BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Author: Nora Lewis
Suggested Citation:
Lewis, N. (2026). The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Technology Assessment Project Case Study Library, University of Michigan. https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/tap-case-study-library/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill
The BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Key Takeaways
- Large corporations often fail to plan for accidents in favor of pushing forward with lucrative resource extraction and tech development.
- Output aims and technological advancements often outpace safety and regulatory advancements, which can result in riskier operations.
- In these "high risk" fields, miscommunication, poor risk assessments, and profit motives can magnify into large-scale disasters. Corporations may use their financial, political, and legal resources to undermine compensation efforts and the health of local communities and the environment.
Overview of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
On April 20, 2010, the BP oil rig Deepwater Horizon became a household name. The rig, located in the Macondo Prospect of the Gulf of Mexico roughly 52 miles off the coast of Louisiana, exploded and sank in a fiery ball at around 10 p.m. The initial explosion killed 11 workers onboard the rig and injured many others, causing the rig's deepwater well to spout oil uncontrollably into the Gulf and jumpstart the largest marine oil spill in history. Over the course of the next 87 days, the well would spill an estimated 134 million gallons of oil into the surrounding Gulf waters, a disaster which had a cascading effect on those living in the region. The Gulf's local tourism, fishing industries, and offshore drilling economy would be thrown into a tailspin for the next decade, as thousands of wildlife species faced death and natural habitat destruction from the thick layers of oil that spread across the waters.
It was not until September 19 of that same year that the Macondo well was deemed "sealed" by officials who had been unsuccessfully attempting to quell the spewing source for almost five months. In the months that followed, it came to light that the cause of the cataclysmic explosion was poor sealing on the cement surrounding the well, which sat at roughly 5,000 feet below sea level. At the time, the well was the deepest in the world, stretching over 13,000 additional feet below the seafloor to reach a plentiful hydrocarbon reservoir. When the cement allowed natural gas to shoot out of the well into the drilling pipes, an explosion ensued as the well's blowout preventer (or BOP, a valve meant to seal and control the release of oil and gas from a well) failed to seal the well sufficiently. As widespread cleanup efforts followed suit, many were left asking: how could such a disaster happen in the first place?
BP's History of Negligence and Mismanagement
It became clear in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill that this was not the first time BP had mismanaged a crisis. Just five years prior, a BP oil refinery in Texas City, Texas exploded, causing the deaths of 15 employees, with another 180 injured. The explosion remains one of the worst industrial disasters to date and cost around $3 billion in damages and legal settlements. Experts noted that the accident was largely a result of lacking safety procedures and miscommunication among personnel at the refinery. In a slew of unfortunate incidents, an operator ignored safety alarms, several workers were unaware that a high-level alarm was faulty, one supervisor missed a daily briefing and assigned duties out of step with predetermined procedure, and another supervisor failed to assign a replacement for their position when called off-duty for a family emergency. In a combination of both internalized informal safety procedures and chance missed connections, an explosion caused the deaths and injuries of many. BP was found to have no personnel distinctly responsible for safety assessments at the executive level, an oversight which helped enable the disaster to occur. The corporation was fined $87 million by OSHA in the aftermath.
Yet the negligence does not stop there. Just one year later in 2006, a BP pipeline in Alaska leaked roughly 5,054 barrels of crude oil into the surrounding tundra. It was discovered that the cause of the massive spill was corroded pipelines which had not been inspected and maintained properly by BP officials. BP was consequently fined $20 million by the federal government under the Clean Water Act and mandated to take action in replacing 1,600 miles of pipeline with a pipeline integrity management program.
Both incidents occurred less than a decade before the Deepwater Horizon spill and consisted of heavy fines and federal scrutiny. Yet these disasters and their concurrent harm to humans and wildlife alike was not enough to quell consistent mismanagement in other areas of BP's domain. The organization still had no formal contingency plan for future spills when all was said and done.
