What BP Isn’t Saying – And What Chevron Is
By Bethany Sample
From the perspective of a concerned consumer, the big oil companies response to the recent Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico leaves something to be desired. At first glance, what should’ve inspired a thorough review of their safety regulations has instead brought only reassurances of how they will clean up the mess. This concerned consumer is left wondering how such an environmental tragedy can be prevented in the future and if it is even possible for the progressive oil industry to regulate itself with internal oversight – what about the company’s people?
In his 2010 AGM speech to shareholders in London on April 15th, BP Chief Executive of Oil and Energy Tony Hayward claimed, “Safety remains our number one priority and I’m pleased to report we can see clear progress.”
What followed this claim was a reassuring percentage of company progress and a thorough account of all the ways in the which BP has grown in the past year. Except for those few sentences about safety, however, Hayward didn’t return to the subject with more detail. He finished his speech by stating “Of course the future looks challenging. It always does.” What these words reveal, on the eve of disaster, is either a general disregard for the importance of safety in favor of positive quarterly statements or a genuine ignorance of the risk to BP. Five days after Hayward’s speech, 11 people died in the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the first million gallons of crude oil began flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.
Disregarding Safety Means Disregarding Human Capital
To date, the official response of BP is to assess the potential cost of such a tragedy and provide $20 billion to cover any claims from the people effected. On July 5th BP’s press release posted on their website gave a detailed account of their progress in cleaning up as well as containing the spill. What this report lacked was any mention of organizing an internal oversight that intends to discover the cause of the accident and prevent it from ever happening again. The current priority of the company remains reactive – focused on repairing damage already caused and preventing more damage from the spill.
Based on the speech of Iain Conn, Chief Executive of BP’s Refining and Marketing, to the World Forum on Enterprise and Environment at Oxford on June 29th 2010, the focus of BP is also on redirecting the blame. While his mention of the Deepwater Horizon incident was only a small part of his speech, Conn stated that it “was a tragic accident and should not have happened.” After a carefully veiled disclaimer that BP is “only one of many parties to this catastropic incident,” he continued to explain BP’s clean-up efforts in the Gulf of Mexico and said, “At this moment over 39,000 people are involved in the response, including many BP staff and contractors, and 110 planes and almost 5,000 vessels are engaged on this task.” It is this statement which summarizes BP’s efforts to neither accept the full blame of the situation while at the same time not placing the blame on any one corporation.
After briefly reassuring his audience of the money and manpower BP had invested so far, Conn then segued into his speech about the future demands for energy and how BP plans to more efficiently provide for those demands. Most notably missing from Iain Conn’s speech is BP’s decisive plan to conduct their own in-depth safety review, except for a brief mention that “a number of investigations are in progress by the relevant U.S. authorities and within the company. It will take time to establish a clear understanding of the events that took place and the lessons to be learned.” Whether the general public, as well as BP’s own workforce, has been reassured by similar vague references to investigations is yet to be seen.
Chevron’s Response
Looking at only BP’s response to the safety risks brought to light by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, you might believe that the oil industry wasn’t focused on developing more strict internal oversight regulations.
However, the speech of Chevron CEO, John S. Watson, made before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 15th, 2010 was specifically intended to address the safety issues concerning the oil industry, reveals, at least, a top level focus on employee engagement. “At Chevron,” Watson said, “one goal overrides all others: making sure everyone goes home safe every day.” It is this direct explanation of what Chevron has done to ensure the safety of its employees and oil rigs, both during and after the Deepwater Horizon accident, that makes BP’s similar reassurances sound less concerned about future safety and more concerned about subduing public criticism about their clean-up efforts.
“We require continuous training,” Watson explained to the House when specifically referring to Chevron’s safety record. Watson continued even further to address the future safety regulations which may be required as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill. “To that end,” Watson said, “we must act quickly to implement the recommendations made by the Joint Industry Task Force to ensure that all companies are operating with the same high standards of safety and reliability.”
Compared to the vague promises of BP to eventually address the weakness of their internal safety oversight, Chevron’s response is to take immediate action. “Mr. Chairman,” Watson concludes in his speech, “we must learn from this accident and we must make sure it never happens again. My commitment to you is that Chevron will do everything in our power to see that it doesn’t.”
Whether Chevron will be the forerunner of oil companies soon to be weighed down by stricter safety regulations, implemented not only internally but by the U.S. Department of Interior as well, is yet to be proven. For the concerned consumer, however, John S. Watson’s promise on behalf of Chevron makes a more hopeful case for the oil industry and its ability to supply energy resources to the public, and its own employees, without costing lives.