What’s Next for Industry after the Gulf Disaster?

by Tony Shelton, Shelton and Caudle Communication Training and Crisis Counsel, a division of Vollmer Public Relations

For some,  it’s a wash –

What company looks really good so far in the aftermath of the disaster in the Gulf?

Procter & Gamble, which has been supplying its Dawn dishwashing liquid for wildlife clean-up. In fact, a recent Huffington Post poll found that 39 percent of respondents said they would make sure to buy Dawn. 

At some point, of course, the leak will be stopped, clean-up and reparations will be concluded, and the world will move on from this tragedy.   But it’s clear the energy industry will have to operate differently.  The government will require it, and the public is demanding it.

Who’s got the solution?  The smart companies involved in offshore drilling and spill response are already asking:  How can we do this better next time.  What’s the new plan?

The really smart companies have realized that the needed technology, engineering and equipment already exist.  These essential elements reside with the independent companies that specialize in spill response and containment.  We don’t necessarily need new technology, although research is essential.  What is needed is a plan coordinated and put forth by industry response specialists, certainly with review and oversight by the federal government.

In the current disaster, the problem was not lack of response methods; it was that BP acted too slowly to get them into place. And it will be up to the responders to lead the charge. Any new plans put forth solely by BP and the other major producers – the ones who call in the response specialists – are unlikely to be warmly embraced on Capitol Hill.  It doesn’t help that, in recent testimony before Congress, the response plans of the majors all sounded a lot like BP’s.  (We’re likely to continue hearing about the plans’ protections for Gulf walruses, who haven’t called the Gulf home for millions of years. That unfortunate reference is the stuff from which legends are made.)

We need a plan that focuses on quick response for containment, as well as “stopping the leak.”  The idea is to contain and remove leaking oil as close to the source as possible, at the same time the best minds are figuring out the final fix for the problem.

In addition to the good news that the needed response and containment technology already exist is the news that, in order to be fully prepared, they don’t need to be kept in storage until a spill.     For example, with some modifications, response vessels can be ready to disconnect at virtually a moment’s notice from wells they might be working on and motor under their own power to the site of a spill.

With a plan in mind, the independent response experts, especially those willing to take leadership roles, are likely to find a friendly reception on Capitol Hill.

The major producers?  Well, they’ll have to pay for it.  But at least with a better response plan in place, they may be able to get back to the business of finding and producing the oil and gas this country is still going to need for a long, long time.

And more Americans will likely be stocking up on bottles of Dawn.

BP – Can You Hear Me Now?

Tony Shelton, President of Shelton and Caudle Communication Training and Crisis Counsel (a division of Vollmer), was in public relations at Exxon in 1989 at the time of the Valdez oil spill. Also, following the BP Refinery explosion outside Houston in 2005, Shelton provided communication counsel to the contracted engineering firm that lost 13 of the 15 people who died in that event.

In observing the news reports of the BP incident in the Gulf, I was reminded that a policy of alternately hiding and attacking rarely works over the long haul.

• Hiding - I was a low-level PR professional with Exxon at the time of the Valdez spill and was amazed there were so few references to BP in connection with the Transocean rig incident and ongoing release of oil. Certainly, nobody in the media seemed to be blaming BP.  Stories focused on Transocean and BP seemed to be content to stay in the background.  As the Coast Guard had the final say about the clean-up, it was understandable BP might hope that approach would work.  Still it was BP's oil and there had to be a day of reckoning.   Why weren't they more visible and forthcoming at the beginning?
•  Attacking - On May 6th, BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward was quoted by NPR as having said, the spill is "not our accident.  This is a piece of equipment owned and operated by Transocean, maintained by Transocean; they are absolutely accountable for its safety and reliability."  This is a statement better saved for the courts. The public, investors, and the government are not interested.  It's BP's well.  All we want to hear is what they're doing to clean up the oil.  Besides, if you hired a contractor to do work for you, you're responsible for making sure that contractor does things right.  What about oversight?
• Taking responsibility - BP has accepted responsibility for the clean-up, the right thing to do. Companies don't have to admit fault in order to do that. Following the Valdez spill, then Exxon CEO Lawrence Rawl, certainly nobody's media darling, said:
• This was an accident.
• We've accepted responsibility for it, and;
• We're going to clean it up.
• Tony Hayward should stick to just that sequence going forward, with frequent updates about progress.  No more finger pointing or excuses.
•  Also, BP should consider telling us, in the wake of this event, that they're double checking any other rigs, on shore and off.  That would be helpful from both a business and PR perspective.  Fair or not, BP has gotten the reputation of putting profits above safety.  That means the company has to work doubly hard to do the right thing now as another drilling incident would be unconscionable. 

Shelton and Caudle is the Communication Training and Crisis Counsel division of Vollmer Public Relations.  For more information, visit www.sheltoncaudle.com or email Tony at Shelton@vollmerpr.com.