Instead, BP relied on the safety mechanisms of systems like blowout preventers, which had on several key occasions proved inadequate at halting oil spills in the past. In 1979, for example, the IXTOC 1 oil well located in the southwestern Gulf of Mexico released nearly 126 million gallons of crude oil into its surrounding waters after a blowout preventer failed to curb an explosion. It took 10 months for the well to be capped, allowing wide swathes of the Gulf ecosystem to be negatively impacted, as well as long stretches of coastline in both Mexico and the United States. In 2009, the Montara oil rig, located in the Timor Sea nestled between northwestern Australia and Indonesia, exploded and leaked 2,500 barrels of oil per day for 74 days into the surrounding sea. The well's blowout preventer had failed to stop the devastating spill from unfolding, polluting over 90,000 sq km of water in the vicinity of the well. Despite a slew of legal appeals from affected fishermen and seaweed farmers, many have still not received compensation for the accident over a decade later, and their livelihoods have been dramatically altered for the worse. Deeper and riskier oil pursuits of the Deepwater Horizon era also meant that blowout preventers needed a wider suite of advancements to combat increased depths, stronger currents, lower temperatures, and higher pressures. Blowout preventers had proven themselves several times over to be an unreliable barrier against loss of well control, yet they remained the crux of BP's sparse spill prevention plans.
The Development of the Deepwater Horizon
The building of the Deepwater Horizon semi-submersible drilling rig was completed in 2001, owned by the American drilling company Transocean and leased to and operated by the British oil giant BP. The rig's design was considered cutting-edge at the time, as one of less than 200 deepwater offshore rigs able to drill in waters deeper than 5,000 feet by 2010. At the time of the Deepwater Horizon's inception, the United States was embarking on its 20-year "War on Terror" in the Middle East. As Americans stoked the flames of conflict in the oil-rich region abroad, they were also looking to expand energy opportunities at home. Prior in 1998 and 1999, the largest oil fields ever discovered in the Gulf of Mexico were found, renewing interest in the region for a surplus of exploitable resources. In an ironic twist of fate, BP and partner Chevron discovered a 100 million barrel oil field in the Gulf within the bounds of one of their prospects, which was aptly named "Blind Faith."
Ultra-deepwater drilling (at 5,000 feet or deeper) became more commonplace in this era thanks to developments such as 3-D seismic technology, and soon was becoming a more productive kind of offshore drilling than its shallow water counterpart. By 2008, President George W. Bush rescinded an offshore drilling moratorium that had been upheld (though not always consistently, especially in the Gulf) by the prior Bush and Clinton administrations. Oil prices had heightened by this period leading up to the Recession, and many saw Bush's reversal of this ban as a more symbolic than substantive remedy for soaring prices in the name of strengthened "national security." Though the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico had remained protected under the ban for many years, this flux in legislation did not make a major impact elsewhere in the Gulf, where many operations had continued as normal during the tenure of the moratorium. Not only were there numerous Gulf leasing contracts already in effect by this time, but the Gulf was also the most productive region for oil production in the U.S., meaning that a rollback on drilling here would likely carve into domestic oil profits. Offshore drilling in the Gulf had sprouted a bustling web of related industries and oil-dependent incomes across Texas and Louisiana, a fact which likely drove the brokering of this special dispensation further.
The development of the Deepwater Horizon came on the tails of this consistent presence of deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The rig had drilled in various different locations in the Gulf before arriving at the Macondo Prospect, focusing on ultra-deepwater pursuits exclusively. In January of 2010, drilling overseen by BP officially began at the Macondo Prospect. Another Transocean-owned rig, Marianas, which was originally meant to man the Macondo well, had been battered by Hurricane Ida the previous November and left unusable. In its place, the equally impressive Deepwater Horizon gradually set its roots down in this new locale. Leasing the rig came at a cost of $1 million per day.
It took several months for the Deepwater Horizon to be formally set up, with an array of challenging tasks (including cement-laying around the Macondo well) required before it could begin the full scale of its commercial pursuits. In the days leading up to the April 20 explosion, the final cement-laying jobs were commenced, which in the eyes of BP personnel had gone quite well. The morning of the explosion, a team from Schlumberger oilfield services company was meant to examine the finalized cementing job. When several Schlumberger employees arrived via helicopter to the rig, they were promptly sent back to shore by BP officials, whose team plans outlined that if the cementing job had gone smoothly enough, time could be saved and the consultation's $128,000 price tag avoided. A BP team was slated to conduct final pressure tests on the cement seal once the Macondo well was officially reopened for oil production later on.
