Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

September 10, 2010 | Mark Paradies

Wall Street Journal Questions Independence of BP Deepwater Horizon Internal Investigation

Here’s a quote from the Wall Street Journal:

LONDON—BP PLC, which billed its Deepwater Horizon inquiry as an independent look at the disaster, said its lawyers were allowed to “review” the long-awaited report before it was published.

A BP spokesman said its lawyers provided “legal advice and counsel to the [investigative] team,”‘but wouldn’t elaborate on what exactly that entailed. He also declined to characterize the nature of the review, and what changes, if any, the lawyers made to BP’s 193-page report on the April accident that triggered the worst U.S. offshore oil spill. But he said the BP lawyers “were walled off from the rest of the company.’

The spokesman also said some ‘internal and external’ lawyers for BP worked with investigators ‘in order to interact with lawyers for other companies to obtain evidence for the investigation,’ and to ‘assist in the preservation of evidence for litigation and ongoing investigations.‘”

The disclosure raises questions about the extent of the independence of BP’s report, which was released Wednesday and assigned much of the blame for the accident to BP’s contractors, Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Co. The U.K. oil giant has said its four-month investigation on the causes of the accident, which killed 11 workers, was carried out without interference from senior management.

The rest of the story is available at:

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703960004575481841496497502.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

How much independence can an internal investigation have? Wouldn’t some legal review be expected? After all, the head of safety for BP led the investigation … How independent is that?

Also, the scope of the investigation was limited to the immediate causes of the accident and was not allowed to look into the longer term management causes.

What do you think? Could you expect an independent investigation from BP? Did the lawyer involvement compromise the investigation? Leave a comment here and let me know.

Categories
Root Cause Analysis
-->
Show Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *