Outgoing chief executive Tony Hayward says less risk than in Gulf of Mexico, as Shetlands work is expected to start next year
BP’s plans for deepwater drilling in the North Sea have caused concern. An oil-soaked bird struggles against a supply ship in the Gulf of Mexico. Photograph: Gerald Herbert/AP
BP is determined to press ahead with plans to drill deepwater wells west of the Shetlands despite criticism of its “outrageous” attitude to the risks of drilling in the US and worries about its North Sea safety record.
The company is still in talks with the government and privately recognises the Deepwater Horizon disaster makes it a highly sensitive issue but said it would probably start work next year.
The optimism about its chances of drilling the North Uist prospect at water depths of 5,000 feet (1,500 metres) – similar to that in the Gulf of Mexico – was spelled out as BP came under attack today from MPs on the Commons energy and climate change committee.
Tony Hayward, the company’s outgoing chief executive, told the committee investigating the implications of the Gulf oil spill that no definite decision had been taken on whether to proceed west of the Shetlands but he that argued drilling risks were different from the Gulf because reservoir pressures were much lower.
An oil spill response team was already being assembled in Southampton, he said, so BP could in future react much quicker than it had with the rogue Macondo well, which killed 11 rig workers and despoiled the beaches of the southern states of the US.
Bernard Looney, managing director of BP North Sea, said the company had not yet chosen a rig to drill North Uist this year but “we will most likely drill there next year”.
The plans for the Shetlands triggered an angry response from Albert Owen, a Labour member of the committee, who said the Deepwater disaster raised concerns that BP seemed unable to comprehend.
“Do you not understand the frustration and anger, not just of American senators and congressmen but of people who care about the environment, that this is allowed to happen,” said Owen. “Surely there should have been some thought that an accident would happen at this depth … I find the whole thing outrageous.”
Hayward insisted he understood why people felt the way they did and accepted the inability of BP to intervene, because it was not properly prepared, was “unacceptable”. He added: “The industry was not prepared because it believed it had mitigated the risk … And that clearly was a very bad assumption.”
Tim Yeo, the chairman of the committee, said he was alarmed at new revelations that inspections of BP’s North Sea installations by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) found some did not comply with guidelines over regular training for operators on how to respond to an incident.
The energy group was also accused by the HSE of failing to conduct oil spill exercises properly while the Gulf blowout sat uneasily with BP chief executive Tony Hayward’s early promise to focus with “laser-like” intensity on safety.
The BP boss, who stands down at the end of this month, denied the irregularities raised by the HSE amounted to the most serious failings. “I do not believe that the issues that were reported this morning point to any fundamental weakness in our North Sea operations. We have a very strong track record in the North Sea. It is better than the industry average.”
Hayward argued that the company had seen “major improvements” in the course of the last two years. “BP spills, which are a good indicator of safety performance in terms of integrity of plant, have fallen by 20% over the last two years and we now lead the industry in terms of that particular metric in the North Sea.”
The BP chief executive also crossed swords at the hearing with committee member and Conservative MP, Philip Lee, who expressed alarm at the use of chemical dispersants in the Gulf. Hayward admitted: “No one knows the environmental impact of this,” leading Lee to point out that as a medical doctor he would never have injected a patient with a drug unless “I know what it will do.”