This sealing process went hand in hand with the placement of the well's BOP, where cement helped set elements of the protective valves in place as well as anchor and seal the well off from surrounding rock. In choosing an outline for the well's "casing strings" (long pipes that extended into the wellbore in order to stabilize and prevent blowouts and leaks), engineers at BP and the contracted Halliburton decided against their initial design plan after a loss of mud circulation in the early drilling process. The project's engineers and computer models reached the conclusion that this new design, though more vulnerable to leakages and fundamentally complex, would be easier to cement in the wellbore. But the decision was met with some pushback within BP, and after further assessment they decided to switch back to the old design despite qualms on its feasibility, on the condition that several key tweaks were made to the original design.
This back and forth continued as engineers moved into the next phase of design plans. A series of mix-ups, including an incorrect number and design of centralizers delivered to the rig, highlighted internal disagreements that arose over this part of the design process. Although BP's initial designs included over 16 centralizers, the team eventually settled on using the mere six that had been delivered, departing from the initial design plans. The internal disagreement here is less problematic than the incongruencies in design plans versus execution, where changes never underwent formal assessments of safety and security.
Once the casing strings were installed, the cementing operation began. The nature of cementing within high-pressure environments is always uncertain, and BP placed a series of constraints on the cementing designs of Halliburton engineers. Months earlier in February, when foam and cement slurry lab tests were conducted in several different iterations, there were instabilities revealed in the results that were acknowledged neither by Halliburton nor BP personnel. It was later revealed that several of the test iterations that had brought about the most substantial failures were never sent from Halliburton labs to BP officials. The nitrogen foam cement mixture decided upon by engineers was still pumped according to plan on the fateful day of April 20, with rig crew members noting that the job had been completed and "went well."
These moments of flawed communication and lacking safety assessments in response to change reveal an institutional culture at BP that failed to embed proper risk assessments into its design processes. Though these instances were often brought about by the decisions of individuals, BP's broader lack of enforcement of thorough safety assessments undoubtedly shaped this pattern of individual responses. Under such normalized high-risk conditions, every T was not crossed and I dotted because these risks were the name of the game. Zooming out of the context of Deepwater Horizon, it is clear that BP and other offshore drilling corporations were infatuated with the never-ending quest for new sources of oil and new, massive rewards to be reaped. The technology that became rapidly available enabled such quests to continue, and any hiccups in the meantime could be dealt with by throwing more money and tech in their direction. BP became the largest owner of acreage in the Gulf by the early 2000s, and they needed to throw a vast amount of infrastructure, personnel, and expertise behind these projects before they could even reap the benefits of actual oil extraction. Yet they knew the highs would be high, even when hurricanes battered rigs and design disconnects proliferated. In hindsight of the Deepwater Horizon spill and its ensuing financial drain on the BP corporation, this ambition-driven cost-benefit analysis model is flawed, but in the era before a major environmental disaster, it was the most profitable way forward.
Aftermath of the Spill
The cleanup effort that followed the Deepwater Horizon spill would go on to cost billions of dollars and last over a decade. The region was no stranger to environmental disasters, with the memory of the deadly Hurricane Katrina still fresh on the minds of most. But the Deepwater spill was a different beast entirely, particularly for the gradual and prolonged nature of its harms. The Gulf's wetlands, estuaries, and surrounding beaches were immediately targeted for oil containment and removal, as millions of the region's residents grappled with the prolonged pollution that stretched closer to their shorelines. BP deployed some contracted fleets to respond to the spill, largely using the same kind of containment booms, dispersant fluids, surface burning techniques, and skimmer vessels used 20 years earlier in response to the Exxon Valdez spill. BP's early estimates of the spill's scale were steadily increased in the coming weeks as the immense scale of the disaster became ever clearer. Yet much of the American public was left in the dark about these expanding estimates, and BP's fleets, even when coupled with the efforts of the Coast Guard and an array of federal environmental agencies, were quickly outpaced by the rapid spread of the oil. At the same time, engineers were unable to quell the constant flow of oil shooting from the Macondo well, though they attempted to drill a "relief well" which could be used to send cement into the open well and seal it. Engineers knew this process was both precarious and time-consuming, taking upwards of three months to execute if all went according to plan.
Other elements of BP's response plan were similarly insufficient. In one case, the corporation's designated "wildlife expert" had in years past listed walruses and seals as species of special concern if an oil spill occurred, two species that have never been found in the Gulf's waters. Later on in the cleanup process, BP attempted to do right by fishermen out of work under the Vessels of Opportunity program, where local fishermen and their private vessels were recruited for the cleanup in an effort to inject income into these affected communities. Yet the vetting process for vessel eligibility was unstable and unclear at many points, and it would later come to light that the health and safety precautions communicated to these volunteers left much to be desired. And the pay for most was not nearly as much as the incomes they had lost.
