BP chief evades questions at Capitol Hill grilling

Related Topics

Quotes

   

WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:46pm BST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Surrounded by handlers and the customary scrum of photographers, a tense BP CEO Tony Hayward on Thursday deflected tough questions at what has become a set-piece in the U.S. capital: the congressional grilling.

Sitting alone at the witness table, Hayward looked sheepish but gave a controlled performance in the face of hours of invective and a barrage of questions from a U.S. House of Representatives committee on the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

When he started to testify, his low-pitched voice could barely be heard, and he was twice asked to pull the microphone closer to his mouth.

Hayward showed contrition over BP's handling of the disastrous April 20 blowout and oil spill but often avoided questions about safety issues, saying he was "not involved" in decision-making about Deepwater Horizon.

His prepared remarks to the committee offered more questions than answers.

"How could this happen? How damaging is the spill to the environment? Why is it taking so long to stop the flow of oil and gas in the Gulf?" Hayward said in an opening statement. "We don't yet have all the answers to these important questions."

At least four times, U.S. lawmakers brought up Hayward's stated intention to "focus like a laser beam on safety." Then they asked him some variant of, "So why didn't that work?"

GAFFE-PRONE

Hayward, a Briton, has become infamous in the United States for comments seen as insensitive after the disaster that killed 11 workers and resulted in the worst U.S. oil spill in history.

In May, he upset Gulf residents by saying he wanted his life back and commenting: "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."

On Thursday, Hayward dodged some of the most pointed queries.

"It's clear to me that you don't want to answer our questions," Henry Waxman, a California Democrat said at the end of a lengthy exchange about BP's decision to disregard safety recommendations of its own engineers.

When Waxman accused Hayward of stonewalling this investigation and others, the CEO responded: "I'm not stonewalling. I simply was not involved in the decision-making process."

Texas Republican Michael Burgess had a similarly tough time pinning Hayward down, getting responses like, "I'm not prepared to speculate on what may or may not have made a difference until such time as the multiple investigations that are ongoing are concluded."

Hayward said he knew nothing about the drilling of the blown well beforehand: "With respect, sir, we drill hundreds of wells a year all around the world."

"Yes, I know," Burgess said, getting a rare laugh in the hearing room. "That's what's scaring me right now."

(Editing by Vicki Allen)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
GROCK wrote:
Mr Hayward has been critiscised for evasion but surely until the enquiry as to the cause is know then he will not know what he does not know. Do those questioning him have some form of crystal ball. I also hear no reference to Haliburton that I am lead to believe were responsible for the design and installation of the safety features or any input from Transocean that ran the Rig. Is it that they are in the same situation as Mr Hayward in that currently they do not know but that being American the enquiry does not consider them at fault?

Jun 18, 2010 9:57am BST  --  Report as abuse
GROCK wrote:
The CEO and the Chairman of BP have been severely crtiscised for their insensitive comments.
I find this quite nauseating. The English language is not perfect and at time a sentence may not have the same sincerety of interpretation from one Countries peoples to another.
Last night on a BBC politics program I heard an American political commentater complaing about what they had said and then when asked about Britains reaction to what President Obama and some Senators had said then replied that the British people should have thicker skins and not be so sensitive. He then went on to state that the Piper Alpha (167 people died)and Torrey Canyon (millions of gallons of oil spilt) disasters were only minor accidents. A comment that demonstrates individual interpretation of sincerety and what constitutes a disaster.

Jun 18, 2010 10:13am BST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.