment involved in the response.181 Paul Rioux, "President Barack Obama Promises No Retreat from Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response," Times-Picauyne, May 28, 2010. Though Coast Guard responders believed they were already dedicating every available resource to the spill, and did not see across-the-board "tripling" as the best use of resources, they dutifully attempted to triple the personnel engaged and boom deployed. They chronicled their progress in Louisiana in a report titled "Status on Tripling."182 Interview with Coast Guard official, August 26, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, September 2, 2010; Non-public Coast Guard document, June 14, 2010.
151Under fire, President Barack Obama meets with dissatisfied state and local officials in Grand Isle, Louisiana on May 28, during his second visit to the Gulf since the spill began. Visible clockwise from the President: Plaquemines
¶While in Grand Isle, President Parish President Billy Nungesser, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, New
¶Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, Grand Isle Mayor David Camardelle, and Florida Obama also received an "earful" Governor Charlie Crist. about Louisiana's proposal to build
¶David Grunfeld/The Times-Picayune. Photo © 2010 The Times-Picayune massive offshore sand berms as Publishing Co., all rights reserved. Used with permission of The Times-Picayune.
¶a physical obstacle to oil, which the National Incident Command had declined to approve in its entirety.183 Jeffrey Ball and Jonathan Weisman, "Slippery Start: U.S. Response to Spill Falters," Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2010. Parish President Nungesser, seated immediately to the President's left, was the first attendee to speak at the meeting and was adamant about the need for the entire berms project. Governor Jindal echoed him. In line with the federal government's effort to be more responsive to local demands, President Obama turned to Admiral Allen and asked him, in front of the berms' strongest proponents, to figure out a solution.184 Interview with Coast Guard official, November 12, 2010.
¶The "tripling" order and promise to promptly reevaluate the berms project were only two of many actions at the end of May by which the federal government attempted to demonstrate its focus on the Deepwater Horizon disaster and commitment to the communities in the Gulf. The President signed the Executive Order creating this Commission on May 21.185 Executive Order No. 13543, National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, 75 Fed. Reg. 29,397, May 21, 2010. On May 27, he announced a moratorium on offshore deepwater drilling and held a press conference about the administration response.186 Peter Baker, "Obama Extends Moratorium; Agency Chief Resigns," New York Times, May 27, 2010. The same day, Elizabeth Birnbaum, the head of MMS, resigned—"on her own terms and on her own volition," according to Secretary Salazar.187 Gardner Harris, "Minerals Management Service Director Resigns Over Spill," New York Times, May 27, 2010. Most symbolically, the federal government stopped holding joint press conferences with BP. From June 1 on, Admiral Allen gave his own daily press briefing.188 Mike Allen, "Gulf Commander to Begin Solo Briefings," Politico, May 31, 2010. But local officials continued to attack the adequacy of the federal response and to assert that that BP was running the response effort.
¶The Battles over Boom and Berms (May to June) While the response had many dimensions, local communities fixated on the deployment of boom to prevent oil from washing ashore. Although not the most effective response tool, boom is a measurable, physical object that visibly stops oil. Residents could not see source-control efforts on the ocean floor or skimming far out in the Gulf, but they could see boats laying ribbons of bright orange or yellow floating boom to protect their shorelines. According to one Terrebonne Parish resident, boom was eye candy—seeing it gave him a sense of satisfaction (even if it did not do much).189 Interview with government official, October 8, 2010.
152¶The Moratorium On May 27, after a 30-day interagency examination of deepwater drilling operations, Secretary Salazar directed MMS to issue a six-month moratorium on all drilling at a water depth of more than 500 feet in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean. Department officials justified the moratorium as providing time for this Commission to do its work and for MMS to undertake needed safety reforms. The moratorium took effect on May 30 and halted work on 33 offshore deepwater rigs in the Gulf.
¶The oil and gas industry, local communities, and elected officials from the region immediately criticized the action. Senator Landrieu testified before this Commission in July that the moratorium was "unnecessary, ill-conceived and has actually created a second economic disaster for the Gulf Coast that has the potential to become greater than the first." On July 30, BP established a $100 million charitable fund to assist rig workers experiencing economic hardship because of the moratorium.
¶The federal government concluded that the moratorium's impact would be less severe. On September 16, a federal interagency report stated that the moratorium "may temporarily result in up to 8,000 to 12,000 fewer jobs in the Gulf Coast," with these losses attributed mostly to small businesses. Louisiana elected officials criticized the report's methodology and the decision to conduct this analysis after, instead of before, the moratorium began.
¶A group of companies that provide support services for deepwater drilling vessels challenged the moratorium in federal district court in Louisiana. On June 22, the court ruled that the moratorium violated the Administrative Procedure Act and enjoined its continued enforcement. The federal government asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the district court's ruling, but the Fifth Circuit denied that request on July 8. The Department of the Interior then issued a revised moratorium on July 12, which limited drilling based on the equipment a rig used rather than the depth of the wellhead. Neither the first nor the second moratorium provided a company with the option of avoiding the bar on drilling by proving the safety of its rig operations to the government. A second group of offshore support companies challenged the revised moratorium. Before the district court could rule on this new lawsuit, the Department lifted the moratorium on October 12, seven weeks ahead of its scheduled November 30 expiration.
¶On September 30, a few weeks before lifting the moratorium, the Department promulgated new regulations on topics such as well casing and cementing, blowout preventers, safety certification, emergency response, and worker training. Compliance with the new rules is a prerequisite for both shallow and deepwater drilling permits. Some companies called these new requirements a "de facto moratorium" because of the time needed to meet them and for the Department to verify compliance.
153¶A vessel places containment boom in Louisiana's Barataria Bay. Hundreds of miles of boom were deployed along the Gulf coast, but politicians clamored for more of the highly visible barriers.
¶U.S. Coast Guard photo/Petty Officer 3rd Class Ann Marie Gorden
¶Boom became a symbol of federal responsiveness to local communities. NOAA scientists worked through the night, every night, to prepare oil trajectory forecasts for federal responders to review as they began their days.190 Interview with NOAA officials, November 18, 2010. Responders used those forecasts to plan their actions, including where to place boom. Federal responders thought that officials and residents complaining about lack of boom did not understand their strategy for deployment; officials and residents thought that federal responders were inattentive to local needs.191 Interview with Coast Guard official, August 24, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, August 30, 2010. The National Incident Command was not deaf to these complaints and gave an unofficial order to "keep the parishes happy."192 Interview with Coast Guard official, August 24, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, August 31, 2010. Coast Guard responders distributed many miles of boom according to political, rather than operational, imperatives. They felt hamstrung by the outrage that resulted when a parish or state felt slighted by allocation decisions, so they placed boom wherever they could.193 Non-public Coast Guard document, October 12, 2010.
¶Every Governor wanted more boom. When the oiling risk was highest in Louisiana, the Coast Guard directed boom there. Governor Riley of Alabama contended that this decision left his state's shoreline in danger.194 Holbrook Mohr, Justin Pritchard, and Tamara Lush, "BP's Gulf Oil Spill Response Plan Lists the Walrus as a Local Species. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal Is Furious.," Christian Science Monitor, June 9, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, Aug. 31, 2010. At a press conference in mid-May, Governor Jindal said that the containment boom provided to Louisiana by the Coast Guard and BP was inadequate, while local officials behind him held up pictures of oil-coated pelicans.195 Campbell Robertson, "Louisiana Officials Threaten Action if Spill Response Proves Inadequate," New York Times, May 23, 2010. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Mike Sole told reporters, "A lot of the decisions about Florida are being made in Mobile." He said he had warned the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, "Florida is important. We have 770 miles of shoreline to protect. I'm concerned that we're not getting enough focus on Florida."196 Craig Pittman and Rebecca Catalanello, "BP Plan to Protect Florida From Oil Spill Inadequate, Officials Say," St. Petersburg Times, May 3, 2010.
154¶The competition for boom occurred at the parish and town levels as well. St. Bernard Parish had its own contractor bring in boom; it then sought to make the Coast Guard purchase and deploy that boom locally.197 Interview with government official, October 13, 2010. Some parishes reportedly ordered boom directly from suppliers and told them to "send the bill to BP."198 Non-public Coast Guard document, October 12, 2010. Lafourche Parish kept demanding more boom—until it realized that certain skimmers were more effective and began demanding those skimmers instead.199 Interview with government official, October 12, 2010. Unified Command struggled to track how much boom was deployed and where.