The fishing communities along the Gulf Coast were often composed of lower-income residents without a college degree, including sizable immigrant populations from places like Vietnam and Cambodia. An estimated 80 percent of the Southeast Asian immigrant population along the Gulf was affected by the spill, including fishermen, shrimp and oyster packers, and service workers bound to the Gulf's tourism industry. After the devastating impacts of Hurricane Katrina, the spill made it all the more difficult for those without strong English language skills to find work in new fields or obtain access to relief services like the Gulf Coast Claims Facility. Many of these fishermen had to juggle house payments with their boat payments, a system which might already be precarious in the wake of the 2008 Recession, but was further damaged by the loss and pollution of so many marine species and Gulf habitats. As the spring bled into the summer and the Macondo well continued to spew oil into the Gulf, the usual boom of tourism around its shores plummeted, meaning that a wide array of businesses and services (from hotels to restaurants to real estate developers) were left reeling.
Beyond the devastating financial impacts faced by so many Gulf residents, related human health concerns arose almost immediately. One survey revealed that medical diagnoses of depressive illnesses among residents had risen by 25 percent after the Deepwater explosion. A spike in domestic violence occurred in Gulf Coast states as well, and another survey found that parents in Louisiana and Mississippi reported that over one third of their children were facing mental and physical health repercussions because of the oil spill. These impacts were most heightened in families with annual incomes below $25,000. The Gulf Coast Compensation Fund stated that they would not pay damages for mental illnesses related to the spill.
More recently, the health impacts on cleanup workers, including everything from chronic respiratory issues to fatal cases of cancer, have come to light. This slew of illnesses, dubbed "BP syndrome" by local residents, has proved pervasive yet difficult to receive compensation for. BP told these workers (the vast majority of whom were not experts in oil spill cleanup tactics) that they did not need to wear breathing protection mechanisms while dealing with toxic oil and oil dispersants on the job. One early medical settlement was reached between BP and 22,588 plaintiffs dealing with short-term illnesses, in which each individual was ultimately awarded less than $3,000 on average. BP used this settlement to quell the possibility of other class-action lawsuits, with terms of the case stating that chronically injured cleanup workers must sue individually in the future. BP used their immense legal resources to broker this deal, one which has since disempowered many, particularly those unable to afford the legal fees and time that an individual suit would require. Though the federal government urged BP to collect biological samples from cleanup workers to measure potential toxins in their blood and skin in the aftermath of the spill, the oil giant never heeded this advice. Today, BP has argued that a lack of biological evidence makes it impossible to link the spill to the illnesses of these coastal residents. Many are left paying hefty medical bills and shouldering distressing health conditions into the present. And as BP continued to make it difficult for those affected to seek justice, scientists found that oil was still seeping out of the Macondo well and harming Gulf communities and ecosystems over two years later.
BP has paid over $63.4 billion to cover cleanup costs, legal fees, and other reparations for the spill. Millions of dollars were also set aside by the corporation for community relief funds and programs like the aforementioned Vessels of Opportunity program. But what is abundantly clear is that BP was simultaneously working against compensation efforts for local affected communities on the legal front. These communities, both dependent on the offshore drilling industry but vulnerable to its risky pursuits most, were out-resourced by the corporation. BP's lack of spill planning reveals a shocking lack of consideration for the scale of environmental harm that their actions might bring about, and it is no coincidence that they left low-income and immigrant populations in particular in harm's way. Without the resources, enfranchisement, or political cache to match the offshore drilling industry's might, it was difficult for Gulf communities to fight back against the precarious industry taking their home by storm.
BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward stated less than two months after the accident (in reference to BP's preparedness for the spill) that "We did not have the tools you would want in your toolkit." That same week, BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg assured a group of reporters that at BP, "We care about the small people." These two statements, which were rightly scrutinized by the public, represent BP's purported high esteem for the Gulf's "small people," but their utter lack of protections for the community they so benefited from.
