Today's NYT leads with a story that may reveal one of the contributing causes of Oilmageddon--nobody really knew who was in charge of the Deepwater Horizon rig, or who was responsible for regulating it. If this story is to be believed, the result was a recipe for disaster.
New government and BP documents, interviews with experts and testimony by witnesses provide the clearest indication to date that a hodgepodge of oversight agencies granted exceptions to rules, allowed risks to accumulate and made a disaster more likely on the rig, particularly with a mix of different companies operating on the Deepwater whose interests were not always in sync.
As we all know now, BP owns the well, but Transocean owns the rig. Haliburton was the cementing contractor, while various other companies were responsible for drilling fluid, underwater monitoring and well casing. Numerous memos show that BP often cut corners over Transocean and Haliburton's objections--in many cases violating BP's own safety policies. However, no one was responsible for coordinating the Horizon's operations.
The NYT also reveals a disturbing lack of coordination among the federal agencies responsible for handling the spill. At least 12 federal agencies are involved in the response, applying a raft of statutes.
However, the NYT thinks part of the problem is BP's initial downplaying of the spill.
From the start, BP had played down the extent of the problem in miscalculating the rate of the leak and in denying the existence of underwater oil plumes. By deferring to the company, federal officials underestimated the problem they were facing and thus what was needed to respond to it.
It took more than a week after the explosion for the homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, to declare, on April 29, "a spill of national significance" a legal categorization that was needed before certain federal assistance could be authorized.
Because of such delays, critics have charged, more coastline will be hit, more animals will die, more habitats will be ruined and more money will be lost in tourism, fishing and real estate.
This was particularly egregious since the government relies largely on BP for technological information. I'd expressed doubt that downplaying the spill was in and of itself criminal--but in light of this, this may be grounds by itself for Holder to bring criminal charges.
Speaking of which, Holder said that the criminal investigation may take awhile due to the simple fact that it's not clear who is ultimately liable for what he calls "a wide range of possible violations." In other words--somebody might end up going to jail or heavily fined, but it's not clear who.