¶Initially, responders made booming decisions based on their knowledge of the region's geography, the location of environmentally sensitive areas, and NOAA's oil trajectory forecasts. The oil-spill planning documents did not lay out a specific booming map, because the coastal ecosystem, particularly in the marshes, frequently changes. Unified Command eventually brought the Parish Presidents together to review boom plans that each parish had created. Some were infeasible—for instance, requesting that boom be placed in tidal passes where currents would drive oil under the boom or else damage it. In addition to worrying about useless or unnecessary boom, responders were concerned that storms could blow it into delicate marsh habitat. They deployed boom based on local pressures only to pull it away during bad weather.200 Interview with Coast Guard official, August 30, 2010; Interview with government official, August 24, 2010.
¶Once parishes had boom, they did not want to let it go. On July 22, Parish President Nungesser threatened to blow out the tires of trucks carrying away boom as the Coast Guard prepared for Tropical Storm Bonnie. Though he claimed that he was joking, the FBI called to reprimand him.201 Liz Robbins and Campbell Robertson, "Tension Among Officials Grows as Storm Nears," New York Times, July 23, 2010. Other Parish Presidents issued orders prohibiting the removal of response equipment from their parishes and threatened Coast Guard responders with arrest.202 Angel Gonzalez, "Locals to BP: Don't Leave Town Yet," Wall Street Journal, Aug. 1, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, August 26, 2010. Officials asked responders to measure "feet of boom deployed"—a statistic that was time-consuming to generate and had little value in assessing response efforts.203 Interview with Coast Guard official, August 25, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, October 24, 2010; Non-public Coast Guard document, June 14, 2010. All of these problems distracted responders from their focus on cleaning up the spill.
¶The boom wars never reached a resolution. Responders knew that in deploying boom they were often responding to the politics of the spill rather than the spill itself. And the miles of boom along the coastline still did not prevent oil from washing up on the shore.
¶The boom wars were relatively civil, however, compared to the struggle among the State of Louisiana, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Incident Command, and, ultimately, the White House over berms. Reinforcing barrier islands had long been a component of Louisiana's and Plaquemines Parish's coastal restoration plans.204 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Summary of Ineligible PWs for Barrier Islands (November 11, 2010); Tod Wells, e-mail to Commission staff, November 8, 2010; Tim Padgett, "Dredge, Baby, Dredge: Can Sand Stop the Oil?," Time, June 1, 2010. But by early May, Governor Jindal and Parish President Nungesser had seized on an idea (originally proposed by Deltares, a Dutch independent research institute, together with Van Oord, a Dutch dredging and marine contractor) to construct massive, linear sand berms along Louisiana's barrier islands for spill response, to guard the coastline from oil.205 Van Oord and Deltares, Save the Delta, The Dutch Perspective, May 6, 2010; Chris Kirkham, "Gov. Bobby Jindal and Plaquemines Officials Float Plan to Rebuild Barrier Islands to Stop Encroaching Oil," Times-Picayune, May 8, 2010. The berms project presented an opportunity for Louisiana to take the lead on a large-scale response measure—with BP footing the bill. Moreover, after the spill ended, the berms' purpose could "pivot" from response to coastal restoration.206 Interview with Coast Guard official, August 30, 2010; Mark Schleifstein, "Barrier Berm Advocates Not Deterred by Environmental Regulators' Misgivings," Times-Picayune, September 20, 2010.
¶On May 11, Louisiana's Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration applied to the Corps for an emergency permit to construct berms to "enhanc[e] the capability of the islands to
155¶"If I was a mom, what would I do?"
Sheryl Lindsay, Orange Beach Weddings, Orange Beach AL
When Sheryl Lindsay picked up the April 21 Mobile Press-Register and read the headline, "At least 11 workers sought after gulf rig explosion," she recalled, "My heart went out to the workers on that rig, the victims and their families. I couldn't believe what had happened." The newspaper reported that six of the Deepwater Horizon survivors had been flown to a Mobile, Alabama, trauma unit.
¶Michelle Rolls-Thomas/Associated Press
¶For six years, Lindsay had been president of Orange Beach Weddings, which coordinated and arranged "The Wedding of Your Dreams" on Alabama's Gulf Coast near the Florida line. Her offices on Perdido Boulevard overlooked the pristine white sand beaches of Orange Beach, Alabama—one of her firm's specialties was elegant beach ceremonies and festivities. Her busy season was starting, with 73 weddings booked for 2010. She worked with numerous contractors, from wedding planners and caterers to ministers and photographers. She knew that BP's Macondo well was now spewing oil; "But I never thought it would affect us here."
¶On April 30, the day after the U.S. Coast Guard declared the Macondo blowout a "spill of national significance," Lindsay was in her office when the phone rang. It was her first cancellation. "When the bride called to cancel, she said it was because of the spill. She didn't want her guests coming down to find oil on the beaches. She didn't want to come if they couldn't swim or eat the seafood. That's when I knew."
¶In the wake of the oil spill, "Every time the phone rang, all we got was another cancellation—or someone asking how bad it was down here. I became a counselor for these brides. Orange Beach is a popular spot for destination weddings, and many of my brides come from out of state. But if girls' weddings were still a few months out, they still had time to change plans and move the wedding somewhere else. A lot of girls asked me what they should do—they were worried about the smell, whether the guests could swim and the quality of the seafood." She continued, "This was their big day. It was tough. And you think, 'If I was a mom, what would I do?'"
¶"What's funny," Lindsay said, "is we only had about three bad weeks where oil was washing on shore and BP was staging clean-up on the beach. That was in June. The rest of the summer the beaches were pretty much clean but folks still didn't come down." As the spill gushed on, Lindsay began to realize she had no idea what the next year would look like, but it didn't look good. She did not think she could afford to renew her office lease. In 2009, she had taken out a small business loan from the local bank for $55,000 to expand her firm, but now she began to fear she could not meet those payments as her business diminished.
156¶reduce the inland movement of oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill."207 Kristi Cantu, letter to Pete J. Serio, May 11, 2010. Colonel Alvin Lee, two months shy of the end of his three-year tour as the Commander of the Corps for the District of New Orleans, cancelled a long-scheduled vacation, and the Corps immediately sought comments on the proposal from relevant federal and state agencies.208 Colonel Alvin Lee, interview with Commission staff, October 28, 2010.
¶The patience of Louisiana officials quickly wore thin. On May 17, Governor Jindal's office summoned Colonel Lee to the New Orleans airport for a meeting that included three Parish Presidents, the Chairman of the Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration, the Adjutant General for Louisiana, and the Governor himself. The group's message to Colonel Lee was clear: approve the berms project, and do it quickly.209 Colonel Lee, interview; Press Release, Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Governor Jindal & Coastal Parish Leaders Meet with Army Corps of Engineers to Stress Importance of Approving Dredging Plan, May 17, 2010. The entire Louisiana congressional delegation wrote Colonel Lee on May 20, to "implore [him] to immediately approve the emergency authorization request" for the Louisiana berms.210 Senator Mary Landrieu et al., letter to Colonel Alvin Lee and Admiral Thad Allen, May 20, 2010. In a May 21 letter to President Obama, Senator Vitter asked the President to stop the "tragic bureaucratic stranglehold" and to "make this happen now."211 Senator David Vitter, letter to President Barack Obama, May 21, 2010.
¶The Corps reviewed agency comments, conducted its own evaluation of the project, and engaged in dialogue with state officials. On May 27—just 16 days after it had received Louisiana's application—the Corps approved the issuance of an emergency permit for a significantly scaled-back berms project: six "reaches" totaling 39.5 miles in length.212 Press Release, Army Corps of Louisiana, Corps Decision on State's Emergency Permit Request, May 27, 2010; Army Corps of Engineers, "New Orleans District Emergency Permit Request Action," June 1, 2010, http://www.mvn. usace.army.mil/pao/MVNIPR1June2010Final.pdf. During the review process, commenting agencies expressed skepticism that the berms could be constructed in time to be effective for spill response and concern that partially completed berms would do more environmental harm than good.213 Agency comments were compiled by the Army Corps of Engineers at http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/news/ Emergency%20Permit%20Documents%20Compressed%20FINAL.pdf. The Corps' job, however, was to analyze the "feasibility and environmental impacts" of the berms. The National Incident Commander had the task of determining whether the berms would be "effective. . . in combating the oil spill."214 Transcript, Press Briefing by National Incident Commander, June 2, 2010. That determination was necessary to make BP pay for the project as a response measure.
