Witness Cancellations Thwart Hearings on Oil Spill
By ROBBIE BROWN | July 20, 2010
KENNER, La. — Government investigators looking into the causes of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion are colliding with a frequent obstacle: witnesses canceling their scheduled testimonies.
So far, nine witnesses have withheld or delayed testimony here before a panel of federal government officials. Many were top-ranking officials aboard the rig, with critical roles in decisions that may have contributed to the disaster.
Reasons for cancellation have varied: some cited health problems, one pleaded the Fifth Amendment, and others said their lawyers had not received necessary documentation. And on Tuesday evening, the Coast Guard said that all four witnesses scheduled to testify on Wednesday had canceled, fueling concern that witnesses fear implicating themselves criminally.
“This is a challenge as we make sure we get to the facts,” said Mike O’Berry, a spokesman for the Coast Guard, which is running the investigation along with the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. “The board is trying to get as many witnesses to testify as possible.”
Lawyers for the oil companies aboard the rig say the cancellations were thwarting their efforts to assign responsibility.
“It’s holding us back a hundred percent,” said Edward F. Kohnke IV, a lawyer for Transocean, the rig owner. “These are the guys whose cross-examinations will tell us the story.”
Responding in part to those concerns, the Coast Guard announced Tuesday that the next hearings would be held in Houston. That places investigators closer to the many witnesses who live in Texas and within jurisdiction of a district court that can subpoena them. Currently, the hearings are held here in Kenner, a suburb of New Orleans.
The two top-ranked BP officials on board the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the explosion, Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, the well-site leaders, have each canceled their testimonies twice. Mr. Kaluza pleaded the Fifth Amendment, and Mr. Vidrine cited health problems, which the Coast Guard said it had confirmed through his doctor.
The four officials who canceled their testimonies on Wednesday were all subsea supervisors or superintendents for Transocean. Their lawyers gave different explanations: one cited a possible conflict of interest in representing multiple witnesses, another cited the location of the hearing and a third said he had not received necessary documents.
These delays have not stopped the investigation from unearthing new details about the final days of the rig. In Tuesday’s hearings, investigators focused on equipment failures leading up to the explosion.
A BP official, Ronald Sepulvado, a well-site leader, testified that BP continued drilling for oil in the days before the disaster despite internal reports of a leak on a safety device on the rig.
Mr. Sepulvado said he reported the problem to senior company officials and assumed it would be relayed to the Minerals Management Service, the predecessor to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which regulates offshore drilling. The leak was on a control pod connected to the blowout preventer, an emergency mechanism that failed to activate after the April 20 disaster.
“I assumed everything was O.K., because I reported it to the team leader and he should have reported it to M.M.S.,” Mr. Sepulvado said.
He could not explain why the company did not respond to his report. Mr. Sepulvado was not aboard the rig at the time of the explosion because he was on shore for a blowout preventer training program.
Investigators also pressed Mr. Sepulvado about two audits that found problems with other equipment on the rig and the well it was drilling, including the blowout preventer, known as a BOP.
“In both of those audits, it indicated that the BOP was well past” its inspection date, said Jason Mathews, a panel member. Asked whether he realized that the manufacturer of the blowout preventer required that the device undergo specific tests every five years, Mr. Sepulvado said, “No, I did not.”
The audits of the rig were conducted by BP in September 2009 and by ModuSpec in April 2010. The company’s audit identified problems with the rig’s engines, ballast systems, thrusters and drilling equipment, and as a result, BP scheduled the rig for a shipyard visit in early 2011.
A BP subsea well supervisor, Ross Skidmore, testified that the company ordered a device called a lockdown sleeve but did not install it until drilling mud was removed from the site, an untraditional approach. Mr. Skidmore said the device was normally installed in the mud.
“I asked why couldn’t we go ahead and do this in mud,” he said. “I was told it wasn’t going to happen. We were going to go through in the sequence we were given.”
