Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

BP cost cuts contributed to Gulf spill, says report

Ayesha Rascoe
Thursday 06 January 2011 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

BP and its partners made a series of cost-cutting decisions that ultimately contributed to the oil spill that ravaged the Gulf of Mexico over the summer, the White House commission into the disaster said yesterday. In its final report on the causes of the largest offshore spill in US history, the commission said BP and its collaborators had lacked a system to ensure their actions were safe.

"Whether purposeful or not, many of the decisions that BP, Halliburton, and Transocean made that increased the risk of the Macondo blowout clearly saved those companies significant time (and money)," it said. The commission does not have the authority to establish policy or punish companies, but its conclusions could have a bearing on criminal and civil cases relating to the spill.

The findings contradict an initial report released in November, which found no evidence that workers cut corners on the project to save money. After receiving criticism for that finding, the panel later sought to clarify the comments, saying it did not mean companies involved with the accident had never sacrificed safety to save money.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in