Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Wikipedia

Deepwater Horizon oil spillFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article is about the oil spill. For the oil rig explosion, see Deepwater Horizon explosion."2010 oil spill", "BP oil spill", and "Gulf of Mexico oil spill" redirect here. For other oil spills in 2010, see 2010 oil spill (disambiguation), for the 2006 BP oil spill, see Prudhoe Bay oil spill, and for the 1979 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, see Ixtoc I oil spill. Deepwater Horizon oil spill
The oil slick as seen from space by NASA's Terrasatellite on May 24, 2010. Location Gulf of Mexico near Mississippi River Delta Coordinates 28.73667°N 88.38716°WCoordinates: 28.73667°N 88.38716°W Date April 20, 2010 – present (62 days) Cause Cause Wellhead blowout Casualties 11 dead
17 injured Operator Transocean under contract for BP[1] Spill characteristics Volume up to 6,200,000 barrels (260,000,000 US gallons; 986,000 cubic metres) Area 2,500 to 9,100 sq mi (6,500 to 24,000 km2) [2]

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster or the Macondo blowout)[3][4][5][6] is a massive ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that is now considered the largest offshore spill in U.S. history.[7]Some estimates placed it by late May or early June, 2010, as among the largest oil spills in the world with tens of millions of gallons spilled to date.[8] The spill stems from a sea floor oil gusher that resulted from the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion. The explosion killed 11 platform workers and injured 17 others.[9]

The gusher, now estimated by the quasi-official Flow Rate Technical Group to be flowing at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels (1,500,000 to 2,500,000 US gallons; 5,600 to 9,500 cubic metres) of crude oil per day,[10][11] originates from a deepwater wellhead 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below the ocean surface.[12] The exact spill flow rate is uncertain due to the difficulty of installing measurement devices at that depth and is a matter of ongoing debate.[13] The resulting oil slick covers a surface area of at least 2,500 square miles (6,500 km2), with the exact size and location of the slick fluctuating from day to day depending on weather conditions.[14] Scientists have also reported immense underwater plumes of oil not visible at the surface.[13]

Experts fear that the spill will result in an environmental disaster, with extensive impact already on marine and wildlife habitats.[15][16]The spill has also damaged the Gulf of Mexico fishing and tourism industries. There have been a variety of ongoing efforts to stem the flow of oil at the wellhead. Crews have been working to protect hundreds of miles of beaches, wetlands and estuaries along the northern Gulf coast, using skimmer ships, floating containment booms, anchored barriers, and sand-filled barricades along shorelines. The U.S. Government has named BP as the responsible party in the incident, and officials have said the company will be held accountable for all cleanup costs resulting from the oil spill.[17][18]

Contents [hide]

• 1 Background
  • 1.1 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig
  • 1.2 Explosion
• 2 Volume and extent of oil spill
  • 2.1 Spill flow rate
  • 2.2 Spill area
  • 2.3 Underwater oil plumes
  • 2.4 Expansion predictions
  • 2.5 Independent monitoring of contamination
• 3 Efforts to stem the flow of oil
  • 3.1 Short-term efforts
  • 3.2 Long-term efforts
• 4 Containment and cleanup
  • 4.1 Dispersants
  • 4.2 Additional technologies for cleanup
• 5 Consequences
  • 5.1 Ecology
  • 5.2 Fisheries and tourism
  • 5.3 Other economic consequences
  • 5.4 Litigation
  • 5.5 Health consequences
  • 5.6 U.S. and Canadian offshore drilling policy
  • 5.7 Spill response fund
• 6 Reactions
  • 6.1 U.S. government
  • 6.2 International governments
  • 6.3 BP public relations
  • 6.4 Public reaction
    • 6.4.1 Public opinion
  • 6.5 Charity
• 7 Investigations
• 8 See also
• 9 References
• 10 External links

[edit]Background[edit]Deepwater Horizon drilling rigMain article: Deepwater HorizonDeepwater Horizon prior to explosion.
Location of the Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010