Output and Technological Advancements Outpacing Safety and Regulations
One of the principal takeaways from the Deepwater Horizon spill is that output aims and technological advancements in the offshore drilling industry had greatly outpaced safety and regulatory advancements. Developments like 3-D seismic imaging, remote-operated vehicles, and advanced sensors enabled drilling infrastructure to be installed in increasingly more remote subsea locations. New materials were used and novel techniques employed to make oil extraction a more precise process. At the same time, many rig operators opted to outsource R&D for these new technologies to other production companies. Instead of funneling internal resources and personnel toward these advancements, large operators had the funds to buy expertise instead of cultivating it themselves, relying on emerging service corporations like Schlumberger and Halliburton. This strategy, dubbed the "buy versus build" approach by the National Petroleum Council, resulted in diminished expertise within operating companies. In many cases, companies like BP were less intimately familiar with these emerging systems than their contracted counterparts, creating a knowledge gap that would only widen as time went on. Looking back, this development held weighty ramifications for the often-flawed communications between outsourced engineering firms and oil giants.
After the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, the offshore drilling industry was prompted by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to establish the Marine Spill Response Corp (MSRC), a non-profit organization that specialized in oil spill cleanup. The MSRC consisted of 400 employees and 15 oil-recovery vessels across the United States, but as would later come to light, they were never equipped to handle spills at depths being forged by companies like BP at the time. One MSRC executive remarked after the Deepwater Horizon spill: "There is no asset MSRC has that is designed to collect oil 5,000 feet under the seas." It was clear even prior to BP's catastrophic spill that cleanup organizations were simply unable to keep up with the scale of a potential deepwater spill, a fact that did not seem to deter BP from trudging on below the Gulf's surface. BP and other oil corporations had decided that outsourcing the task of cleanup would be both the most cost-effective for them and also allow for even less liability in case of an accident.
The MSRC was wholly unprepared for the Deepwater Horizon's destruction, and BP's need to outsource to a wide array of additional public and private forces to capture the oil highlighted their ineptitude at planning realistically for disaster. More broadly, the creation of the MSRC draws attention to the reactionary rather than precautionary developments in disaster preparedness running rampant in the offshore drilling industry. For corporations with immensely deep pockets, it was easier to pay-to-play in the case of an emergency rather than set aside considerable time and resources for quelling a disaster in the first place. This attitude meant that the harms that might be incurred by the surrounding environment and its nearby inhabitants were second to the riches that could be gained under a "move fast and break things" frame of operations.
In the case of BP more specifically, cement evaluation logs were not conducted prior to the Macondo well's blowout, despite the limitations of the material revealed in earlier tests. BP also conducted their pressure tests incorrectly, failing to interpret a negative-pressure test and detect erroneous fluids flowing into the well. A lack of procedure for running and interpreting these tests within the organization allowed for anomalies to fly under the radar. BP failed to train its rig operators to read the warning signs of a potential blowout, emphasizing the afterthought that safety seemed to pose within their operations. And as noted above, last-minute changes to cement composition and centralizer designs were not required to go through additional safety testing, an oversight which greatly contributed to the explosion.
Variations in pressure, geology, and hydrocarbon composition at each deepwater drilling site across the Gulf made the details of these safety procedures (or lack thereof) even trickier to establish. By not tailoring risk assessment mechanisms to these differences, BP gave their operations more room for error. The numbers support the dangerous consequences of these laissez-faire safety guidelines: between 2001 and 2010, 35,000 personnel working on 90 large drilling rigs and 3,500 production platforms in the Gulf faced 1,550 injuries, 60 fatalities, and 948 explosions in total. Accidents were not infrequent, and though never before to the scale of Deepwater Horizon's explosion, they paint a picture of an industry riddled with unsafe working conditions.
Weak Regulatory Landscape of the Deepwater Drilling Industry
Most of these safety oversights within BP have their roots in a weak regulatory landscape in the deepwater drilling industry. After one of the first major offshore oil spills off the coast of Santa Barbara, California in 1969, Congress established the first inklings of industry regulation. At a time of both the rising environmentalism movement and a growing quest for American energy independence, concurrent legislation often struggled to find its footing. In Carter-era regulations, acreage leased in the Gulf of Mexico was excluded from requirements for thorough development and production plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, regulations which would otherwise necessitate detailed assessments of environmental and regional impacts. It was clear that the offshore drilling industry and surrounding states had brokered this deal with the federal government, with the former parties expressing concerns over the time that such assessments and approval would require: time that could cost them potentially rich sums of oil and concurrent economic benefits. The Gulf became practically the sole site of domestic drilling pursuits as a result of this legislative leniency.
