But that's why you have public relations, to create a favorable impression for the public. Those of us who can see it objectively are a tiny minority. BP desperately needs good PR right now, and in those terms, this is another disaster.
There was some playing to the cameras and constituents by members as there always is in televised hearings, but less than usual from my perspective. For the most part I believe members of the committee conducted themselves in accordance with the gravity of the situation.
I do not believe he was abused at all, if he got a severe grilling, it was his own doing. He was given a 14 page letter from the committee several days in advance, outlining five specific areas of concern that he would be required to respond to in the hearing. You can bet your ass if he'd been asked those questions by his board of directors he would have had ready answers, or he'd be out of a job. Instead, he repeatedly evaded the questions and flat out lied under oath, pretending not to know the answer or even have an opinion on anything, because the internal BP "investigation was ongoing".
He refused to divulge anything that had been discovered so far in the investigation. He repeated stock deflective responses over and over like a robot, "I had no prior knowledge", "I was not a part of the decision making process" my favorite being the ironic and Orwellian, "BP is focused like a laser on safety," which he repeated so many times I lost count. The man has worked for the company for 28 years, and in his prior positions was an expert on exploration and a soils proving engineer for chrissake. After 60 days he knows exactly what the problems were, if he did not know at the time of the blowout. Based on his performance before the committee, I think he should have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
Excerpted from a post I made in another thread, and a link to an article outlining the specific areas of concern that could have led to the blowout, that Hayward was instructed to be prepared to respond to in the hearing:
And here at last, a sensible perspective from the UK:
"The committee has been conducting an aggressive inquiry into the gusher, and called Hayward in to answer specific charges of suspected safety lapses and shortcuts in the design plan of the well in the days before the explosion on the ill-fated Deepwater Horizon rig. But Hayward, who had been carefully coached by legal and media teams and was testifying under oath, failed to satisfy.
The committee's search for answers was repeatedly frustrated by Hayward, who denied any involvement in or prior knowledge of the ill-fated decisions about the well that led to the blow-out.Hayward had multiple variations on the same theme: that he had no direct involvement or knowledge of problems on the Deepwater Horizon, even though engineers lower down in BP's hierarchy had spoken about a "nightmare well".
He clung to his argument that it would be premature to comment until investigations had run their course. His answers, all delivered in flat, impassive tones, infuriated committee members."
True, there was grandstanding by the committee. But the committee would have made the CEO look much worse if the members had exercised the self-discipline necessary to appear totally calm, objective, and courteous. They could have repeatedly, every single time he evaded, calmly pointed out that the question was in the written list and that he had more than ample time to get the answers. That would have reduced the ability of anyone to sympathize with the CEO.
I have seen how effectively a calm and courteous demeanor can totally devastate an unreasonable person. Years ago, a gay activist was a guest on a talk show hosted by the former (super) mayor of St. Paul. The host was incredibly nasty, but the guest refused to respond in kind. The host became totally frustrated and stunned into complete silence. It was reported in the newspapers. The host came out of it looking like an ogre and the guest came out of it looking like an angel.
In the case of the CEO of BP, it may well be, as he stated, that he had no prior knowledge of the problems with the well. However, if he had no prior knowledge, it is because BP lacked adequate provision for upward communication. If PB had adequate provision for upward communication, and if employees had been instructed and encouraged to report potentially serious safety problems, then he would have had knowledge and been able to do something about it. He had worked in an executive capacity for BP for something like three years which should be sufficient time for him to learn about the company's culture and procedures and take action to ensure that there would be adequate upward communication.