The Deepwater Horizon was a 9-year-old semi-submersible Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit(MODU), a massive floating, dynamically positioned drilling rig built by Hyundai Heavy Industries[19] that could operate in waters up to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) deep and drill down to 30,000 feet (9,100 m).[20] It was owned by Transocean, operated under the Marshalese flag of convenience, and was under lease to BP until September 2013.[21] At the time of the explosion, the Deepwater Horizon was drilling an exploratory well at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in the Macondo Prospect located in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252, in the United Statesexclusive economic zone about 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico.[22][23][24][25][26] Production casing was being run and cemented by Halliburton Energy Services. Once the cementing was complete, it was due to be tested for integrity and a cement plug set to temporarily abandon the well for later completion as a subsea producer.[23][27] BP is the operator and principal developer of the Macondo Prospect with 65% of interest, while 25% is owned by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and 10% by MOEX Offshore 2007, a unit ofMitsui.[28] BP purchased the mineral rights to drill for oil in Macondo at the Minerals Management Service's lease sale in March 2008.[29]

[edit]ExplosionMain article: Deepwater Horizon explosionAHTS and PS vessels combat the fire on the Deepwater Horizon while the United States Coast Guard searches for missing crew.

During March and April 2010, several platform workers and supervisors expressed concerns with well control. At approximately 9:45 p.m. CDTon April 20, 2010, methane gas from the well, under high pressure, shot up and out of the drill column marine riser, expanded onto the platform, and then ignited and exploded.[27][30] Fire then engulfed the platform.[31] Most of the workers were evacuated by lifeboats or were airlifted out by helicopter,[32][33] but eleven workers were never found despite a three-day Coast Guard search operation, and are presumed to have died in the explosion.[30][34] Efforts by multiple ships to douse the flames were unsuccessful. After burning furiously for approximately 36 hours, the Deepwater Horizon sank on the morning of April 22, 2010.[35]

On the afternoon of April 22, a large oil slick began to spread at the former rig site.[36] Two remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) unsuccessfully attempted to cap the well.[37] BP announced that it was deploying a ROV to the site to assess whether oil was flowing from the well.[38] On April 23, a ROV reportedly found no oil leaking from the sunken rig and no oil flowing from the well.[39] Coast Guard Rear AdmiralMary Landry expressed cautious optimism of zero environmental impact, stating that no oil was emanating from either the wellhead or the broken pipes and that oil spilled from the explosion and sinking was being contained.[40][41][42][43] The following day, April 24, Landry announced that a damaged wellhead was indeed leaking oil into the Gulf and described it as "a very serious spill".[44]

As of June 19, BP has not given a cause for the explosion.[45]

[edit]Volume and extent of oil spillMain article: Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

The Deepwater Horizon spill has surpassed in volume the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest ever to originate in U.S.-controlled waters; it is comparable to the 1979 Ixtoc I oil spill in total volume released (Ixtoc discharged 140 to 148 million gallons; as of June 16, Deepwater Horizon has discharged 73 to 126 million gallons).[46]

[edit]Spill flow ratePhoto of oil spill live video, May 11, 2010

In their permit to drill the well, BP estimated the worst case flow at 162,000 barrels (6,800,000 US gallons; 25,800 cubic metres) per day.[47]BP initially estimated that the wellhead was leaking only 1,000 barrels (42,000 US gallons; 160 cubic metres) a day.[44] On April 28, based on satellite pictures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that the leak was likely 5,000 barrels (210,000 US gallons; 790 cubic metres) a day.[48][49] Geologist and oil industry consultant Simon James Hesketh said a more realistic figure was 20,000 barrels (840,000 US gallons; 3,200 cubic metres) a day and oceanographer Ian MacDonald and other sources using satellite imagery put the number as high as 25,000 barrels (1,100,000 US gallons; 4,000 cubic metres) a day.[44][50][51][52][53] According to BP, estimating the flow is very difficult as there is no metering of the flow underwater and because of the presence of natural gas in the outflow.[48] The company initially refused to allow scientists to perform more accurate, independent measurements of the flow, claiming that it is not relevant to the response and that such efforts might distract from efforts to stem the flow.[13] Former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Carol Browner and Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) both accused BP of having a vested financial interest in downplaying the size of the leak.[54]