¶The same day the Corps approved the six reaches, Admiral Allen authorized one of the six as a prototype oil-spill response mechanism.215 Press Release, Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center, Admiral Allen Approves One Section of Louisiana Barrier Island Project Proposal as Part of Federal Oil Spill Response, May 27, 2010. Earlier in May, an interagency task force had advised the National Incident Command that the project would not be an effective spill-response measure, in part because the berms could not be constructed in time to fight the spill.216 NIC Decision Support Document Regarding Barrier Island Proposal Based Upon Interagency Solutions Group Discussion and Army Corps of Engineers NOD 20 Permit Discussions, May 17, 2010; Draft, Berm Construction and Spill Response, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, May 19, 2010; Berm Construction and Spill Response, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, May 25, 2010. But public and political pressure had been unyielding. In an attempt to balance both sets of concerns, on May 22, Admiral Allen e-mailed an idea to his deputy: "What are the chances we could pick a couple of no brainer projects and call them prototypes to give us some trade space on the larger issue and give that to Jindal this weekend?"217 Admiral Thad Allen, e-mail to Captain Mike White, May 22, 2010. Five days later, the National Incident Command announced its approval of one prototype berm, to cost $16 million.218 Mark Schleifstein, "Sand Berm to Protect Barataria Bay Wetlands Gets Federal OK," Times-Picayune, May 27, 2010. The accompanying press release promised that additional berms could be constructed if the approved section proved effective. Building even one prototype segment would take months, however, and the segment would then need to be analyzed. Any further construction therefore would not begin until the fall.
¶But because of the meeting in Grand Isle on May 28, where Parish President Nungesser and Governor Jindal urged President Obama to approve the entire project, the National Incident Command would change course. At the meeting, the President turned to Admiral Allen and, in front of the assembled Governors and other leaders, asked him to assemble a group of experts to examine the merits of Louisiana's proposal as a spill-response measure.
157¶Admiral Allen replied that this might take some time. It was the Friday afternoon before Memorial Day weekend. But the President pushed, asking, "Can you do it next week?" Admiral Allen, put on the spot, pledged to do his best.219 Interview with Coast Guard official, November 12, 2010.
¶After the meeting, Governor Jindal immediately announced that the President had "agreed that work on the first segment must begin immediately" and that the federal government would decide "within two to three days" whether the additional five segments should proceed.220 Press Release, Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Governor Jindal: President Promised Sand-Boom Plan Progress in Days, Need Swift Action, May 28, 2010. Parish President Nungesser told a similar story to Anderson Cooper on CNN that evening, saying "The President committed by early next week, we will have an answer and I believe that he's going to task BP."221 Transcript, Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, "BP Cleanup Sham; President Obama Visits Louisiana; Oystermen in Jeopardy," CNN, May 28, 2010.
¶On June 1, Admiral Allen convened a summit in New Orleans "which included members of academia [one from Louisiana State University and a second from the University of New Orleans], federal trustees, fish and wildlife service and NOAA," as well as Governor Jindal and Parish President Nungesser. Although some experts at the summit expressed concern about causing harm to the environment, the discussion focused on the berms' potential to protect marshlands.222 Transcript, Press Briefing by National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen, June 2, 2010. The politics of the project remained close at hand: Parish President Nungesser walked out, calling the meeting a "Dog and Pony Show,"223 Bigad Shaban, "Upset Nungesser Walks Out on Coast Guard Meeting," www.ltv.com, June 1, 2010. only to return in time to speak at the end. Governor Jindal continued to express his frustration and pressed for approval of all six reaches covered by the Corps permit.224 National Incident Command, Summary of NIC Barrier Island Berm Meeting, June 1, 2010. In the face of the spill and in front of the Louisiana politicians, no one directly opposed the berms, and a "preponderance of opinion" at the summit suggested the berms would be an effective response measure.225 Admiral Thad Allen, interview with Commission staff, November 2, 2010; Denise Reed, interview with Commission staff, November 16, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, November 12, 2010.
¶That evening, following the summit, Admiral Allen and BP's Hayward had dinner together in New Orleans to discuss the berms.226 Glenn Thrush, "Carville Doesn't Regret Ripping W.H.," Politico, June 2, 2010. The following afternoon, Admiral Allen gave the go-ahead to all six reaches approved by the Corps, to be funded by BP.227 Press Release, National Incident Command, National Incident Commander Admiral Allen Directs BP to Pay for Five Additional Barrier Island Projects in Louisiana, June 2, 2010. BP estimated the cost to be $360 million, double the entire amount it had spent as of early June in "helping the region respond to the oil spill."228 Mark Kaufman, "BP Says More La. Barrier Island Berms Will Cost $360 Million," Washington Post, June 3, 2010. The Corps pegged the cost at $424 million.229 William Grawe, e-mail to Admiral Thad Allen, June 2, 2010.
¶Louisiana awarded contracts for the project to Shaw Group, a Baton Rouge-based engineering, construction, and environmental services firm, and C.F. Bean LLC, a dredging contractor based in Plaquemines Parish.230 "Shaw Group Wins Contract to Build Barrier Island Temporary Berms," Times-Picayune, June 4, 2010; Jeffrey Ball, "Accusations Fly in Sand-Berm Project," Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2010. Shaw estimated that five of the six berm reaches would be completed by November 1, and that the sixth would be completed by the end of November.231 Shaw's Environmental & Infrastructure Group, Shaw Barrier Berm Project—Daily Report Day 43, July 14, 2010. The National Incident Command estimated that the construction time for all six reaches would be six to nine months.232 Sean Smith, e-mail to Juliette Kayyem, Department of Homeland Security, May 27, 2010. Even if those estimates had been correct, the project would have been nowhere close to complete by the time the government expected BP to kill the Macondo well with a relief well. As it happened, all of the estimates were far too rosy. Only a fraction of the planned reaches would be finished before the spill ended, and very little oil would be captured.
¶From Containment to Collection (Late May to Early July) Following the unsuccessful top kill, BP teams in Houston met through the night of May 28 to assess the operation.233 Tooms, interview. Some meetings occurred behind closed doors, without government participation. At one point, Herbst of MMS and Admiral Kevin Cook, who had been dispatched by Admiral Allen to be his representative in Houston, entered a meeting and stated that they had a right to be present. Apparently, government officials had not previously insisted on joining these types of meetings, and BP personnel were surprised by the interruption.234 Interview with Coast Guard official, October 18, 2010; Interview with Minerals Management Service official, October 15, 2010. The failure of the top kill marked a turning point for the government science teams, with the government significantly increasing its oversight of the containment effort.
158¶The next morning, BP presented its analysis of why the top kill failed to stop the flow of oil. The analysis focused on the well's 16-inch casing, the outermost barrier between the well and the surrounding rock for more than 1,000 vertical feet. That casing was purposely fabricated with three sets of weak points, called rupture disks. During the well's production phase, the hot oil coursing through the production casing, which is inside the 16-inch casing, would lead to a buildup of pressure in the well. If the pressure buildup was too high, it could cause the collapse of one of the two casings. The disks were designed to rupture and relieve this potential buildup of pressure before a casing collapsed.
¶The disks could rupture in two ways. If pressure between the 16-inch casing and the production casing were too high, the rupture disks would burst outward before the production casing collapsed. If pressure outside the 16-inch casing were too high, the rupture disks would collapse inward before the casing itself collapsed.235 Internal BP document (BP-HZN-MBI 143338-50). Once ruptured, the disks would create small holes in the 16-inch casing, bleeding built-up pressure off into the rock. According to BP's top-kill analysis, pressures created by the initial blowout could have caused the rupture disks to collapse inward, compromising the well's integrity.236 Tooms, interview; Non-public BP document, May 31, 2010. BP believed that the mud it had pumped down the well during the top kill could have gone out into the rock through the rupture disks, instead of staying within the well and pushing oil back down into the reservoir as intended.237 Non-public BP document, May 29, 2010.
¶Collapse of the rupture disks was only one of BP's possible explanations for the unsuccessful top kill.238 Tooms, interview. But the company presented it to the government as the most likely scenario.239 Interview with Coast Guard official, October 18, 2010; Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010. Although the government science teams did not fully accept BP's analysis of what happened to the mud, they agreed that the rupture disks could have collapsed during the blowout, and that the integrity of the well had to be considered in future containment efforts.240 Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010; Non-public government document, June 1, 2010. In retrospect, government officials have suggested that the top kill likely failed because the rate at which oil was flowing from the well was many times greater than the then-current 5,000 barrels-per-day estimate. Because BP did not pump mud into the well at a rate high enough to counter the actual flow, oil and gas from the well pushed mud back up the BOP and out of the riser.241 Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010; Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, September 17, 2010.
¶BP had previously said that, if the top kill failed, its next step might be to install a second BOP on top of the existing one to shut in the well.242 Non-public BP document, May 23, 2010; Non-public BP document, May 25, 2010; Daniel Squire, letter to Commission staff, November 2, 2010, att. 1, 2. But now, the company engineers viewed the possibility that the rupture disks had collapsed as a reason to discard capping the well as an option.243 Non-public BP document, May 31, 2010; Non-public BP document, May 29, 2010. If BP shut the well in, oil and gas could flow out the rupture disks and into the rock surrounding the well in a "broach" or "underground blowout." From there, the hydrocarbons could rise through the layers of rock and flow into the ocean from many points on the sea floor. This would make containment nearly impossible, at least until the completion of a relief well. Thus, in the aftermath of the top kill, BP and the government focused on trying to collect the oil, with the relief wells still providing the most likely avenue for killing the well altogether.244 Non-public BP document, May 31, 2010; Non-public BP document, May 29, 2010.
