Final Thoughts
by Khan
BP will have to evaluate long and hard as to whether Hayward’s strategy today–be evasive as possible for seemingly legal reasons–was worth the public excoriation that is starting to pile on. Hayward declined to answer most questions about what went wrong, citing a reluctance to speculate amidst "ongoing investigations". And when asked about the institutional culture of safety at BP, Hayward offered only vague responses concerning "systematic changes" in safety he had been making since the beginning of his tenure.
BP’s legal concerns are legitimate, as this NYT article details. Since Hayward was under oath, anything that he said could have been used as evidence. But as I have mentioned before, BP needs to weigh this concern against the long-term costs of public scorn. An honest, forthright and sincere testimony could have gone a long way in healing the PR damages.
The biggest news of the day was of course Rep. Barton’s "shakedown" comment, describing the White House’s efforts to get BP to commit to a $20 billion escrow account. (Hayward testified later that he didn’t agree with Barton, and that the WH and BP had "come together" to find a "way forward".) Barton drew repudiations from the WH and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and later tried to backtrack on his comments, saying he believed that BP should be held fully liable.
Looking forward, it will be interesting to see what the results of the multiple and simultaneous investigations are. Hayward’s testimony suggests that there is a lot BP doesn’t want us to know concerning their role in the oil spill. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is planning more hearings, however, one with the contractors who drew up the spill contingency plans for BP and other oil giants.