Comments on: BP Bully Backstabbed by Corporate Execs

By: Dixinte

Dixinte — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:20:41 +0000

So, u are r ri ther richard as anonymous or one of his henchmen. Bullies always have subordinates that follow them as puppy dogs. Always. And, bullies always think they have a clear vision, always think they are doing good for the company. Always. So sad…but they burn out quickly, too.

By: Brian Bastow

Brian Bastow — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:16:41 +0000

In reply to point 4, it appears BP did indeed employ a load of Yanks and then we had the spill in the Gulf which was a bigger spill of oil. The real problem is a lack of trained corrosion scientists who study beyond degree level and specialise in corrosion. In the UK students fear taking on more student debt and as such the next generation of bright corrosion scientists are not comming through to the same extent. Woolem probably had to deal with many unskilled and often clueless people.

By: Iwas There

Iwas There — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:46:31 +0000

I have worked for Woollam. He was tough and he could be abrasive. However, he was totally committed to corrosion mitigation. He fought tooth and nail for funding. Did he suffer fools gladly ? – no he did not. Did he run the place with an iron hand ? – yes he did. Was he technically capable ? – he was extremely capable. Was he ever wrong ? – yes, sometimes he was, but not on purpose, and his aim was always better corrosion control. If you were technically competent and worked very hard Woollam supported you, although he could be caustic. Woollam was smart and technical. BP has kept highly technical people in that role, and that’s much better than having non-technical people in that position. Woollam was totally committed to corrosion mitigation at Prudhoe – that was his life. He was uncompromising. Under his direction the program made sense technically. BP would have had trouble finding someone who would push corrosion control harder than Mr. Woollam did. I would say the good of Woollam outweighed the bad. I would hate to work in a “softer” environment that was technically “goofy” or misdirected. The environment under Woollam was hard, but extremely technically rigorous. That worked for me. I have respect for Richard Woollam.

By: Acme

Acme — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:53:28 +0000

Bp cut right back on corrosion monitoring and reasearch in that decade. They tended to use historical statistical analysis rather than monitor the corrosion using instrumentation. This appeared to have come from the very top of BP and was highlighted by the mothballing of their world class corrosion labs in the UK. When the pipeline failed because of this cost cutting Woollam, with his forthright character, was an easy scapegoat.
I knew Woollam at university and he was a dedicated and hard working scientist, and I’ve no doubt he still is.

By: Dr. Gary Namie

Dr. Gary Namie — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:02:46 +0000

Wow! What a rare bit of clarity in this “globalized world of business” that we are supposed to accept uncritically. Yes. How about jobs for Americans? GN

By: Did You Know

Did You Know — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:04:12 +0000

It’s strange but I believe Mr. Woollam is still working for BP in Houston. If I’m not mistaken, he is British and yet retains a Work Visa for the states, even after refusing to testify to Congress. Somebody’s judgement is messed up here. Don’t we have a 10.2% unemployment rate and shouldn’t an American have this position?

By: AlwaysAmazed

AlwaysAmazed — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:40:05 +0000

I know for a fact that the rambling, self-congratulatory comment by “ANONYMOUS” above was written by Richard Woollam himself. I worked for Woollam as a manager, and know him well. I believe your article nailed him as a bully, which is a bit kind. He is not a gentleman, nor is he a man of integrity.

Many of my Alaskan colleagues who are genuine ladies and gentlemen of integrity got axed under BP HR Sally Bott’s (another bully) edict to “get rid of those Alaskan Whistleblowers.” Woollam provided the list.

BP America head Bob Malone (a patsy) looked the other way while lying blatantly to Congress that the company wouldn’t tolerate such unethical behavior (good luck, Mr. Malone, if you ever decide to run for an office). Btw, Malone was subsequently terminated for his hypocritical grandstanding while company officers scrambled to cover up their infamous US blunders.

In the controversial wake of the BP Alaska spills, London HQ quickly dismissed Woollam from his role in Alaska, and he remained off-the-job in exile — but on payroll — until recently. Give me a break. If Woollam was indeed “brilliant” and had a “clear vision and direction for the corrosion program in Alaska” as ANONYMOUS claims, his career wouldn’t have ended so suddenly in the aftermath of these easily preventable spills. Cheers.

By: TopDog

TopDog — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 06:30:16 +0000

TopDog…

I am So Lucky That I found your blog and great articles. I will come to your blog often for finding new great articles from your blog.I am adding your rss feed in my reader Thank you…

By: ANONYMOUS

ANONYMOUS — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:31:47 +0000

Wow,
You really missed the mark with this article. I worked for Richard Woollam and he was a brilliant person who had a clear vision and direction for the corrosion program in Alaska. What people fail to realize is that he transformed corrosion control in Alaska and I would hate to see where we would be without his guidance and forsite.
Was he a bully? NO, he had an intollerance for ignorance, sloppy work, laziness, and a failure to tell an accurate story based on the data. Yes, you could be berrated (in the Socratic Method) for providing shoddy work that was not defensible or able to clearly state the chosen path was the correct one. He was a fan of the :design of information”. In my experience those who thought he was a bully where those that we lazy and sloppy with their attitude and work. I would say he was somewhat unemotional and very objective making those around him better. I suppose if I wanted someone incharge of corrosion control in Alaska I would also want them to be objective, beyond reproach, and base decisions on clear and accurate truth supported by data.

It is easy for people to point fingers and make general statements (i.e. Mr Hamel) I could say that there will be a major auto accident in the next five seconds and then point the finger to your website asking why you did nothing to prevent it. I told you it would happen. It would be an interesting study to compare the money spent on regulatory battles versus corrosion control. Imagine what could be done if all resources where dedicated to the effort. By the way Alaska is considered by the industry as the benchmark. I would dare anyone to compare our performance with other locations in the world and with small independents.