On May 12, BP released a 30 second video of the spill at the site of the broken pipe. Experts contacted by National Public Radio and shown the footage put the leak rate substantially higher than the early estimate.[55] Timothy Crone, an associate research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, estimated at least 50,000 barrels (2,100,000 US gallons; 7,900 cubic metres) a day was leaking from the well by using another well-accepted method to calculate fluid flows.[56] Eugene Chaing, a professor of astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, estimated the leak to be 20,000–100,000 barrels (840,000–4,200,000 US gallons; 3,200–16,000 cubic metres) a day.[55][57] Steven Wereley, an associate professor at Purdue University used particle image velocimetry to initially arrive at a rate of 70,000 barrels (2,900,000 US gallons; 11,000 cubic metres) per day, with a margin of error of 20 percent.[58]

On May 24, U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is coordinating the government response, announced that the director of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Marcia McNutt, is leading the Flow Rate Technical Group — scientists from the U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Minerals Management Service, the United States Department of Energy and academics outside government tasked with providing the government with an independent scientific assessment of the scope of the disaster and of BP's efforts to stop the flow of oil.[59][60][61] The Flow Rate Technical Group initially put the volume of oil flowing from the blown-out well at 12,000 to 19,000 barrels (500,000 to 800,000 US gallons; 1,900 to 3,000 cubic metres) per day,[62] and the government increased its official estimate to that range on May 27.[63][64][65] While the United States Geological Survey put forth that range as the best estimate for the lower and upper boundaries of flow rate, other scientists involved in drafting the figure viewed it as an estimated minimum.[66] According to Ira Leifer, a member of the Flow Rate Technical Group, the group was only provided a seven minute segment of low-quality video selected by BP, which showed a lot of variability from very low to very high flows.[67]

On June 10, based on additional video, members of the Flow Rate Technical Group calculated updated estimates for the period prior to the cutting of the riser pipe and the insertion of the Riser Insertion Tube Tool (RITT).[68] The majority concluded that, given the limited data available and the small amount of time to process that data, the best estimate for the average flow rate was likely between 25,000 and 30,000 barrels (1,100,000 and 1,300,000 US gallons; 4,000 and 4,800 cubic metres) per day, with a lower limit of 20,000 barrels (840,000 US gallons; 3,200 cubic metres) per day and an upper limit of 40,000 barrels (1,700,000 US gallons; 6,400 cubic metres) per day.[68] The new calculation suggested that an amount of oil equivalent to the Exxon Valdez disaster could have been flowing into the Gulf of Mexico every 8 to 10 days.[68][69][10] On June 15, after taking into account the increased flow rate after the riser was cut, McNutt estimated that the leak spilled between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels (1,500,000 and 2,500,000 US gallons; 5,600 and 9,500 cubic metres) a day.[70][71] The updated estimates are believed to be more accurate because it was no longer necessary to measure multiple leaks, and detailed pressure measurements were available as was more than a week of high-resolution newly-released video by BP.[72]

On June 18, oceanographer John Kessler said that the crude gushing from the well contains 40 percent methane, compared to about 5 percent found in typical oil deposits. Methane is a natural gas that could potentially suffocate marine life and create "dead zones" where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives. "This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history," Kessler said.[73] On June 20 an internal BP document was released by Congress revealing that BP estimated the flow could be as much as 100,000 barrels (4,200,000 US gallons; 16,000 cubic metres) per day, "if BOP (blowout preventer) and wellhead are removed and if we have incorrectly modeled the restrictions".[74][75]

[edit]Spill areaOil slicks surround the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana in this aerial photo

