Posted byI spent about an hour watching the Congressional testimony. It was a miserable experience. What bothered me so much was that Tony Haywards lack of forthrightness and lack of openness. A total lack of responsibility for the whole mess by Tony Hayward.
If you can stand it, go to the web site and watch the testimony…
Opening statements:
Questioning part 1:
Here’s the committee’s web site:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2031:hearing-on-the-rol
Here’s some videos of the testimony from U-Tube:
Category: Accidents, Current Events
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Here’s the prepared printed testimony:
http://www.c-span.org/pdf/061610_Hayward_Prepared_Testimony.pdf
Comment by Mark Paradies — June 17, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
I listened to about an hour or so of the testimony and thought Tony was brilliant and he did not play into the hands of the evil and stupid Congress-people who only wanted to blame someone for something and had no understanding of logic or reason.
Tony’s prime answer was something like this “we are investigating everything, let’s wait until the investigationS arrive at some conclusions and recommendations and if I find out that someone put money in front of safety, there will be heck to pay.”
A perfect answer and perhaps the only good answer.
And one Congress-person had the gall to say something like “so, why did you come to testify when you have no answers?”
You could almost hear Tony bite his tongue when the Congress-people put their stupidity on such displays. He so much wanted to educate them.
Comment by Norman Umberger, P.E. — June 21, 2010 @ 10:25 am
So, he seemed open, forthright, and took FULL responsibility although he noted that he personally had nothing to do with it and that there are at least three other cos involved too.
I also liked that he said the folks making the decisions were technical experts with all the resources of BP at their disposal.
Now, whether they thought so or it is true, that will be found out.
Comment by Norman Umberger, P.E. — June 21, 2010 @ 10:27 am
Well – both the “company men” who were on board have refused to testify to the Coast Guard/MMS investigation (one citing health reasons and the other exercising his right to avoid self-incrimination).
I think he could and should have admitted that:
1) The well design / construction did not meet industry standards (too few hangers) and went against the advice of Halliburton and Transocean (this is known).
2) In hindsight, the well should have been completed differently.
Don’t you agree?
Comment by Mark Paradies — June 21, 2010 @ 10:35 am
I think he did well and I would leave conclusions until there are some. I heard rumors/hearsay about 1, but have not seen any evidence (not that I am looking) and 2–not a chance. Hindsight is not very useful unless one is talking about what would one do differently with the limited info one had then.
Comment by Norman Umberger, P.E. — June 23, 2010 @ 10:33 am
I watched the whole testimony. I think Tony Hayward did exceptionally well under huge pressure. He said that responsibility stopped with him but at the same time he did not incriminate his company, his colleagues, or himself. What did Congress expect ? Someone to tearfully say ” yes we did this wrong, that wrong, cut coners here for money’s sake “. Unless we are whitle blowers who have stepped outside of the box and the company none of us would deliberately incriminate themselves – hopefully. He told them that the investigation was ongoing. It is. I realise Congress has a job to do but everyone of those asking him questions is up for re-election later this year. They were all trying to score ‘Brownie Points’ with their electorates. Cultural differences and reactions to events were also played out in that courtroom.The Congressman who sarcastically asked him what day of the week it was only made a fool of one person. I have just read the article of the panel appointed to investigate the disaster. Makes one think.
Comment by David Thornton — July 6, 2010 @ 9:23 am