Mark Bly accepted the challenge of leading the investigation into the Deepwater Horizon accident for BP. But he took the job with the limitation that his team would only look at the direct causes – not senior management influence on the accident.
“On Thursday, Mark Bly, BP’s executive vice president for safety and operational risk, who led the company’s post-spill internal investigation, took the stand and defended the company’s decision not to look into high-level policy decisions and the fact that the operation was $60 million over budget as contributing factors to the incident.”
The article continued quoting Bly:
“‘When we started, we were tasked to getting answers as quickly as we could,” Bly said.
‘We did have the option to try to go further but at that point in time … it would have been very difficult to do that.’”
What was the ethical course? To do a limited investigation that some have said was to place blame on the contractors? Or to demand a full investigation, perhaps done in phases, that got to the truth?
“A BP policy says accident investigations should include attempts to identify any ‘systemic failures within the management system.’ Bly, however, said he and then-BP chief executive Tony Hayward got an exception to the policy and decided at the outset not to attempt a broader probe.”
The article continued with:
“Bly didn’t explain how they got the exception, but he said the policy allowed for one under certain circumstances. The potential for litigation, the nature of other accident investigations and the involvement of other companies were factors in seeking the exception, he testified.”
What do you think? What ethical responsibility does a company investigator have? Leave a comment here…
Category: Accidents, Current Events, Investigations
13 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Another interesting article with this quote from the testimony from Mark Bly:
Asked by BP lawyer Hariklia Karis about the quality of his work on the company’s internal spill probe, Bly said: “I’m proud. I believe the team is proud, as well.”
See the article here:
http://www.chron.com/business/article/BP-safety-chief-defends-company-s-spill-report-4318393.php?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=newsmail&utm_campaign=NewsMailDaily%20NewsLetter
Comment by Mark Paradies — March 3, 2013 @ 4:32 pm
I am astonished to see an RCA without looking into management systems failure.I would say its total cover up and accident in making somewhere else for the same situation.
Comment by Asif Masood — March 12, 2013 @ 5:18 am
This, as I read it, is a self feeding attempt to prevent correction of a Culture Of Management Failure. It shows a lack of ethical action that permits and encourages mis-direction and promuglation of mis-information.
Comment by Keith Thompson — March 12, 2013 @ 9:42 am
I’m not suprised at all. Looking at historical evidence this seems par to the course. But to answer the question direclty, no I could not ethically participate in or lead an invesitgation who’s primary goal was to find the real root causes and offer real learnings to prevent recurrance.
Comment by Josh Reynolds — March 12, 2013 @ 10:27 am
As a certified CSP and CIH, I would have much difficulty paring down the scope of an investigation to extract possible system root causes. Perhaps in another five years, BP will experience another catatrosphic incident that could have been averted with a thorough investigation. I’m glad my company does not have any such policy.
Comment by Ron Zanoni — March 12, 2013 @ 11:50 am
When you let an industry supercede common sense and allow it to write it’s own regulations, conduct it’s own investigations and police itself, you’re gonna have a lot of folks who refuse to hold themselves accountable for their own actions. They do it by denying reality, and they feel justified and ‘proud of themselves’ if their lawyers can make it sound plausible. In their minds, two wrongs (or 6 or 8) do indeed make a right IF it benefits them personally.
Comment by Winfield Schmitt — March 12, 2013 @ 12:05 pm
As Mr. Paradies notes in his President’s Question, “According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, Mark Bly “…was promoted to an executive management position at BP after the company issued its spill report…” that he authored. So, at least BP must have been happy with his work.” To be honest, with such an arrangement in place I would find it difficult to put much stock in the BP investigation report even if they hadn’t stated they were not going to look at management system influences.
Comment by Clifford Mankenberg — March 12, 2013 @ 12:42 pm
It is simply inexcusable and a poor reflection of the condition of the safety culture at Bp and unfortunatley ultimately reflects poorly on all of us as a whole in the Oil and Gas industry.
I could not allow myself to be involved in an investigation that did not explore the totality of an incident to develop strong causal factors and root causes especially taking into account the seriousness of the findings of an investigation.
It would appear Bp picked their “golden boy” and rewarded him and in turn further damaged the trust of the public and government once had against the petroleum industry.
Comment by Jim Walker — March 12, 2013 @ 3:04 pm
I was a senior investigator for a large company whose management was taken over by Exxon. They made it clear that my investigations should be very thorough with regard to possible failings by occupationals & lower level supervision. However any comments about Management System failings should be whispered into the ear of the manager himself & not written down. This directive itself was not written down. Everything is now deniable, which effectively ended my career, accustomed as I was to the honest appraisals & ‘let the chips fall where they may’ attitude of my previous management team.
The government soon caught on & have in one case levied a considerable fine where they would in days gone by have accepted the results of our own investigation & its action items.
There is a climate of fear here. The more we demand accountability the more protective & secretive the big companies get.
Comment by Philip Harrison — March 12, 2013 @ 4:38 pm
This approach to failure investigation can only lead to disaster. Unfortunately you don’t have to look very far to find the proof. You reap what you sow.
Comment by Ken Bloch — March 13, 2013 @ 9:05 am
It speaks to the culture of a lot of big companies (not ALL of them, but a good number) where management is more interested in butt-covering than problem-solving. There is a lot of money and reputation at stake and it’s human nature to protect your interests. Given those interests, it is also more likely to be able to convince yourself something is “right” when you know it really isn’t. Most unfortunate.
It is also a symptom of our letigious society where lawsuits quickly spiral into ridiculous proportions. However, given the severity of the Deep Water Horizon incident, it will be an astromical cost of clean-up from the damage and the companies involved should be footing the bill.
Comment by DK — March 15, 2013 @ 3:06 pm
I would like to know the incident investigation model that BP used for the Deep Water Horizon incident, and if there was workplace safety and heath committee involvement.
Comment by Jeff Bencharski — March 21, 2013 @ 10:31 pm
The information is available in Mark Bly’s testimony at:
http://www.mdl2179trialdocs.com/
His testimony starts on day 3.
They use the BP comprehensive list of causes and there was no safety committee involvement. Neither Mark Bly nor the lead facilitator have a safety background.
By the way, this is the same system that was criticized by the Baker Commission report after Texas City.
Comment by Mark Paradies — March 22, 2013 @ 5:04 am