The spread of the oil was initially increased by strong southerly winds caused by an impending cold front. By April 25, the oil spill covered 580 square miles (1,500 km2) and was only 31 miles (50 km) from the ecologically sensitive Chandeleur Islands.[76] An April 30 estimate placed the total spread of the oil at 3,850 square miles (10,000 km2).[77] The spill quickly approached the Delta National Wildlife Refuge andBreton National Wildlife Refuge, where dead animals, including a sea turtle, were found.[78][79][80] On May 14, the AP reported that a publicly available model called the Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills indicates about 35 percent of a hypothetical 114,000 barrels (4,800,000 US gal; 18,100 m3) spill of light Louisiana crude oil released in conditions similar to those found in the Gulf now would evaporate, that between 50 and 60 percent of the oil would remain in or on the water, and the rest would be dispersed in the ocean. In the same report, Ed Overton says he thinks most of the oil is floating within 1 foot (30 cm) of the surface.[81] The New York Times is tracking the size of the spill over time using data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US Coast Guard and Skytruth.[82] By June 4, the oil spill had landed on 125 miles (201 km) of Louisiana’s coast, had washed up along Mississippi and Alabama barrier islands, and was found for the first time on a Florida barrier island at Pensacola Beach.[83][84][85] On June 9, oil sludge began entering the Intracoastal Waterway through Perdido Pass after floating booms across the opening of the pass failed to stop the oil.[86]

[edit]Underwater oil plumes

University of California, Berkeley engineering professor Robert Bea argued there was "an equal amount that could be subsurface", subsurface oil being "near impossible to track".[87] On May 13, tarballs began washing up on the shores of three Louisiana parishes.[88] On May 15, researchers from the University of Southern Mississippi, aboard the research vessel RV Pelican, identified oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles (16 km) long, 3 miles (4.8 km) wide and 300 feet (91 m) thick in spots. The shallowest oil plume the group detected was at about 2,300 feet (700 m), while the deepest was near the seafloor at about 4,200 feet (1,300 m). Other researchers from the University of Georgia have found that the oil may occupy multiple layers. The undetermined amount of hydrocarbons in these underwater plumes may explain why satellite images of the ocean surface have calculated a flow rate of only 5,000 barrels (210,000 US gallons; 790 cubic metres) a day, whereas studies of video of the gushing oil well have variously calculated that it could be flowing at a rate of 25,000–80,000 barrels (1,100,000–3,400,000 US gallons; 4,000–13,000 cubic metres) a day.[13] On May 27, marine scientists discovered a second oil plume, stretching 22 miles (35 km) from the leaking wellhead toward Mobile Bay, Alabama. The oil has dissolved into the water and is no longer visible, and researchers say they are worried these undersea plumes may be the result of the use of chemical dispersants to break up the oil.[89]

Marine biologist Rick Steiner said that the likelihood of extensive undersea plumes of oil droplets should have been anticipated from the moment the spill began, given that such an effect from deepwater blowouts had been predicted in the scientific literature for more than a decade and had been confirmed in a test off the coast of Norway. He criticized NOAA for not setting up an extensive sampling program to map and characterize the plumes in the first days of the spill.[90] BP has challenged the validity of the multiple reports from scientists that vast plumes of oil from the spill were spreading underwater, stating its sampling showed no evidence that oil was massing and spreading in the gulf water column.[91]

[edit]Expansion predictions

Scientists monitoring the spill with the European Space Agency Envisat radar satellite stated that oil had reached the Loop Current, which flows clockwise around the Gulf of Mexico towards Florida and becomes the Gulf Stream.[92] The scientists warn that because the Loop Current is a very intense deep ocean current, its turbulent waters will accelerate the mixing of the oil and water.[92] Ruoying He of North Carolina State University, head of the Ocean Observing and Monitoring Group, said if the oil reached the Gulf Stream, then south Florida, including the Keys, would likely be affected. On May 19, NOAA acknowledged that a small portion of the oil slick has reached the Loop Current.[93] On June 3, a computer modelshowed that oil would likely reach the Loop Current and travel to Atlantic Seaboard beaches by July.[94] Changes in weather as well as the Loop Current itself could affect the outcome, but the maximum possible speed would be 100 miles (160 km) per day.[94] The main stream would likely stay 50 to 60 miles (80 to 100 km) offshore, but pockets of oil could reach the coast.[94] Whether oil comes ashore farther north depends on local winds, but the Gulf Stream moves away from the coast southeast of Charleston, South Carolina, at the Charleston Bump.[95] Few tar balls would be likely to reach the Carolinas, and significant environmental damage appeared very unlikely because oil would be heavily diluted.[96]

