You've heard and seen much about the Gulf
disaster that killed 11 BP workers. If you have not heard about the
earlier blowout, it's because BP has kept the full story under wraps.
Nor did BP inform Congress or US safety regulators, and BP, along with
its oil industry partners, have preferred to keep it that way.
The earlier blowout occurred in September 2008 on BP's Central Azeri platform in the Caspian Sea.
As one memo marked "secret" puts it, "Given
the explosive potential, BP was quite fortunate to have been able to
evacuate everyone safely and to prevent any gas ignition." The Caspian
oil platform was a spark away from exploding, but luck was with the 211
rig workers.
It was eerily similar to the Gulf catastrophe as it involved BP's controversial "quick set" drilling cement.
The question we have to ask: If BP had laid
out the true and full facts to Congress and regulators about the earlier
blowout, would those 11 Gulf workers be alive today - and the Gulf
Coast spared oil-spill poisons?
The bigger question is, why is there no clear
law to require disclosure? If you bump into another car on the Los
Angeles freeway, you have to report it. But there seems no clear
requirement on corporations to report a disaster in which knowledge of
it could save lives.
Five months prior to the Deepwater Horizon
explosion, BP's Chief of Exploration in the Gulf, David Rainey,
testified before Congress against increased safety regulation of its
deepwater drilling operation. Despite the company's knowledge of the
Caspian blowout a year earlier, the oil company's man told the Senate
Energy Committee that BP's methods are, "both safe and protective of the
environment."
Really? BP's quick-dry cement saves money, but
other drillers find it too risky in deepwater. It was a key factor in
the Caspian blowout. Would US regulators or Congress have permitted BP
to continue to use this cement had they known? Would they have
investigated before issuing permits to drill?
This is not about BP the industry Bad Boy.
This is about a system that condones silence, the withholding of
life-and-death information.
Even BP's oil company partners, including
Chevron and Exxon, were kept in the dark. It is only through WikiLeaks
that my own investigations team was able to confirm insider tips I had
received about the Caspian blowout. In that same confidential memo
mentioned earlier, the US Embassy in Azerbaijan complained, "At least
some of BP's [Caspian] partners are similarly upset with BP's
performance in this episode, as they claim BP has sought to limit
information flow about this event even to its [Caspian] partners."
In defense of its behavior, BP told me it did
in fact report the "gas release" to the regulators of Azerbaijan. That's
small comfort. This former Soviet republic is a police state
dictatorship propped up by the BP group's oil royalties. A public
investigation was out of the question.
In December, I traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan's
capital, to investigate BP and the blowout for British television. I was
arrested, though, as a foreign reporter, quickly released. But my eye
witnesses got the message and all were too afraid tell their stories on
camera.
BP has, in fact, never admitted a blowout
occurred, though when confronted by my network, did not deny it. At the
time, BP told curious press that the workers had merely been evacuated
as a "precaution" due to gas bubbles "in the area of" the drilling
platform, implying a benign natural gas leak from a crack in the sea
floor, not a life-threatening system failure.
In its 2009 report to the US Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), BP inched closer to the full truth. Though
not mentioning "blowout" or "cement," the company placed the leak
"under" the platform.
This points to a cruel irony: the SEC requires
full disclosure of events that might cause harm to the performance of
BP's financial securities. But reporting on events that might harm
humans? That's not so clear.
However, the solution is clear as could be.
International corporations should be required to disclose events that
threaten people and the environment, not just the price of their stock.
As radiation wafts across the Pacific from
Japan, it is clear that threats to health and safety do not respect
national borders. What happens in Fukushima or Baku affects lives and
property in the USA.
"Regulation" has become a dirty word in US
politics. Corporations have convinced the public to fear little
bureaucrats with thick rulebooks. But let us remember why government
began to regulate these creatures. As Andrew Jackson said, "Corporations
have neither bodies to kick nor souls to damn."
Kicking and damning have no effect, but rules
do. And after all, when international regulation protects profits, as in
the case of patents and copyrights, corporate America is all for it.
Our regulators of resource industries must
impose an affirmative requirement to tell all, especially when people,
not just song lyrics or stock offerings, are in mortal danger.