View non-flash version
September 2010 www.marinelink.com 17 In addition, various agencies are under- taking health studies. It seems that virtually every committee in Congress that could possibly have oversight authority has conducted hear- ings on relative to the Deepwater Hori- zon-Macondo incident. Hearings have been held by the following Senate com- mittees: Commerce, Science & Trans- portation; Energy and Natural Resources; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Judiciary. Hearings have also been held by the following commit- tees of the House of Representatives: Ed- ucation and Labor; Energy and Commerce; Judiciary; Natural Re- sources; Science and Technology; Small Business; and Transportation and Infra- structure. The most extensive work seems to have been done by the House Committee on Natural Resources, which launched its own investigation and (to- gether with its subcommittees) conducted at least seven separate hearings. Members of Congress submitted nu- merous bills, addressing everything from tax relief for individuals impacted by the spill to use of dispersants. One bill even proposes establishment of a Congres- sional Commission to investigate the oil spill incident, separate and apart from the Administration’s National Commission. Several of the bills have been adopted by the House of Representatives. None have been adopted by the Senate. It is unclear whether any of these bills will be enacted by this Congress. If not, the legislative process must start afresh in January 2011. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened civil and criminal investiga- tions into the circumstances surrounding the incident. It is not disclosing much re- garding its efforts, only saying that there are multiple targets. It is probable that various individual Gulf coast states are opening similar investigations. The National Research Council (NRC) has begun a research project related to the spill, as have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trustees (federal, state, and tribal) of the various natural re- sources possibly impacted by the oil spill have commenced Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) investiga- tions. These will examine impacts on everything from endangered species, such as whales and sea turtles, to coral, sea grass, shrimp, crabs, and sand fleas. Numerous academic institutions, par- ticularly those located in the Gulf coast states, have commenced research projects examining different aspects of the spill. While most are focused on environmen- tal issues, others are looking at economic and sociological impacts. Parties directly involved in the incident, including BP, Transocean (owner of the MODU), Hal- liburton (the well cementing company), and Cameron International (the company that manufactured the BOP), have com- menced their own internal investigations. It is unclear how much, if any, of the re- sults of these investigations will ever be available outside those particular compa- nies. News reports, for example, indicate that BP has retained a number of outside experts and research institutions to assist on its investigation, but requires each to sign a stringent non-disclosure contract. Private litigants and potential litigants have also begun investigations in prepa- ration for the inevitable lawsuits against BP, Transocean, and others. It is virtu- ally certain that the volume and extent of litigation arising out of this oil spill will far exceed that following the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. I support the concept of in- vestigating incidents for the purpose of reducing the risk of their recurrence. I question, though, whether we are well- served by the number of overlapping in- vestigations on-going in this case.