James H. Cowan, a biological oceanographer at Louisiana State University, said a hurricane could result in oil reaching farther inland, even affecting rice and sugar cane crops.[97] A hurricane could also delay actions that would lead to a permanent solution, and it could spread the oil further or deeper in the ocean.[97] Jeff Masters, founder of Weather Underground, indicated that a hurricane's passage over a sandy beach might help in the cleanup efforts, such as what happened during Hurricane Henri's passage over the Ixtoc I spill area; however, it would likely not have such a beneficial effect in marshlands and rocky beaches. Additionally, Masters pointed out the possibility of more widespread damage to coastal areas, airborne oil droplets immersed in hurricane winds, and a chance that the oil spill may cause explosive deepening of hurricanes in the Gulf.[98]

[edit]Independent monitoring of contamination

Wildlife and environmental groups accused BP of holding back information about the extent and impact of the growing slick, and urged the White House to order a more direct federal government role in the spill response. In prepared testimony for a congressional committee, National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger said BP had failed to disclose results from its tests of chemical dispersants used on the spill, and that BP had tried to withhold video showing the true magnitude of the leak.[99] On May 19 BP established a live feed of the oil spill after hearings in Congress accused the company of withholding data from the ocean floor and blocking efforts by independent scientists to come up with estimates for the amount of crude flowing into the Gulf each day.[100][101] On May 20 United States Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar indicated that the U.S. government would verify how much oil has leaked into the Gulf of Mexico.[102] Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and United States Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano asked for the results of tests looking for traces of oil and dispersant chemicals in the waters of the gulf.[103]

Journalists attempting to document the impact of the oil spill have been repeatedly refused access to public areas by BP and its contractors, local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials.[104][105] Scientists have also complained about prevention of access to information controlled by BP and government sources.[104] Airplanes carrying photojournalists have been prevented from flying over areas of the gulf to document the scope of the disaster.[104] BP states that it has been their policy to allow the media and other parties as much access as possible, however reporters and photographers continue to claim that they have been blocked from covering some aspects of the spill.[104]

[edit]Efforts to stem the flow of oilSee also: Offshore oil spill prevention

The rig's blowout preventer, a fail-safe device fitted at the source of the well and built by Cameron International,[106] did not automatically cut off the oil flow as intended when the explosion occurred. BP attempted to use remotely operated underwater vehicles to close the blowout preventer valves on the well head 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below sea level, a valve-closing procedure taking 24–36 hours.[76][107] BP engineers predicted it would take six attempts to close the valves.[108] As of May 2 they had sent six remotely operated underwater vehicles to close the blowout preventer valves, but all attempts were ultimately unsuccessful.[109] Oil was known to be leaking into the gulf from three different locations. On May 5 BP announced that the smallest of three known leaks had been capped. This did not reduce the amount of oil flowing out, but it did allow the repair group to focus their efforts on the two remaining leaks.[110]

Frustrated with the lack of progress three weeks into the crisis, the U.S. sent in a team of nuclear physicists assembled by President Obama's energy secretary Steven Chu, includingRichard Garwin who designed the first hydrogen bomb and Sandia National Laboratories director Tom Hunter. The team visited BP's main crisis centre in Houston, where they worked with BP scientists to reach an answer.[111] On May 24 BP ruled out conventional explosives, saying that if the company tried blasts to crimp the well and failed, “We would have denied ourselves all other options.”[112]

Federal officials also confirmed neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else ever considered using a nuclear device under the gulf because of both environmental and political risks: doing so would violate the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty signed (but not yet ratified) by the United States.[113] In addition, Admiral Thad Allen was quoted in a May 30 article in the Washington Post as stating, "My view is since we don't know the condition of that well bore or the casings, I would be cautious about putting any kind of kinetic energy on that well head, because what you may do is create open communication between the reservoir and the sea floor."[114] Allen made a similar remark during a C-span interview on May 26, adding that the result could be oil seeping through cracks and through the seafloor, "and then be uncontrolled until the reservoir pressure equalized with the hydrostatic pressure; I think that's a risk that's too great to take a chance on, myself."[115]

[edit]Short-term effortsOil containment dome under construction in Port Fourchon, Louisiana at Wild Well Control on April 26.

