BP executive declines to testify at hearing

updated 2:40 p.m. ET Sept. 7, 2006

WASHINGTON - The former head of pipeline-corrosion monitoring for BP in Alaska refused to testify under oath Thursday as outraged lawmakers grilled company officials over the causes of a massive oil spill earlier this year.

Richard C. Woollam, who was transferred to BP’s Houston offices amid concerns that he intimidated potential whistleblowers, invoked the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution in refusing to answer all questions from a House subcommittee. “Based upon the advice of counsel, I respectfully will not answer questions,” said Woollam, who was placed on paid leave.

Other BP executives apologized and pledged to fix operational lapses on the North Slope that led to the region’s biggest ever oil spill in March and the partial shutdown last month of the country’s largest oil field.

Lawmakers said BP’s mistakes in Alaska — as well as its responsibility for a deadly refinery fire last spring — were particularly unacceptable given the industry’s record profits and the relatively inexpensive measures that might have prevented the oil spill.

With Congress aiming to wrap up its current session by the end of the month, Thursday’s House hearing was not expected to result in any specific legislative action; it did, however, offer lawmakers an opportunity to talk tough to Big Oil at a time of soaring prices and ahead of November elections.

“If a company — one of the world’s most successful oil companies — can’t do the basic maintenance needed to keep Prudhoe Bay’s oil field operating safely and without interruption, maybe it shouldn’t be operating the pipeline,” Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said.

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said she was especially disappointed in BP, since it professes in advertising to pride itself on protecting the environment. “I applaud BP for trying to move beyond petroleum, but maybe it should start by sticking to the basics and begin to focus on rudimentary pipe maintenance.”

'Not Monday-morning quarterbacking'
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said the spill-related shutdown raises questions about why there weren’t redundancies built into the pipeline system that carries Prudhoe Bay oil to market so that the shutdown wouldn’t have been necessary.

“It is not Monday morning quarterbacking to suggest BP should have had a plan,” Stupak said.

Robert A. Malone, the head of BP PLC’s U.S. operations, conceded the company’s reputation has suffered, and he vowed to manage Prudhoe Bay in “a safe, efficient and environmentally sensitive way.”

In March, more than 200,000 gallons of oil leaked from a 34-inch pipeline that crosses the Alaska tundra. Follow-up inspections mandated by federal investigators led to the discovery of another much smaller leak, as well as “significant” corrosion, according to BP, which briefly shut down the entire Prudhoe Bay field on Aug. 6.

MORE FROM OIL & ENERGY

Oil & Energy Section Front

Pump prices to stay flat over holiday weekend OPEC unlikely to change production targets Cost of gas falls nearly 4 cents in last two weeks Exxon Mobil to buy XTO Energy for $31 billion Iraq hails oil auction but risky sites shunned Iraq opens big slice of oil riches to bidders Saudi oil minister says oil is at ‘perfect’ price Newsweek: New market bubble is brewing Chevron 3Q profit slumps 51 percent BusinessWeek: The coming energy revolution Oil & Energy Section Front   Add Oil & Energy headlines to your news reader: