U.S. House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 28, 2010
(Waxman): (202) 225-5735
(Markey): (202) 225-4012
(Stupak): (202) 225-4735
WASHINGTON, DC - Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) sent letters to the CEOs of the ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and Chevron oil companies, requesting more information on the companies' oil spill response plans.
As part of its investigation into the BP oil spill, the Committee on Energy and Business revealed that the major oil companies had response projects that were practically identical, and included references to walruses in the Gulf of Mexico and emergency contact information for long-deceased experts.
At a hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment earlier this month, the CEOs of the companies admitted that their response projects contained significant flaws, calling them an "embarrassment."
"Each of the oil companies' oil spill response projects are practically identical to the tragically flawed BP oil spill response plan," the lawmakers wrote in the letter. "These oil spill response projects for the Gulf of Mexico even included references to protecting walruses and other animals that don't inhabit the Gulf and listed a deceased scientist as an emergency resource. You and other witnesses agreed that these flaws were 'embarrassing.' No oil company appears to be better prepared for a disastrous oil spill than BP was."
In the letter, the chairmen ask the companies to respond to the following questions by Friday, July 2, 2010:
1. Is your company's oil spill response project for the Gulf of Mexico adequate to protect the Gulf region from the consequences of a subsea blowout similar to the blowout at the Macondo well? If so, please explain how this conclusion is reached.
2. Each of the 5 oil companies that testified on June 15, 2010, relied upon the Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) and its equipment to respond to potential oil spills. The MSRC is now using its equipment to respond to the BP oil spill. Are there other resources and equipment accessible to your company in the event of an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that are not currently being used to respond to the BP spill?
3. Many resources that had been held in reserve for spills elsewhere in the country, such as the west coast and Alaska, have been transported for use in the Gulf of Mexico. Are there other resources and equipment accessible to your company in the event of an oil spill outside of the Gulf of Mexico that are not currently being used to respond to the BP spill?
4. Do you project to revise your oil spill response plan? If so, when will this revision be completed?
The full text of the letters can be found here.
# # #
