Meet Joe Barton, British Petroleum’s BFF

The week isn’t over yet and we’ve had way too much entertainment up on Capitol Hill, brought to us by America’s Oil companies.  Today we find, that British Petroleum does have a friend in Washington.  Its Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce.  The Republican lawmaker apologized to BP on Thursday for what he said was a “shakedown” by the government of the oil company in forcing it to create a $20 billion fund to pay out damages resulting from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  Did you get that… he apologized to BP.

“It is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion dollar shakedown,” Barton said during his opening remarks in a hearing at which BP CEO Tony Hayward will testify.

“I am ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Barton said, apologizing to the oil company. Barton called the $20 billion account a “slush fund,” and said he did not want to live in a country where private companies could be compelled by the government to create such accounts.

Yeah, well I’m not thrilled about living in a country where an elected offical from a state with a coastline on the Gulf of Mexico thinks its shameful to hold corporations responsible for the greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history.  I get Rand Paul shooting his mouth off last month defending BP, he’s in Kentucky. I would hope that Joe Barton would be singing a different tune if oil showed up and fouled the shores of South Padre Island or began to impact the fisherman of Port Arthur.  Oh wait it already has. So that makes Barton a corporate sellout– far from his image as a patriotic Texan and servant of the people.

Then there was the plagiarism scandal.  Last Tuesday on Capitol Hill the heads of Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips, Chevron Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc got caught having nearly identical emergency disaster plans for the Gulf of Mexico that call for the protection of walruses and contacting dead experts.  Read the transcript below:

REP. MARKEY: Mr. Tillerson, like BP, on page 11-6 of your plan, ExxonMobil’s Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response Plan lists walruses under sensitive biological and human resources. As I am sure you know, there aren’t any walruses in the Gulf of Mexico and there have not been for 3 million years.

How can ExxonMobil have walruses in their response plan for the Gulf of Mexico?

MR. TILLERSON: Congressman Markey, those response plans in corporate a number of broad-based studies — marine mammal studies, many of which are part of the EIS, the EIA statements that are put together by the MMS. And much of the response plan, and what is contained in it, is prescribed by regulation, including the models that are used to project different scenarios for oil spills.  And many of the statements and representations that are in the plan —

REP. MARKEY: These are regional —

MR. TILLERSON: I understand.

REP. MARKEY: — oil spill response plans.  How can —

MR. TILLERSON: They refer —

REP. MARKEY: — walruses be in a response plan for the Gulf of Mexico?  This is the regional response plan —

MR. TILLERSON: I understand the question.

REP. MARKEY: — that each of you had to put together.

MR. TILLERSON: And it’s unfortunate that walruses were included.And it’s an embarrassment that they were included, but that’s part ofa larger marine mammal study that is used in — that’s used in preparing regional response plans.

REP. MARKEY: Mr. Mulva, your plan as well includes walruses.
Mr. Watson, your plan has them on page 11-6.  How do you respond to having walruses in your plan?

MR. WATSON: (Off mike) — respond in a similar fashion.  The plans are put together in response to guidelines from the Minerals Management Service —

REP. MARKEY: Do you agree that it’s an embarrassment to have walruses in a response plan for the Gulf of Mexico

MR. WATSON:  Certainly, in the —

REP. MARKEY: — Mr. Watson?

MR. WATSON: — Gulf of Mexico, that’s not appropriate.

REP. MARKEY: Mr. Mulva, do you agree it’s an embarrassment to have it in a plan to respond to a crisis in the Gulf of Mexico?

MR. MULVA: I agree.  It’s not appropriate to include for that region.

REP. MARKEY: In your response plan, Mr. Tillerson, as well as some of the other plans, including ConocoPhillips’s, there is a Dr.Lutz who is referred to as an expert, a technical support person.  Mr. Lutz died in 2005, four years before the plan was actually filed.

How, Mr. Tillerson, can you justify in your response plan having a person who has been dead for four years?  Is that also an embarrassment?How, Mr. Tillerson, can you justify in your response plan having a person who has been dead for four years?  Is that also an embarrassment?

MR. TILLERSON: Well, it is.  But let me point out that Dr. Lutz was part of the University of Miami’s Marine Mammal Research Division,which has been an important resource for preparation of these plans for years.  The fact that Dr. Lutz died in 2005 does not mean his work and the importance of his work died with him.  There are many other individuals identified in the plan —

REP. MARKEY: No, I appreciate —

MR. TILLERSON: — (inaudible) — more contact.  And we admit that we need expertise.

REP. MARKEY: It’s 2010.

MR. TILLERSON: Those numbers are all valid that are in the plan.

REP. MARKEY: It’s 2010.  It just seems to me that when you include Dr. Lutz’s phone number in your plan for response, that you have not taken this responsibility seriously.

Mr. Mulva, the same is true for you.  Is it an embarrassment to ConocoPhillips to have that as part of your plan?

MR. MULVA: Well, the plans need to be updated more frequently.What’s important is the institution. That’s who we refer to for support.  Obviously it is embarrassing. But we really look towards the institution and not necessarily the individual.

REP. MARKEY: It just seems to me that for each of your companies, the only technology you seem to be relying upon is a Xerox machine to put together your response plans, that there wasn’t enough effort put together to ensure that in the Gulf, if a catastrophe occurred, that you would be able to respond.