159¶Transocean's huge drill ship the Discoverer Enterprise, its derrick towering 400 feet above the sea, and Helix's Q4000 (foreground) sit over the gushing wellhead. Together the vessels were able to recover up to 25,000 barrels of oil per day.
¶Julie Dermansky ©2010
¶BP had a team ready to proceed with new collection tools almost immediately.245 Lynch, interview. On May 29, the company and the government announced that BP would attempt to cut off the portion of the riser still attached to the top of the BOP and install a collection device—the "top hat"—which would then be connected via a new riser to the Discoverer Enterprise above.246 Deepwater Horizon Response Joint Information Center, Ongoing Administration-Wide Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill, May 29, 2010; Press Release, BP, Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, May 29, 2010. BP began installing the device on June 1, and had the top hat in place and functioning by 11:30 p.m. on June 3. Having learned from its cofferdam experience, BP injected methanol to prevent formation of hydrates. By June 8, the Discoverer Enterprise was collecting nearly 15,000 barrels of oil per day.
¶BP also developed a system to bring oil and gas to the surface through the choke line on the BOP. BP outfitted the Q4000, a vessel involved in the top-kill effort, with collection equipment, including an oil and gas burner imported from France. After it became operational on June 16, the Q4000 system was able to process and burn up to 10,000 barrels of oil per day.*
¶On occasion, BP was overly optimistic about the percentage of the oil it could remove or collect. On June 1, Suttles said that he expected the top hat, when connected to the Discoverer Enterprise, to be able to collect the "vast majority" of the oil.247 Helene Cooper and Peter Baker, "U.S. Opens Criminal Inquiry into Oil Spill," New York Times, June 1, 2010. Within days, it became apparent that the top hat and Discoverer Enterprise were inadequate. On June 6, Hayward told the BBC that, with the Q4000 in place, "we would very much hope to be containing the vast majority of the oil."248 "BP Chief Hopes Cap Will Capture Most of Gulf Oil," Reuters, June 6, 2010. But when the Q4000 came online in mid-June, the two vessels' joint capacity of 25,000 barrels per day was still insufficient.
¶Over the course of June and early July, BP worked on further expanding its containment system, which it asserted would eventually be able to collect up to 90,000 barrels of oil per day. BP never used the complete system, based around two freestanding risers connected to the choke and kill lines on the BOP, because it succeeded in capping the well on July 15.
160¶It is unclear whether BP could have increased its collection capacity more rapidly than it did. BP's Lynch said that the speed at which the company brought capacity online was limited solely by the availability of dynamically positioned production vessels.* One senior Coast Guard official challenged BP's definition of availability: he suggested that BP did not consider options such as procuring ships on charter with other companies until the government pushed it to do so. Obtaining another production vessel might have enabled BP to collect oil through the BOP's kill line at a rate comparable to that of the Q4000.249 Doug Suttles, letter to Admiral James Watson, June 9, 2010 (suggesting that with the Clear Leader attached to the kill line, BP could collect 5-10,000 barrels per day).
¶Continued Conflict about Dispersant Use (May 10–July 14) Because of the insufficient collection capacity, oil continued to flow into the Gulf. Though the subsea use of dispersants proved helpful in preventing huge surface slicks, it did not initially have the predicted effect of reducing the total volume of dispersants applied. At a May 24 press conference, EPA Administrator Jackson announced that the government was instructing BP to "take immediate steps to significantly scale back the overall use of dispersants" and expressed EPA's belief that "we can reduce the amount of dispersant applied by as much as half, and I think probably 75 percent, maybe more."250 Lisa Jackson, EPA Conference Call on Dispersant Use in the Gulf of Mexico with U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Landry, May 24, 2010. A Coast Guard–EPA letter and joint directive issued two days later instructed BP to "eliminate the surface application of dispersants," except in "rare cases when there may have to be an exemption."251 EPA, Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive—Addendum 3, May 26, 2010.
¶Despite this directive, surface use of dispersants continued. When surveillance aircraft spotted oil and no other method of cleaning it up was available in the area, BP would ask for an exemption from the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, who would then seek EPA's approval. The Coast Guard could not unilaterally allow the exemption; EPA had the final vote.
¶EPA expressed frustration that BP sought regular exemptions, and it repeatedly asked for more robust explanations of why BP could not use mechanical recovery methods, such as skimming and burning, instead of dispersants.252 Dana Tulis, e-mail to Admiral James Watson, June 7, 2010. Coast Guard responders, who viewed dispersants as a powerful tool to protect the coastline, wondered why EPA wanted to cast aside the advance planning that went into the preauthorization of surface dispersant use.253 Captain James Hanzalik, e-mail to Captain Anthony Lloyd, June 8, 2010.
¶These different perspectives on dispersants led to conflicts between EPA and the Coast Guard. For example, on June 7, BP requested permission to spray dispersants on several large slicks. Despite Federal-On Scene Coordinator Rear Admiral James Watson's statement that he had "determined aerial dispersant the best and only way to mitigate the pending landfall effect of the oil spotted," EPA would not approve the exemption.254 Admiral James Watson, e-mail to Dana Tulis, et al., June 7, 2010; Dana Tulis, e-mail to Admiral James Watson, June 7, 2010. The Coast Guard captain leading the majority of front-line operations was furious. "It would be a travesty," he wrote, "if the oil hits the beach because we did not use the tools available to fight this offshore. This responsibility needs to be placed squarely in EPA's court if it does hit the shoreline."255 Captain James Hanzalik, e-mail to Captain Anthony Lloyd, June 8, 2010. Later that day, without having received responses to its requests for additional data, EPA threatened to issue a directive "to stop the use of all dispersants."256 Dana Tulis, e-mail to Admiral James Watson, June 8, 2010.
¶Dynamically positioned vessels have computer-controlled systems that maintain the vessel's exact position and direction, despite external factors such as wind, waves, and current.
161¶The working relationship between the agencies improved over time, with more complete justifications for dispersant use included in the daily requests for exemptions.257 Mathy Stanislaus, e-mail to Admiral James Watson, July 9, 2010, att. But disagreements came to a boil again in mid-July. By this point, EPA had finally installed a senior official, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response Mathy Stanislaus, on the ground at Unified Area Command.258 Stanislaus, interview. On July 13, BP's head of dispersant operations made a request to apply 10,000 gallons to slicks.259 Charles Huber, e-mail to Commander William Carter and Captain Roger Laferriere, July 13, 2010. The request ultimately went to Stanislaus, who denied it, noting that skimming in particular had been extremely effective over the past few days.260 Mathy Stanislaus, e-mail to Admiral Paul Zukunft, July 13, 2010. The Federal On-Scene Coordinator (by this time Rear Admiral Paul Zukunft) replied that he could not "take the dispersant tool out of my kit when" oil threatened to hit environmentally sensitive areas in Louisiana. "We spent over a month cleaning Barataria Bay with over 1500 people and 600 vessels," he added, "and still incurred significant wildlife kills while exposing these clean-up crews to extreme heat conditions. That is the trade-off option where dispersants come into play. . . ."261 Admiral Paul Zukunft, e-mail to Mathy Stanislaus, July 14, 2010. The back-and-forth continued, with BP ultimately prohibited from using dispersants on July 14.262 EPA, "July 11-14 Dispersant Request Summary," (provided to Commission staff October 21, 2010). The capping of the well the next day tabled the conflict.
¶Months later, Admiral Allen and Administrator Jackson would say that they had cooperated closely, nearly attained the goal of a 75 percent reduction in dispersant use, and were satisfied with the use of dispersants to mitigate the spill.263 Matthew L. Wald, "Despite Directive, BP Used Dispersant Often, Panel Finds," New York Times, July 31, 2010; "Allen 'Satisfied' with Dispersant Use in Gulf Oil Disaster," CNN, August 2, 2010.
¶The Well Is Finally Capped (Late June to July 15—and Beyond) Meanwhile, in Houston, the government continued to develop a more effective structure for oversight of well control. The basic elements of the structure were in place by mid- May, and the roles of the different government teams were better defined by mid-June. MMS and the Coast Guard continued to focus on identifying hazards in BP's technical procedures; personnel from the national laboratories and the U.S. Geological Survey provided information and analyses to the science advisors and BP; and the science advisors conducted their own independent analyses and helped inform the government's ultimate decisionmakers, including Secretary Chu, Secretary Salazar, McNutt, Hunter, Carol Browner (Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy), and Admiral Allen.264 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, October 25, 2010; Interview with Coast Guard official, October 18, 2010.