The creation of the Mineral Management Service (MMS) in 1982 further distilled this challenging balance. The organization controlled both the regulatory oversight for the oil industry and also managed the immense leasing and royalty revenues of offshore drilling. With this dual purpose, the billions of dollars reaped in royalties and rents incentivized the MMS to promote offshore drilling pursuits. Yet this aim often stood in opposition to its other key role, which was to promote safe and environmentally-sound drilling. Over the years, small sects of the MMS became vulnerable to criminal collaborations with the oil industry, particularly at one Denver office where a handful of employees would collect "in-kind" gifts from big oil corporations and socialize with officials. Though a minority of the MMS as a whole, these vulnerabilities shone a light on the overpowering allure of the oil industry's wealth, an allure which sometimes outshone the MMS's commitment to keeping the industry in check.
Another weakness of the MMS was its inability to keep pace with the offshore drilling industry's technological advancements. Once operating on a more prescriptive model of surprise rig inspections and the need for the MMS's formal "approval" of operations, the 1990s saw a shift to a more self-regulating industry landscape. The MMS was now authorized to merely "consent" to operations if operators had demonstrated sufficient safety mechanisms, and no longer conducted the same frequency of inspections. The agency had been overburdened under the old order, not working with nearly enough personnel and budget. Now, operators held the power, often badgering for more lenient safety measures. For example, when the offshore industry felt that BOPs were a more reliable final line of defense against loss of well control than the MMS had recognized in regulations, they successfully pushed for less frequent pressure testing mandates. The MMS was simply not working with enough technical expertise to push back on these efforts, nor was it able to reel in the increasingly relied-upon contracted service providers such as Halliburton and Transocean. These companies controlled vast elements of the design and operations process, yet fell less squarely under the purview of the MMS because they were not the ones to directly lease land from the federal government like BP. The MMS had lost its grip on the industry in this key way, outpaced by an evolving technological terrain and perpetually understaffed and underfunded by Congress. This "minimum regulation, maximum cooperation" arrangement enabled companies like BP to avoid several crucial layers of lifesaving regulation.
Riskier and More Complex Systems Beget Riskier and More Complex Disasters
What stands as one of the biggest takeaways from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is that systems growing riskier and more complex over time are vulnerable to more risk-laden and complex disasters. The offshore drilling industry, established in the 1890s before widespread electrification and automobile usage, was dealing with entirely different energy demands and technological capabilities 100 years after its creation. The development of a distinct network of contracted and connected services tied to the industry further transformed the offshore drilling landscape. Fields such as engineering, diving, marine geophysical surveying, and boating became locked into the precarious but inescapable drilling industry. The economy of Gulf communities became inextricably linked to oil extraction as technology improved and found the region to be a veritable goldmine. What were once smaller, family-owned oil companies in the early 20th century transformed into global oil corporations, divorcing these domineering businesses from the fabric of Gulf communities. The people of the Gulf region have been at the mercy of oil giants and shifting administrative attitudes toward the industry for years as a result.
After the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Obama administration vowed to punish culpable parties and alter the stagnant nature of industry regulations. But many have criticized these alleged "crackdowns" as ultimately weak: measures that essentially crumbled with the decidedly less harsh hand of the Trump administration. Gulf residents are at the mercy of these ever-shifting political forces, of sympathetic and unsympathetic Congresses and administrations, of bureaucratic bargaining and lucrative oil giants with immense tentacles of influence. The offshore drilling industry both funds many of their livelihoods, but ultimately poses an existential risk to these livelihoods when left unchecked. The Deepwater Horizon tragedy crystallizes this complicated tapestry, reminding us of the very real impacts of technological development without meaningful safety paradigms.
Relevance to Advanced Nuclear Energy
The Deepwater Horizon case illuminates how flawed corporate cultures, particularly in "high-risk" and technological fields, can pass on harm to the public in pursuit of profit. In the case of advanced nuclear energy technology, the similarly "high-risk" and technically complicated technology can give way to similarly flawed development cultures. The Deepwater Horizon story shows how potential accidents might impact communities, and how corporations may use their financial and political power to minimize compensation for those affected: something highly relevant to communities that may host advanced nuclear reactors. Deepwater Horizon also sheds light on the importance of safety and regulation not outpacing technological development, a useful lesson for advanced nuclear as more and more reactor designs emerge for commercial use.
Key Sources
Cohen, S. (2010, July 11). Vietnamese "lost" as Gulf oil spill hits community hard. NBC News.