BP engineers have attempted a number of techniques to control or stop the oil spill. The first and fastest was to place a 125-tonne (280,000 lb) container dome over the largest of the well leaks and pipe the oil to a storage vessel on the surface.[116] BP deployed the system on May 7–8 but it failed when gas leaking from the pipe combined with cold water to form methane hydrate crystals that blocked up the steel canopy at the top of the dome.[117] The excess buoyancy of the crystals clogged the opening at the top of the dome where the riser was to be connected.

Following the failure, on May 11 a smaller containment dome, dubbed a "top hat", was lowered to the seabed.[118] Like the first containment dome, the dome has been deployed successfully in the past but not at such a depth.[118] The "top hat" dome originally was planned as BP's next attempt to control the spill and there has been no explanation for why BP engineers decided to try the insertion tube first.[117]

On May 14 engineers began the process of positioning a 4-inch (100 mm) wide riser insertion tube tool into the 21-inch (530 mm) wide burst pipe.[117]After three days, BP reported the tube was working.[119] Collection rates varied daily between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels (42,000 and 210,000 US gallons; 160 and 790 cubic metres), the average being 2,000 barrels (84,000 US gallons; 320 cubic metres) a day, as of May 21.[120][121] The collected gas rate ranged between 4 and 17 million cubic feet per day (110×103 and 480×103 m3/d). The gas was flared and oil stored on the board of drillship Discoverer Enterprise.[122] 924,000 US gallons (22,000 barrels) of oil was collected before removal of the tube so shutdown efforts could begin.[123]

BP next tried to shut down the well completely using a technique called "top kill".[124] The process involves pumping heavy drilling fluids through two 3-inch (7.6 cm) lines into the blowout preventer that sits on top of the wellhead. This would first restrict the flow of oil from the well, which then could be sealed permanently with cement.[125] The top kill procedure, approved by the Coast Guard on May 25, commenced on May 26 and, according to BP sources, while failure could be evident in minutes or hours it might take "a day or two" before its success could be determined.[126] On May 27 Admiral Thad Allen indicated that engineers had succeeded in stopping the flow of oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico. He further stated that the well still had low pressure, but cement would be used to cap the well permanently as soon as the pressure hit zero.[127] However, BP officials said it was not possible to tell how far down the well the mud may have reached and declined to speculate on the odds of actually stopping the flow. "We have some indications of partial bridging which is good news. I think it's probably 48 hours before we have a conclusive view."[128] On May 29 BP announced that the attempt to clog the ruptured oil well with "junk" had failed.[129]

The Q4000 and the Discoverer Enterprise during the failed top kill procedure

After three consecutive failed attempts at the top kill, on May 29 BP moved on to their next contingency option, the Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) Cap Containment System. The operational plan first involved cutting and then removing the damaged riser from the top of the failed blowout preventer to leave a cleanly-cut pipe at the top of the BOP's LMRP. The cap is designed to be connected to a riser from theDiscoverer Enterprise drillship and placed over the LMRP with the intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well. During the cutting of the pipe, the diamond blade saw became stuck and was later freed, but BP had to use shears instead and the cut is "ragged",[130][131][132][133] meaning the cap would be harder to fit.[84] The cap was finally attached on June 3.[134] By June 7, Adm. Thad Allen estimated that the amount of oil captured had increased to 620,000 US gallons (15,000 bbl) per day.[135] BP's CEO Tony Hayward stated his opinion that the amount captured was "probably the vast majority of the oil."[136] However, the live stream of the oil escaping from the capped pipe did not appear to be substantially reduced and Ira Leifer, a member of the government team that estimated the flow rate, claimed that the well pipe was clearly gushing more oil than before the cutting of the pipe to put the cap in place.[137]

On June 16 oil and gas started to flow through a second containment system connected directly to the blow out preventer that carried oil and gas through a a subsea manifold to the Q4000 service platform operated by Helix Energy Solutions Group. Q4000 has a processing capacity for about 5,000 barrels (210,000 US gallons; 790 cubic metres) of oil per day. Oil and gas is burnt on the board of Q4000 by using a specialized clean-burning system.[138]

