Find Answers To Your Questions By Searching Here:

BP’s response plan: one-size fits all and full of errors

Gun Deck:

1) “A deck aboard a ship that was primarily used for the mounting of cannon to be fired in broadsides.”

2) “Navy slang for fabricating or falsifying something. The origin of the term dates to the practice of painting the image of cannon ports on the side of one’s ship in order to present the appearance of having more guns than a ship actually does, and thereby convincing any adversary that they were outgunned, forgoing engagement.”

Let’s modify the second definition to fit BP PLC’s Gulf of Mexico regional spill plan.

2) …the image of cannon ports (false data) on the side (pages) of one’s ship (document) in order to present the appearance of having more guns (preparedness) than a ship (oil rig) actually does, and thereby convincing any adversary (government inspector) that they were outgunned (trumped by facts), forgoing engagement (suspicions).

An Associated Press story highlights just some of the bold distortions, “omissions and glaring errors” in the company’s 582 page document and 52-page Deepwater Horizon specific plan which shows how BP has “pretty much been making it up as they go along.”

In other words, BP gundecked the plan.

It was a plan for all seasons, all spills and all locations.

According to the plan, BP had the ability to respond to a “worst case discharge” of oil from the platform. Marine life would suffer little harm, water pollution would be temporary and beaches would stay clean even after a spill ten times greater than what’s presently ravaging the Gulf.

Here are just a few of the plan’s omissions and mis-statements:

-BP’s method to calculate spill volume pruduces estimates 100 times below the internationally recognized formula.

-There is no reference to the Loop Current which threatens to carry oil up the East Coast.

-The company’s Marine Spill Response Corp. website links to a Japanese page.

-20 million gallons of oil could be skimmed up per day, which, incidentally is the amount that gushed over several weeks.

-There is only a 21 percent chance of oil hitting land within one month. In reality, it took only nine days.

-No significant impact would hit the shore because the well is 48 miles offshore.

-Mammals listed in the Gulf include sea otters, walruses, seals and sea lions, none of which are found anywhere in that part of the world.

-Names and contact information for marine life specialists are incorrect.

-More than sufficient numbers of boats would be available to contain the spill before it reached land.

-An ample supply of resources to contain a spill were available. In reality, there is nowhere near enough booms and other supplies.

Perhaps the most embarrassing mistake in the plan is listing University of Miami Professor Peter Lutz as an sea turtle expert point of contact.

Professor Lutz left Miami 20 years earlier and died four years before the plan was printed.

All of this makes you wonder how many other rigs in the Gulf have similar bogus response plans?

Learn your rights as a seaman by ordering free copy of The Insider's Guide to Winning Your Maritime Injury Case written by Jones Act and maritime accident injury lawyer Brian Beckcom.

Maritime Work is Dangerous

Our maritime lawyers realize that maritime work can be dangerous when companies cut corners on safety. That's why we've dedicated our time to putting out free information for workers.