¶Following the failure of the top kill, BP began presenting its source-control plans for review by these government teams. The science advisors would question BP's assumptions, forcing it to evaluate worst-case scenarios and explain how it was mitigating risks.265 Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010; Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, October 25, 2010; Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, October 26, 2010. The government saw its pushback as essential because BP would not, on its own, consider the full range of possibilities.266 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, November 8, 2010. According to one senior government official, before the increased supervision, BP "hoped for the best, planned for the best, expected the best."267 Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010. BP often found the supervision frustrating. Tooms, BP's Vice President of Engineering, believed that the government science advisors unnecessarily slowed the containment effort, arguing that scientists consider risk differently than engineers and that BP had expertise in managing risk.268 Tooms, interview. BP, however, was not in the best position to tout that expertise: its well had just blown out.
¶In mid- to late June, the government teams also began to seek more frequent input from other oil companies, primarily through large conference calls of 30 or more people.
162¶Although BP had previously turned to others in industry for advice, it had generally asked discrete questions about aspects of source control. The government teams, by contrast, asked other companies to comment on BP's overall plans and to help force BP to consider contingencies. BP, which believed its competitors suffered from a conflict of interest, did not appreciate the increased industry involvement. After one meeting in which BP's competitors aggressively challenged its plans, BP refused to meet with them again, forcing the government teams to schedule separate meetings.269 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, November 8, 2010.
¶The conference calls were somewhat disorganized, with no agenda and participants sometimes not knowing who was speaking. One industry participant recalled an instance when he was chagrined to learn he had been talking to Secretary Chu without realizing it.270 Interview with industry expert, October 14, 2010. A senior government official noted that some colleagues viewed BP's conflict-of- interest concerns as valid and took the competitors' advice "with a grain of salt."271 Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010. But government personnel generally found the industry participation helpful.
¶The science advisors' oversight increased substantially during June. On June 18, Secretary Chu sent an e-mail to the advisory team as well as some national laboratories scientists, describing their expanded role. The e-mail cited a scene from the classic World War II movie The Guns of Navarone, and quoted the character played by Gregory Peck: "[Y]our bystanding days are over! You're in it now, up to your neck! They told me that you're a genius with explosives. Start proving it!" Recognizing that there were "[p]robably no shaped charges to be used on this mission," Secretary Chu wrote that "the rest rings true." He enclosed a directive that Admiral Watson, the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, would issue the next day, formally requiring BP to submit any "pending decision" on containment to the government "for review."272 Secretary Steven Chu, e-mail to Arun Majumdar and others, June 18, 2010; Admiral James Watson, letter to Doug Suttles, June 19, 2010.
¶The role of the science advisors and the on-site scientists increased just as the source-control effort approached a critical phase. By late June, BP was well on its way toward deploying a "capping stack," which, once installed on top of the BOP, would enable BP to shut in the well. The capping stack was essentially a smaller version of a BOP, similarly designed to stop the flow of oil and gas. BP had internally discussed installing a tight- sealing cap within a week of the blowout.273 Suttles, interview; Tooms, interview. Following the top kill, however, BP and the government had shelved the idea of shutting in the well, in part because of concerns that the rupture disks in the well's 16-inch casing had collapsed, potentially allowing oil to flow out of the well into the rock. The government and BP had to take these concerns into account when planning for use of the capping stack.
¶Secretary Chu and Hunter briefed the President on the capping stack in late June or early July, and he approved its use. The government appears to have delayed installation for a few days, however, to continue analyzing the significant risks of shutting in the well.274 Daniel Squire, letter to Commission staff, November 2, 2010, att. 3; Lynch, interview; Tooms, interview; Non-public U.S. Department of Energy document, July 6, 2010. One critical analysis involved the geology surrounding the Macondo well. The government's scientific Well Integrity Team concluded that it would take a total of approximately 100,000 barrels of oil flowing through the rupture disks into the surrounding rock for oil to create paths through the rock to the sea floor. The Team further concluded that such paths were likely to close or "heal" if BP and the government detected oil flow into the rock and reopened the capping stack with sufficient speed. To spot any
163¶"This unnatural, unnatural catastrophe. . . ."
Al & Sal Sunseri, P&J Oyster Company, New Orleans, LA
Al and Sal Sunseri are co-owners of P&J Oyster Company, their family's 134-year-old business in the French Quarter of New Orleans. P&J processes and sells some 60,000 Louisiana oysters to the city's best restaurants and local oyster bars on a typical day. When Al first heard about the Deepwater Horizon rig accident, he recalled thinking, "'What a terrible thing for those people.'" He added, "I didn't think more about it because the Coast Guard and everyone said it would be limited."
¶The Louisiana Seafood Marketing and Promotion Board
¶Al's routine remained unchanged in the days after the Deepwater Horizon blowout and fire: early mornings bustling with deliveries, the din of his skilled shuckers pounding and prying open oysters, preparing orders. Then, on Saturday, April 24, the Sunseris and the rest of America heard that oil was leaking from the rig's broken riser. With each passing day, the news only got worse.
¶P&J oysters are an institution in New Orleans, a celebrated brand proudly listed on local menus as a promise of taste and quality. P&J specializes in Louisiana oysters; most of their suppliers farm in the Barataria Basin, west of the Mississippi River. P&J had survived floods, the Great Depression, and even Hurricane Katrina. But now, the Sunseri family and the staff were all at the mercy of a runaway oil spill, with no end in sight.
¶Throughout May, the Macondo well gushed on unchecked, and by early June, the government had closed Louisiana oyster beds. The Sunseris had taken over from their father 25 years earlier. Now, for the first time, they had to lay off 11 skilled shuckers. "These ladies here, those guys—I grew up with them," Al said. "We were in our twenties when we started." Longtime employee Wayne Gordon, 42, had been shucking at P&J since he was 18: "Twenty-four years. I cannot imagine not being here." As the shuckers worked their way through what was to be the final pile of succulent Louisiana shellfish, the owner of a nearby restaurant appeared with a breakfast buffet of scrambled eggs, fried ham, grits, and biscuits. "After a funeral, we bring food," said the restaurateur, a longtime customer.
¶Al's son Blake, 24, has spent the past three years learning the business, intent on becoming the sixth family generation to run it. "This is a real devastating event for me," he said. "This is my home, it feels like I don't really have a say in what's going on around me." He could have been speaking for millions of his fellow Americans, all along the Gulf of Mexico coast, who suddenly found themselves and their worlds facing ruin from what his uncle, Sal, called "this unnatural, unnatural catastrophe."
164¶problem quickly enough to avoid lasting damage, the Team recommended monitoring shut-in pressure at the BOP as well as visual, seismic, sonar, and acoustic data.275 Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 20, 2010; Non-public government science advisor document, July 2, 2010; Interview with industry expert, October 14, 2010. Because shutting the capping stack would increase the pressure inside the well, the government was also concerned about bursting either the rupture disks (if they had not already collapsed) or another weak point in the casings. One industry executive recalled discussing this issue on a conference call with the science advisors; he expressed his view that allowing the pressure to climb above the level recorded during the top kill would be traveling into uncharted territory, with uncertain risks.
¶On July 9, as analysis of these risks continued, Admiral Allen authorized BP to install the capping stack, but not to close it.276 Admiral Thad Allen, letter to Bob Dudley, July 9, 2010. The extremely complicated operation began the next day. After removing the top hat from the top of the riser, remotely operated vehicles had to unbolt the stub of riser connected to the top of the Deepwater Horizon BOP stack, remove this stub, look for any pieces of drill pipe sticking up through the top of the BOP stack, slide the capping stack into place, and bolt it to the BOP stack. The process went smoothly, and BP finished installing the capping stack without incident by July 12. Suttles described this installation as the best operation of the entire source-control effort.277 Suttles, interview.
¶BP next prepared to temporarily close the capping stack in a planned "well integrity test," to determine whether the well had been compromised and oil could flow into the rock formation. In a July 12 letter, Admiral Allen formally authorized the test to begin.278 Admiral Thad Allen, letter to Bob Dudley, July 12, 2010. But it did not. About two hours before the test was supposed to start, the government teams met with BP and industry representatives, including from Exxon (in person) and Shell (by phone). Secretary Chu and Admiral Allen were both present in person. BP faced significant criticism of the wisdom of attempting the test, with Exxon and Shell raising concerns associated with shutting in the well that had yet to be considered by BP or the government.279 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, October 26, 2010; Interview with industry expert, October 28, 2010. In the most extreme scenario, one industry expert suggested that an underground blowout could cause the sands around the wellhead to liquefy and the entire BOP to disappear into the sea floor.280 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, November 8, 2010; Non-public government science advisor document, July 13, 2010. Because Secretary Chu and the science advisors believed that these risks required further study, Admiral Allen delayed the test to allow for 24 hours of additional analysis.281 Statement from National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen on Well Integrity Test, July 13, 2010.