As the processing capacity of Discoverer Enterprise (18,000 barrels (760,000 US gallons; 2,900 cubic metres) of oil per day) is not sufficient if the amount of oil collected continues to increase, BP plans for processing also to bring the Transocean drillship Discoverer Clear Leader.[139][140] BP also announced that the company would bring in a floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel Helix Producer 1 that could then be offloaded with tankers Evi Knutsen, operated by Knutsen O.A.S. Shipping AS, and Juanita, operated byUgland Marine Services, both having storage capacity of 750,000 barrels (32,000,000 US gallons; 119,000 cubic metres).[138] In addition, BP plans to bring the FPSO Seillean, operated by Frontier Drilling, and Sealion Shipping owned well testing vessel Toisa Pisces, that would then be offloaded with a shuttle tanker Loch Rannoch which normally services theSchiehallion oilfield.[138]

BP has a call center with 120 employees listening to suggestions. As of June 19, 70,000 have called and 10,000 emailed.[141]

[edit]Long-term efforts

BP is drilling relief wells into the original well to enable them to block it. Once the relief wells reach the original borehole, the operator will pump drilling fluid into the original well to stop the flow of oil. Transocean's Development Driller III started drilling a first relief well on May 2 and was at 13,978 feet (4,260 m) out of 18,000 feet (5,500 m) as of June 14. GSF Development Driller II also started drilling a second relief on May 16 and was halted at 8,576 feet (2,614 m) out of 18,000 feet (5,500 m) as of June 14 while BP engineers verified the operational status of the second relief well's blowout preventer.[142][143][144][145][146][147] This operation will take two to three months to stop the flow of oil (BP also confirmed in late May that they did not expect the relief well to operate before August 2010)[148] and will cost about $100 million per well.[149][150]

[edit]Containment and cleanupUnited States Environmental Services' workers prepare oil containment booms for deployment.

BP, which was leading the cleanup, initially employed remotely operated underwater vehicles, 700 workers, four airplanes and 32 vessels to contain the oil.[44] After the discovery that the undersea wellhead was leaking, the oil cleanup was hampered by high waves on April 24 and 25.[76] According to Hayward, BP will compensate all those affected by the oil spill saying that "We are taking full responsibility for the spill and we will clean it up and where people can present legitimate claims for damages we will honor them. We are going to be very, very aggressive in all of that."[151] On May 6 BP launched a section on their corporate web site devoted to the daily response efforts.[152]

On April 28 the US military announced it was joining the cleanup operation.[48] Doug Suttles, chief operating officer of BP, welcomed the assistance of the US military.[48] The same day, the US Coast Guard announced plans to corral and burn off up to 1,000 barrels (42,000 US gallons; 160 cubic metres) of oil on the surface each day. It tested how much environmental damage a small, controlled burn of 100 barrels (4,200 US gallons; 16 cubic metres) did to surrounding wetlands, but could not proceed with an open seas burn due to poor conditions.[153][154]By April 29 69 vessels including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels were active in cleanup activities. On April 30 President Barack Obama announced that he had dispatched the Secretaries of the Department of Interior and Homeland Security, as well as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and NOAA to the Gulf Coast to assess the disaster.[155]

Clouds of smoke billow up from controlled burns taking place in the Gulf of Mexico.

In an attempt to minimize impact to sensitive areas in the Mississippi River Delta area more than 100,000 feet (30 km) of containment boomswere deployed along the coast.[150] By the next day, this nearly doubled to 180,000 feet (55 km) of deployed booms, with an additional 300,000 feet (91 km) staged or being deployed.[153][156] On May 2 high winds and rough waves rendered oil-catching booms largely ineffective.[157]

As of April 30, approximately 2,000 people and 79 vessels were involved in the response and BP claimed that more than 6,300,000 US gallons (150,000 barrels; 23,800 cubic metres) of oil-water mix had been recovered.[77] On May 4 the US Coast Guard estimated that 170 vessels, and nearly 7,500 personnel were involved in the cleanup efforts, with an additional 2,000 volunteers assisting.[158] On May 26 all of the commercial fishing boats helping in the clean up and recovery process were ordered ashore. A total of 125 commercial vessels which had been outfitted with equipment for oil recovery operations were recalled after some workers began experiencing health problems.[159]