Jamail, D. (2012, March 4). BP settles while Macondo 'seeps'. Al Jazeera.
Mejri, M. & De Wolf, D. (2013). Crisis management: Lessons learnt from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill oil. Business Management and Strategy, 4(2), 67.
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. (2011). Deep water: The Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling.
Sneath, S. & Laughland, O. (2023, April 20). They cleaned up BP's massive oil spill. Now they're sick and want justice. The Guardian.
References
About Resilience. (2022, August 17). A deep dive into BP's Deepwater Horizon spill: A case study.
Abramson, D. M., Redlener, I. E., Stehling-Ariza, T., Sury, J., Banister, A. N. & Park, Y. S. (2010). Impact on children and families of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Preliminary findings of the coastal population impact study.
Aird, P. (2019). Chapter 5: Deepwater: Essentials and differences. In P. Aird (Ed.), Deepwater Drilling (pp. 165–224). Gulf Professional Publishing.
Arria, M. (2012, May 9). Obama's an environmental failure: An interview with journalist Joshua Frank. VICE.
Bousso, R. (2018, January 16). BP Deepwater Horizon costs balloon to $65 billion. Reuters.
Center for Biological Diversity. (n.d.). A deadly toll: The devastating wildlife effects of Deepwater Horizon and the next catastrophic oil spill.
Childress. (2012, July 16). Seven years later, BP still paying for Texas refinery violations. PBS Frontline.
Cohen, S. (2010, July 11). Vietnamese "lost" as Gulf oil spill hits community hard. NBC News.
Doherty, B. (2022, January 15). 'Very hard life now': 12 years after the Montara oil spill, Indonesians are still fighting to be heard. The Guardian.
Gillis, J. (2010, May 14). Size of oil spill underestimated, scientists say. The New York Times.
Grattan, L. M., Roberts, S., Mahan Jr., W. T., McLaughlin, P. K., Otwell, W. S. & Morris Jr., J. G. (2011). The early psychological impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Florida and Alabama communities. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(6).
Gurung, K., Jayadeep, L., Siwek, J., Vora, S. & Zhou, D. (2020). Texas City Refinery explosion: Safety out of focus. Loss Prevention Bulletin, 275.
Jamail, D. (2012, March 4). BP settles while Macondo 'seeps'. Al Jazeera.
Kash, D. E. (1973). Energy under the oceans: A technology assessment of outer continental shelf oil and gas operations. University of Oklahoma Press.
Lee, C. E. (2010, June 15). Obama kicks off Gulf tour. Politico.
Marine Mammal Commission. (2015, November 25). Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mejri, M. & De Wolf, D. (2013). Crisis management: Lessons learnt from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill oil. Business Management and Strategy, 4(2), 67.
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. (2011). Deep water: The Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling.
National Petroleum Council. (2007). Oil and gas technology development. NPC Global Oil & Gas Study.
Oceana. (n.d.). Tourism and oil spills do not mix: Protect healthy coastal economies.
Office of Public Affairs. (2011, May 3). BP Exploration Alaska to pay $25 million penalty for Alaskan North Slope oil spill. United States Department of Justice.
Osofsky, H. J., Osofsky, J. D. & Hansel, T. C. (2011). Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Mental health effects on residents in heavily affected areas. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 5(4), 280–286.
Perry, G. L. (2001, October 24). The war on terrorism, the world oil market and the U.S. economy. Brookings.
Sandifer, P. A., Ferguson, A., Finucane, M. L., Partyka, M. & Solo-Gabriele, H. M. (2021). Human health and socioeconomic effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Oceanography, 34(1), 174–191.
Sneath, S. & Laughland, O. (2023, April 20). They cleaned up BP's massive oil spill. Now they're sick and want justice. The Guardian.
Spezio, T. S. (2018). The Santa Barbara oil spill and its effect on United States environmental policy. Sustainability, 10(8).
Stephens, J. & Flaherty, M. (2010, June 29). Oil industry cleanup organization swamped by BP spill. The Washington Post.
Stolberg, S. G. (2008, June 19). Bush calls for end to ban on offshore oil drilling. The New York Times.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. (2014, July 28). Ixtoc I oil well.
Wray, R. (2010, July 27). Deepwater Horizon oil spill: BP gaffes in full. The Guardian.
Photo: Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling unit on fire, 2010, U.S. Coast Guard / Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