By ROBBIE BROWN | July 20, 2010
KENNER, La. — Government investigators looking into the causes of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion are colliding with a frequent obstacle: witnesses canceling their scheduled testimonies.
So far, nine witnesses have withheld or delayed testimony here before a panel of federal government officials. Many were top-ranking officials aboard the rig, with critical roles in decisions that may have contributed to the disaster.
Reasons for cancellation have varied: some cited health problems, one pleaded the Fifth Amendment, and others said their lawyers had not received necessary documentation. And on Tuesday evening, the Coast Guard said that all four witnesses scheduled to testify on Wednesday had canceled, fueling concern that witnesses fear implicating themselves criminally.
“This is a challenge as we make sure we get to the facts,” said Mike O’Berry, a spokesman for the Coast Guard, which is running the investigation along with the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. “The board is trying to get as many witnesses to testify as possible.”
Lawyers for the oil companies aboard the rig say the cancellations were thwarting their efforts to assign responsibility.
“It’s holding us back a hundred percent,” said Edward F. Kohnke IV, a lawyer for Transocean, the rig owner. “These are the guys whose cross-examinations will tell us the story.”
Responding in part to those concerns, the Coast Guard announced Tuesday that the next hearings would be held in Houston. That places investigators closer to the many witnesses who live in Texas and within jurisdiction of a district court that can subpoena them. Currently, the hearings are held here in Kenner, a suburb of New Orleans.
The two top-ranked BP officials on board the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the explosion, Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, the well-site leaders, have each canceled their testimonies twice. Mr. Kaluza pleaded the Fifth Amendment, and Mr. Vidrine cited health problems, which the Coast Guard said it had confirmed through his doctor.
The four officials who canceled their testimonies on Wednesday were all subsea supervisors or superintendents for Transocean. Their lawyers gave different explanations: one cited a possible conflict of interest in representing multiple witnesses, another cited the location of the hearing and a third said he had not received necessary documents.
These delays have not stopped the investigation from unearthing new details about the final days of the rig. In Tuesday’s hearings, investigators focused on equipment failures leading up to the explosion.
A BP official, Ronald Sepulvado, a well-site leader, testified that BP continued drilling for oil in the days before the disaster despite internal reports of a leak on a safety device on the rig.
Mr. Sepulvado said he reported the problem to senior company officials and assumed it would be relayed to the Minerals Management Service, the predecessor to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which regulates offshore drilling. The leak was on a control pod connected to the blowout preventer, an emergency mechanism that failed to activate after the April 20 disaster.
“I assumed everything was O.K., because I reported it to the team leader and he should have reported it to M.M.S.,” Mr. Sepulvado said.
He could not explain why the company did not respond to his report. Mr. Sepulvado was not aboard the rig at the time of the explosion because he was on shore for a blowout preventer training program.
Investigators also pressed Mr. Sepulvado about two audits that found problems with other equipment on the rig and the well it was drilling, including the blowout preventer, known as a BOP.
“In both of those audits, it indicated that the BOP was well past” its inspection date, said Jason Mathews, a panel member. Asked whether he realized that the manufacturer of the blowout preventer required that the device undergo specific tests every five years, Mr. Sepulvado said, “No, I did not.”
The audits of the rig were conducted by BP in September 2009 and by ModuSpec in April 2010. The company’s audit identified problems with the rig’s engines, ballast systems, thrusters and drilling equipment, and as a result, BP scheduled the rig for a shipyard visit in early 2011.
A BP subsea well supervisor, Ross Skidmore, testified that the company ordered a device called a lockdown sleeve but did not install it until drilling mud was removed from the site, an untraditional approach. Mr. Skidmore said the device was normally installed in the mud.
“I asked why couldn’t we go ahead and do this in mud,” he said. “I was told it wasn’t going to happen. We were going to go through in the sequence we were given.”
No comments:
Post a Comment