¶Overnight, the government science teams reached out to industry and academia for help. By 10:00 the next morning, experts had reassured the government that catching a leak early enough would prevent catastrophic consequences.282 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, November 8, 2010. With the government teams satisfied, Admiral Allen reauthorized the well integrity test. The test was to last from 6 to 48 hours, and BP had to monitor pressure, sonar, acoustic, and visual data continuously, as recommended by the Well Integrity Team.283 Admiral Thad Allen, letter to Bob Dudley, July 14, 2010. Secretary Chu required BP to dedicate two remotely operated vehicles to visually monitor for leaks at the wellhead.
¶Although the Well Integrity Team had calculated that it would take a leak of approximately 100,000 barrels for oil and gas to reach the sea floor, the government was prepared to permit a leak of only 20,000 barrels before requiring the capping stack to be reopened.284 Interviews with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 20, 2010; Non-public U.S. Department of Energy document, July 11, 2010. Using an estimate for the expected pressure at shut-in derived from BP's modeling of the reservoir, the Team developed guidelines for the length of the test.285 Non-public government document, July 11, 2010; Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, October 25, 2010. If the pressure at shut-in was less than 6,000 pounds per square inch, major well damage was likely—BP would have to terminate the test within six hours and reopen the well. If the shut-in pressure was greater than 7,500 pounds per square inch, the risk of a leak was low, and the test could proceed for the full 48 hours. Finally, if the shut-in pressure was between 6,000 and 7,500 pounds per square inch, the risk of a leak was uncertain—either there was a medium-sized leak or the reservoir was highly depleted. Under this scenario, the test could proceed for 24 hours. (See Figure 5.1.) If the pressure was too high, there was also the risk of causing a new rupture.
165¶FIGURE 5.1: Protocol for Well Integrity Test
¶After a 24-hour delay to repair a minor leak, BP shut the stack and began the well integrity test at about 2:25 p.m. on July 15.286 Campbell Robertson and Henry Fountain, "BP Says Oil Flow Has Stopped as Cap Is Tested," New York Times, July 15, 2010. For the first time in 87 days, no oil flowed into the Gulf of Mexico. Initial wellhead pressure readings were just over 6,600 pounds per square inch—in an uncertain middle range that one senior administration official termed "purgatory"—and rising slowly.287 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, November 8, 2010; Non-public U.S. Department of Energy document, July 16, 2010; Non-public government science advisor document, July 15, 2010. Later that afternoon, the science advisors, including McNutt and Hunter, met with Secretaries Salazar and Chu to determine whether to keep the well shut in. Based on the early pressure data, the group appears to have been firmly in favor of reopening the well. Garwin, who had opposed even undertaking the well integrity test, voiced the strongest opinion, arguing BP ought to stop the test immediately and wondering whether it was already too late. No one at the meeting appears to have argued in favor of keeping the well closed.288 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, October 26, 2010; Interview with Minerals Management Service official, October 15, 2010; Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, October 21, 2010; Non-public government science document, July 15, 2010.
¶Following the science team meeting, Admirals Allen and Cook, Browner, Secretaries Chu and Salazar, and McNutt had a series of conversations to determine how to proceed. Keeping the capping stack shut could cause an underground blowout and, in the worst case, loss of a significant portion of the 110-million-barrel reservoir into the Gulf.289 Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, October 25, 2010; Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official, October 26, 2010; Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010. This risk had to be balanced against the benefit of stopping the spill, a continuing environmental disaster. The government decisionmakers recognized that the public wanted the well plugged and the flow of oil into the Gulf stopped, but the risk of causing greater harm was real.
166¶Admiral Cook made the argument that eventually prevailed. He reminded the others that, before the test began, BP and the government had considered the possibility of pressure measurements like those being observed. Both had agreed that, in such a case, the test should last 24 hours, with consultation between the parties before reopening the well.290 Interview with Coast Guard official, October, 18, 2010; Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010. The government leaders decided that they should follow this protocol: the stack would stay closed overnight.
¶This additional time proved critical. Using a single cell-phone photograph of the plot of initial pressure readings, Paul Hsieh, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist then in Menlo Park, California, worked overnight to develop an explanation of the results of the test, including the lower-than-expected shut-in pressure. Pre-test expectations had been based on an incomplete understanding of the reservoir's geometry and on pressure readings from a single gauge at the bottom of the BOP, which was only accurate to plus or minus 400 pounds per square inch and functioning sporadically. At the government's behest, BP had equipped the capping stack with pressure gauges.291 Non-public U.S. Department of Energy document, June 30, 2010. Following the shut-in of the well, those gauges provided accurate pressure data for the first time. Using that data along with a flow-rate estimate of 55,000 barrels per day and BP's estimate that the reservoir contained 110 million barrels of oil, Hsieh was able to generate a model that predicted the observed shut-in pressure without having to assume a significant oil and gas leak into the rock formation.292 Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010; Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010.
¶The next morning, the government principals and the science advisors—who had been convinced that reopening the stack was necessary—hosted a meeting. Both BP and Hsieh made presentations explaining the observed pressures at shut-in, with BP arguing that the well should remain capped.293 Tooms, interview; Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010; Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010. Participants had different recollections as to whether Hsieh's or BP's presentation carried more weight. But the outcome of the meeting was clear: the stack would stay shut, with the government reevaluating that decision every six hours.
¶While it went unrealized at the time, a critical point had passed. As intense monitoring of the area around the wellhead continued over the next several days, Hsieh's model continued to predict the behavior of the well, and a leak into the formation became progressively less likely.294 Interview with U.S. Geological Survey official, October 21, 2010. Although the well integrity test had originally been scheduled to last a maximum of 48 hours, Admiral Allen began to extend it in 24-hour increments beginning on July 17. At his July 24 press briefing, he stated what was by then plain: "our confidence [in the capping stack] is increasing and we have better integrity in the well than we may have guessed."295 Transcript, Press Briefing by National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen and NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, July 24, 2010.
¶Meanwhile, on July 19, BP publicly raised the possibility of killing the well before completing a relief well, through a procedure called a "static kill."296 Bob Dudley, letter to Admiral Thad Allen, July 19, 2010. Like the top kill, the static kill involved pumping heavy drilling mud into the well in an effort to push oil and gas back into the reservoir. But because the oil and gas were already static, the pumping rates required for the static kill to succeed were far lower than for the top kill.
167¶The primary concern with the static kill was the pressure it would put on the well. On July 28, BP received an unsolicited letter from Pat Campbell, a Vice President at Superior Energy Services, which owned BP contractor Wild Well Control, recommending in no uncertain terms that the static kill not proceed. Campbell, who had worked with legendary well-control expert Red Adair, reiterated a point already raised by others in the industry: that the only pressure the well could withstand for certain was the current shut-in pressure (approximately 6,920 pounds per square inch at the time he wrote).297 Pat Campbell, letter to Richard Lynch, July 28, 2010; Henry Fountain, "Expert is Confident about Sealing Oil Well," New York Times, May 24, 2010; Interview with industry expert, October 14, 2010.
¶Despite these issues, after some delays caused by weather and work on the first relief well, the government approved the plan for the static kill on August 2.298 Transcript, Press Briefing by National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen, August 2, 2010. A mud injection test began on August 3, and pressure at the wellhead increased only slightly before beginning to drop.299 Press Release, BP, Static Kill Injectivity Testing Commences on MC252 Well, August 3, 2010; Non-public U.S. Department of Energy document, August 3, 2010. Based on the positive results of the test, BP began slowly pumping more drilling mud into the well later that same day. By 11:00 p.m., the static kill had succeeded.300 Press Release, BP, MC252 Well Reaches Static Condition; Well Monitoring Underway, August 4, 2010. The following evening, Admiral Allen authorized BP to follow the mud with cement.301 Statement by National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen, August, 4 2010. BP finished cementing the next day. On August 8, Admiral Allen reported that the cement had been pressure-tested and was holding.302 Face the Nation, CBS News, August 8, 2010.
