|
Transocean is also involved in a dust-up with BOEMRE head Michael Bromwich, who charges that the company is "stonewalling" on subpoenas for three of its employees to testify at hearings in New Orleans next week.
"In my judgment, this is less a legal issue than one of whether Transocean recognizes its moral and corporate responsibility to cooperate with an investigation into the causal factors of the most significant oil spill in United States history," Bromwich wrote. "From my perspective, this is what is at stake with the attendance of the Transocean witnesses."
Two of the subpoenaed Transocean employees, James Kent and Jay Odenwald, are being represented by private counsel and "their participation is, therefore, beyond Transocean's control," said Transocean counsel Steven Roberts, in a letter to Bromwich.
And this is not the first time that Transocean and investigators have disagreed on procedures during the probe of the blowout.
In October, members of the joint panel accused Transocean of thwarting their efforts to get to critical documents and a witness. The co-chair of the panel said at the time that members had been trying for two months to get Transocean to turn over materials related to its compliance with international safety management codes. The panel also said it had been unable to get a specific Transocean manager to come in and testify about safety.
Transocean lawyers said at the time that the document request was too cumbersome. And, they said that whether that witness testified wasn't within their control, striking a similar note as in Thursday's response to the current dispute.
"Like you, everyone at Transocean views the company's cooperation with investigations into the Macondo incident as both a corporate and a moral imperative," said Roberts.
Bromwich replied in no uncertain terms...
"Indeed," Bromwich said, "you have a range of incentives and actions available to you to influence that decision, including the threat of personnel actions up to and including termination for failure to cooperate. In my experience, senior corporate executives committed to a culture of compliance and cooperation make creative and aggressive use of those incentives and sanctions."
Bromwich reminded Transocean's boss, "As we continue to review the criteria for allowing companies to operate offshore, their record of commitment to compliance and cooperation will play an important role."
Matt Hennessy, the Houston attorney for Kent, called the government's position "outrageous", and that a corporation should not consider firing someone who was engaged in a "legitimate exercise of his rights".
"To have BOEM (sic) threatening Transocean to threaten my client to get him to testify is sort of unbelievable," said Michael Walsh, the Baton Rouge lawyer representing Odenwald.
The Joint Investigation Team of BOEMRE and the Coast Guard issued subpoenas for Kent and Odenwald. But, according to their attorneys -- and contrary to Bromwich's assertion in his communication with Transocean -- those subpoenas were not, and could not, be served because both men live outside the New Orleans area in which they could legally be delivered.
The lawyers said that the testimony from their clients is no longer necessary or relevant.
The testimony of key witnesses is no longer necessary or relevant? Maybe because they have to tell the truth under oath?
Kent is an asset manager for Transocean, whose zone of responsibility included the Deepwater Horizon rig. Odenwald is a senior subsea engineer, who was in charge of the blowout preventer on the Deepwater Horizon.
One would think that the duties performed by Kent and Odenwald seem damn "necessary" and "relevant", and testimony from either is vitally important. I, personally, would like to hear testimony from both of them, especially Odenwald.
In his letter to Bromwich, Roberts noted that the testing of the Deepwater Horizon's BOP has confirmed that it was in "proper operating condition" and "functioned as intended," but that "high pressure from the well created conditions that exceeded the scope of BOP's design constraints."
Nonetheless, he assured Bromwich that Transocean will be sending Mike Fry, a BOP expert, to the hearings in the New Orleans.
"He did his job," Walsh said of Odenwald, noting that he could not recommend his client travel to New Orleans so the investigators "can beat up on him some more."
"Based on the way the hearings have been run -- more spectacle than fact-finding -- on my advice he is not going to participate in that spectacle," Hennessy said of Kent.
But in his Thursday letter to Transocean, Bromwich wrote "this is less a legal issue than one whether Transocean recognizes its moral and corporate responsibility to cooperate with an investigation into the causal factors of the most significant oil spill in Untied States history."
Let's hope that this indicates that Bromwich has indeed grown a large brassy pair, and will be Terminator-like in his pursuit of the truth.
When Transocean’s general counsel responded instead of Newman, explaining it was up to the employees’ individual attorneys to decide if they would appear at the hearings, Bromwich threw down the gauntlet. The message: Either help out or this could affect your work before BOEMRE when it comes to offshore drilling.
I'll believe it when I see Tony Hayward frog-marched off his yacht in handcuffs...
|