¶The Fate of the Oil (August 4) On August 4, the same day it announced the static kill's success, the federal government released a 5-page report titled BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget: What Happened to the Oil?, as well as a 10-page supporting document titled Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget.303 Deepwaer Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget (August 4, 2010); Jane Lubchenco et al., BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget: What Happened to the Oil? (August 4, 2010). The "Oil Budget" provided the government's first public estimate of the total volume of oil discharged during the spill—roughly 4.9 million barrels. The government arrived at this number using its current flow-rate estimate, which ranges from 62,200 barrels per day on April 22 to 52,700 barrels per day on July 14, just before the capping stack stopped the flow.304 Deepwater Horizon MC252 Gulf Incident Oil Budget, 1. * The Oil Budget also described the efficacy of different response methods.
¶The Oil Budget was originally an operational tool, intended as a guide for responders, not as the basis for a scientific report on what happened to the oil. Nonetheless, in late July, the White House decided to publicly release the Oil Budget and asked NOAA to take the lead on drafting a short report to introduce the tool.305 Heather Zichal, e-mail to Jane Lubchenco, July 29, 2010. The Budget cleared the interagency review process in time for its August 4 release.†
¶The White House's Browner appeared on six morning newscasts on August 4 to discuss both the successful static kill and the Oil Budget report. On NBC, MSNBC, and ABC, she told viewers that, according to the report, "the vast majority," or approximately three-quarters, of the oil "is gone" or "appears to be gone."‡ The Budget, however, did not * show that most of the oil was gone. The three-quarters of the oil not in the "remaining" category included "dissolved" and "dispersed" oil that was potentially biodegrading, but not necessarily gone. By 9:00 a.m., NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco e-mailed Browner's deputy and other officials to express her concern "that the oil budget is being portrayed as saying that 75% of the oil is gone": "It's not accurate to say that 75% of the oil is gone. 50% of it is gone—either evaporated or burned, skimmed or recovered from the wellhead." Lubchenco asked the officials to "help make sure" the error was corrected.306 Jane Lubchenco, e-mail to Sean Smith and others, August 4, 2010.* She had made the same point to the White House before the Budget rollout; a July 30 e-mail to Browner's deputy had emphasized that Lubchenco opposed grouping dispersed oil with recovered oil because the former was "still out there or [was] being degraded."307 Margaret Spring, e-mail to Heather Zichal and others. July 30, 2010.
¶The government's estimate, which is current as this report goes to press, has an uncertainty factor of ±10 percent. It is the Commission's understanding that the government's Flow Rate Technical Group will issue a final report in January 2011. In a peer-reviewed paper published in Science Express on September 23, 2010, Timothy Crone and Maya Tolstoy of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory estimated that the total release was roughly 5.2 million barrels—slightly higher than the government's estimate. While BP has not released its own flow-rate figures, it has suggested that the government's estimate of the total amount of oil released from the Macondo well is 20 to 50 percent too high. †
¶During the review process, EPA expressed concerns about the pie chart's potential to obscure the uncertainty of the government's estimates. Lisa Jackson, e-mail to Jane Lubchenco, July 31, 2010. For example, EPA recommended that NOAA combine chemically and naturally dispersed oil into a single category because there was not enough information to accurately distinguish between the two mechanisms. Bob Perciasepe, e-mail to Jane Lubchenco and others, July 31, 2010; Bob Perciasepe, e-mail to Stephen Hammond and others, August 1, 2010. NOAA disagreed. Administrator Jane Lubchenco asserted that combining the two categories would not decrease any uncertainty and that "'[c]hemically dispersed' is part of the federal response and 'naturally dispersed' is not, and there is interest in being able to sum up the federal response efforts." Jane Lubchenco, e-mail to Bob Perciasepe and others, August 1, 2010. ‡
¶On the other three shows, Browner similarly stated that "what the scientists are telling us is that the vast majority of the oil has been cleaned, it's been captured, it's been skimmed, it's been burned, mother nature has done its part" (Fox News); "our scientists are telling us that the vast majority of the oil has been contained, it's been burned, it's been cleaned" (CBS); and "our scientists and external scientists believe that the vast majority of the oil has now been contained, it's been skimmed, mother nature has done its part, it's been evaporated" (CNN).
168¶FIGURE 5.2: August 4 Oil Budget
Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget Based on estimated release of 4.9m barrels of oil
Unified Residual includes oil Command that is on or just below the surface as light Response Direct Recovery sheen and weathered from Operations Residual* Wellhead tar balls, has washed Burned 26% 17% 5% ashore or been collected from the Skimmed shore, or is buried in 3% sand and sediments. Evaporated or Chemically Dissolved Naturally Dispersed* 25% 8% Dispersed* 16% * Oil in these three categories is currently being degraded naturally.
¶At a press briefing that afternoon, Browner said that the report had "been subjected to a scientific protocol, which means you peer review, peer review, and peer review." Earlier in the same briefing, Lubchenco had said "[t]he report was produced by scientific experts from a number of different agencies, federal agencies, with peer review of the calculations that went into this by both other federal and non-federal scientists."308 Transcript, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Admiral Thad Allen, Carol Browner, and Dr. Lubchenco, August 4, 2010. The Budget, however, was not "peer-reviewed" as the scientific community uses that term. Many of the outside scientists listed as reviewers had not even seen the final report.
¶The rollout of the Oil Budget drew immediate criticism, with scientists pointing out that Browner's optimism about the percentage of the oil that was gone was unsupported, especially because of the uncertain rate of biodegradation.309 David A. Fahrenthold, "Scientists Question Government Team's Report of Shrinking Gulf Oil Spill," Washington Post, August 5, 2010; Katie Howell, "White House, Critics Reach Stalemate in Dispute Over Oil Budget in Gulf," New York Times, August 23, 2010. Moreover, after a summer of ever-increasing official estimates of the spill's size, the public was dubious of the government's conclusions. As aTimes-Picayune editorial noted, "From the start of the disaster. . . the government has badly underestimated the amount of oil spewing from the runaway well. That poor track record makes people understandably skeptical of [the Oil Budget] report."310 Editorial, "Do the Math on the Spill," Times-Picayune, August 6, 2010. Lubchenco has since acknowledged that she was "in error" when claiming that the Oil Budget had been peer-reviewed.311 Press Conference, Jane Lubchenco Discusses Federal Peer-Reviewed "Oil Budget" Technical Documentation, November 23, 2010. NOAA has emphasized that the report's "purpose was to describe the short-term fate of the oil and to guide immediate efforts to respond to the emergency" rather than to "provide information about the impact of the oil" or "indicate where the oil is now."312 Press Release, NOAA, Federal Interagency Group Issues Peer-Reviewed 'Oil Budget' Technical Documentation, November 23, 2010.
¶The U.S. Geological Survey, which had also been involved in developing the Oil Budget tool and editing the report, expressed similar misgivings about the portrayal of the report. At 11:00 a.m., U.S. Geological Survey scientist Mark Sogge told a colleague, "We need to keep in mind, and make it clear to others, that this is NOT a [U.S. Geological Survey] product." Mark Sogge, e-mail to Stephen Hammond, August 4, 2010.
169¶NOAA supplied these explanations on November 23, when it released a new version of the Oil Budget: Oil Budget Calculator Technical Documentation, a peer-reviewed report of over 200 pages that gave the formulas used and updated the percentages in the original budget.313 Federal Interagency Solutions Group, Oil Budget Science and Engineering Team, Oil Budget Calculator Technical Documentation (November 2010). The new version's biggest change was its estimate of the amount of oil chemically dispersed, which doubled from 8 percent to 16 percent. Of this additional 8 percent, 3 percent came from the "naturally dispersed" category, 2 percent from the "evaporated or dissolved" category, and 3 percent from the "residual" category. (These changes brought the total amount of "residual" oil down from 26 to 23 percent.)
¶As a tool for responders, the Oil Budget indicated that response and containment operations collected, eliminated, or dispersed about 41 percent of the oil, with containment ("direct recovery from wellhead") the most effective method, and chemical dispersants breaking down a substantial fraction. Response technology (skimming or burning) removed—as opposed to dispersed—only 8 percent of the oil. Dispersion of the oil before it reached the surface limited the amount that responders could skim, burn, or disperse at the surface. Nevertheless, responders considered burning an important success: it had never before been attempted on this scale, and burning techniques advanced during the spill.314 Interview with Coast Guard official, October 24, 2010. Skimming was less of a success: despite the participation of hundreds of ships and thousands of people, it collected only 3 percent of the oil.
¶The least effective response technology was the berms, which the Oil Budget documents do not even mention. By the time BP capped the well on July 15—day 44 of the berm construction project—Louisiana's contractor estimated that 10 percent of one reach—6 percent of the total project—had been completed.315 Shaw's Environmental & Infrastructure Group, Shaw Barrier Berm Project—Daily Report Day 44 (July 15, 2010). In late May, Governor Jindal had asserted that "[w]e could have built 10 miles of sand [berms] already if [the Corps] would have approved our permit when we originally requested it."316 Padgett, "Dredge, Baby, Dredge: Can Sand Stop the Oil?" In fact, it took five months to build roughly 10 miles of berms, at a cost of about $220 million.317 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Governor Jindal Announces Agreement with BP for Seafood Safety, Coastal Restoration & Tourism Funding, November 1, 2010. Estimates of how much oil the berms collected vary, but none is much more than 1,000 total barrels.318 Cain Burdeau, "EPA: Louisiana's Sand Berms Not Stopping Much Oil," Associated Press, September 10, 2010; Mark Ballard, "EPA Opposes La. Berms," Advocate, September 9, 2010; John Maginnis, "Louisiana's Sand Berms Challenged," Times-Picayune, September 15, 2010; Interview with government official, September 22, 2010; Transcript, Meet the Press, November 21, 2010 (Governor Jindal stating "[w]e've collected thousands of pounds of oily debris off these berms"); Oil Budget Technical Documentation, 34 ("Based upon past spills, the oil content of collected debris mass is only a few percent."). On November 1, Governor Jindal announced plans to convert the berms into part of a long-term coastal restoration project, which BP would continue to fund. In his recently released book, the Governor maintained that the berms were "one of the most effective protection measures" against oil reaching the Louisiana coast.319 Bobby Jindal, Leadership and Crisis 6 (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2010).
¶The End of the Well, but Not the End of the Response In mid-September, the first relief well—which BP had begun drilling in early May—finally intercepted the Macondo well, allowing BP to pump in cement and permanently seal the reservoir. On September 19, 152 days after the blowout, Admiral Allen announced: "the Macondo 252 well is effectively dead."320 Statement from Admiral Allen on the Successful Completion of the Relief Well, September 19, 2010.
170¶But fears about health and safety did not die with the well. Some Gulf residents continued to believe that BP had used dispersants onshore, nearshore, at night, and without government approval, and that it had continued using them after it capped the well. The Commission has not seen credible evidence supporting these claims. NOAA reopened one-third of the area closed to fishing on July 22 and continued to reopen additional sections based on a testing and sampling protocol developed and implemented with the Food and Drug Administration.321 Press Release, NOAA, NOAA Reopens One-Third of Closed Gulf Fishing Area, July 22, 2010; Press Release, NOAA, NOAA Reopens More Than 8,000 Square Miles in the Gulf of Mexico to Fishing, November 15, 2010. But some scientists questioned the protocol, while some fishermen were hesitant to give up income from the Vessels of Opportunity program and return to their regular jobs in the midst of public concern about Gulf seafood.322 Kim Murphy, "A Poor Appetite for Gulf Seafood," Los Angeles Times, August 26, 2010; Interview with government official, October 15, 2010. (Chapter 6 discusses seafood safety.)
¶Residents also had to cope with the miles of used boom and other debris. Despite the typical spill-responder uniform of rubber gloves and protective coveralls, BP planned to send the thousands of tons of oily debris generated over the summer to ordinary municipal landfills.323 Krissah Thompson, "Waste from BP Oil Spill Cleanup Has Gulf Residents Near Landfills Concerned," Washington Post, August 16, 2010. Wastes from oil exploration and production are classified as non-hazardous by law and do not require specialized disposal.324 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(5). Although the federal government generally does not supervise the disposal of non-hazardous waste, on June 29, the Coast Guard and EPA issued a directive requiring BP to test its waste for hazardous elements, publicize the results, and consult with the communities where the waste was to be stored.325 Admiral James Watson and Al Armendariz, Recovered Oil, Contaminated Materials and Liquid and Solid Wastes Management Directive (June 29, 2010). In addition, EPA announced it would conduct its own twice-monthly testing of the debris and would post the results online.326 Elana Schor, "How Has BP's Oily Waste Escaped 'Hazardous' Label?," New York Times, July 20, 2010. BP was initially slow to release its testing data. After receiving a sternly-worded letter from Federal On-Scene Coordinator Admiral Zukunft on July 24, however, it started regularly posting the results on its website.327 Admiral Paul Zukunft, letter to Doug Suttles, July 24, 2010; BP, "Waste and Recoverable Material Tracking," http:// www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9034343&contentId=7063466. EPA began sampling the waste and posting the test data as well, after some criticism and delay.328 Schor, "How Has BP's Oily Waste Escaped 'Hazardous' Label?"; EPA, "Waste Sampling Strategy and Results," http:// www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste.html#sampling_strategy; Stanislaus, interview. As of November 17, EPA's tests had not shown any of the waste to be hazardous.329 EPA, "Waste Management on the Gulf Coastline," http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/waste.html.
¶As BP and EPA implemented the waste directives, environmental justice activists argued that BP was dumping the debris disproportionately in poor and non-white communities.330 Robert Bullard and Al Huang, "Oil's Toxic Legacy Not Erased," Politico, August 13, 2010. Residents of Harrison County, Mississippi fiercely opposed the disposal of oiled waste in their Pecan Grove landfill, and BP agreed not to use it.331 Lesley Clark and Fred Tasker, "Oil-Soaked Waste Worries Gulf Coast Landfills' Neighbors," McClatchy Newspapers, July 30, 2010; Robert Bullard, "Government Allows BP to Dump Oil-Spill Waste on Black Communities," OpEd- News.com, July 22, 2010. Environmental justice advocate and scholar Robert Bullard contended that the racial makeup of Harrison County was a factor, and EPA objected to BP's decision.332 Stanislaus, interview. The Federal On-Scene Coordinator instructed BP to follow the approved waste plan, noting that "[a]llowing one community to reject acceptance of waste. . . may complicate remaining waste disposal efforts." BP began to use the site for waste staging, though not for disposal.333 Admiral Paul Zukunft, letter to Mike Utsler, August 9, 2010; Stanislaus, interview.
¶With the well sealed, the number of responders in the Gulf decreased. The National Incident Command officially stood down on October 1.334 "Statement from Admiral Allen on the Transfer of Oversight Responsibilities, October 1, 2010. Admiral Allen turned over the remaining tasks to Federal On-Scene Coordinator Admiral Zukunft and finally retired. BP started to shut down some of its programs, and Coast Guard responders started to head to their next posts. The spill and the emergency response had ended. Figuring out the extent of the damage, and how to repair it, had begun.
171¶"I don't know what to do with myself."
Dean Blanchard, Dean Blanchard Seafood Inc., Grand Isle, LA
Dean Blanchard runs Louisiana's biggest shrimp business, on Grand Isle—a Mississippi River Delta barrier island 50 miles south of New Orleans, fully exposed to the Gulf of Mexico. During the warm months of a typical shrimp season, Blanchard Seafood and its extensive network of bayside wharves are a frenetic cacophony of languages and accents—Spanish, Vietnamese, a smattering of Cajun French, and the various Deep South dialects—as more than a thousand
¶Susan Poag/The Times-Picayune. Photo © 2010 The fishermen offload the catch from their shrimping vessels. Times-Picayune Publishing Co., all rights reserved. The shrimp are sorted by size and dispatched into the Used with permission of The Times-Picayune.
¶world.
¶During 30 years in business, Blanchard had become one of the nation's principal suppliers—and a multi-millionaire. In season, he bought as much as 500,000 pounds of shrimp daily from more than a thousand fishermen. The cold 2009-2010 winter had raised high hopes: "Every 10 years, when you get a cold winter, you get a really good shrimp crop," he explained. "We were licking our chops."
¶But with the Macondo well gushing more than 50,000 barrels of oil a day, and no end in sight, the brown shrimp season had been canceled just as it was about to start. By mid-May, tar balls and oil had started washing up onto Grand Isle's wetlands and beaches. By mid-June, Blanchard figured, "I've lost $15 million of sales in the last 50 days. That would have been $1 million in my pocket." The usually busy docks were quiet, the only activity the occasional coming and going of boats and crews working for BP cleaning and containing the oil."I don't know what to do with myself," Blanchard explained. "I built all this over the last 30 years, and now for what?" "We've got 1,400 vessels that go and catch shrimp, come to our facility." Now, he continued, "basically we've lost all our customers because we can't supply them."
¶For decades, oil and seafood had mixed comfortably in Louisiana's coastal culture. Each year Morgan City hosted the annual Shrimp and Petroleum Festival, a rollicking celebration of the state's two high-profile economic mainstays. Oil has long provided the region's best-paying jobs, and the revenue to finance everything from state roads to free school books. The maritime world of seafood has deeper cultural roots, and provides a living and a way of life along the gulf coast, one of the nation's most productive fishing waters. Many families had members in both worlds. Indeed, Blanchard's own grandfather had made a fortune servicing the offshore oil industry.
¶But now those two worlds had collided—and everything seemed at risk.
173