The type of oil involved is also a major problem. While most of the oil drilled off Louisiana is a lighter crude, because the blown well is deep under the ocean, the gushing oil is a heavier blend which contains asphalt-like substances. According to Ed Overton, who heads a federal chemical hazard assessment team for oil spills, this type of oil emulsifies well, making a "major sticky mess". Once it becomes that kind of mix, it no longer evaporates as quickly as regular oil, does not rinse off as easily, cannot be eaten by microbes as easily, and does not burn as well. "That type of mixture essentially removes all the best oil clean-up weapons", Overton and others said.[160]

On May 21 Plaquemines Parish president Billy Nungesser publicly complained about the federal government's hindrance of local mitigation efforts. State and local officials had proposed building sand berms off the coast to catch the oil before it reached the wetlands, but the emergency permit request had not been answered for over two weeks. The following day Nungesser complained that the plan had been vetoed, while Army Corps of Engineers officials claimed that the request was still under review.[161] Gulf Coast Government officials have released water via the Mississippi River diversions in effort to create an outflow of water that would keep the oil off the coast. The water from these diversions comes from the entireMississippi watershed. Even with this approach, NOAA is predicting a "massive" landfall to the west of the Mississippi River at Port Fourchon.[162]

On May 23 Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell wrote a letter to Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp of the US Army Corps of Engineers,[163] stating that Louisiana has the right to dredge sand to build barrier islands to keep the oil spill from its wetlands without the Corps' approval, as the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government from denying a state the right to act in an emergency.[164][165] He also wrote that if the Corps "persists in its illegal and ill-advised efforts" to prevent the state from building the barriers that he would advise Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to proceed with the plans and challenge the Corps in court.[166]

On June 3 BP said barrier projects ordered by Adm. Thad Allen would cost $360 million.[84]

On June 4 Ecosphere Technologies, a diversified water engineering and environmental services company, deployed a non-chemical water treatment system to assist in the remediation efforts.[167]

On June 16 Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company under the Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Group began constructing sand berms off the Louisiana coast to limit the amount of approaching oil in the Gulf of Mexico.[168]

[edit]Dispersants

On May 1 two United States Department of Defense C-130 Hercules aircraft were employed to spray oil dispersant.[169] Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A are the main oil dispersants being used.[170] These contain propylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol and dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[171][172] On May 7 Secretary Alan Levine of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Peggy Hatch, and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Robert Barham sent a letter to BP outlining their concerns related to potential dispersant impact on Louisiana's wildlife and fisheries, environment, aquatic life, and public health. Officials are also requesting BP release information on the effects of the dispersants they are using to combat the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[173]

A C-130 Hercules drops an oil-dispersing chemical into the Gulf of Mexico.

The Environmental Protection Agency approved the injection of dispersants directly at the leak site, to break up the oil before it reaches the surface, after three underwater tests.[174] Corexit EC9500A and EC9527A are neither the least toxic, nor the most effective, among the dispersants approved by the Environmental Protection Agency,[175] and they are banned from use on oil spills in the United Kingdom.[176]Twelve other products received better toxicity and effectiveness ratings,[177] but BP says it chose to use Corexit because it was available the week of the rig explosion.[175] Critics contend that the major oil companies stockpile Corexit because of their close business relationship with its manufacturer Nalco.[175][178] By May 20, BP had applied 600,000 US gallons (2,300,000 l) of Corexit on the surface and 55,000 US gallons (210,000 l) underwater.[179]

Independent scientists have suggested that the underwater injection of Corexit into the leak might be responsible for the plumes of oil discovered below the surface.[177] However, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrator Jane Lubchenco said that there was no information supporting this conclusion, and indicated further testing would be needed to ascertain the cause of the undersea oil clouds.[177]

On May 19 the Environmental Protection Agency gave BP 24 hours to choose less toxic alternatives to Corexit. The alternative(s) had to be selected from the list of Environmental Protection Agency-approved dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule with application beginning within 72 hours of Environmental Protection Agency approval of their choices, or provide a "detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards."[180][181] On May 20 US Polychemical Corporation reportedly received an order from BP for Dispersit SPC 1000, a dispersant it manufactures. US Polychemical stated it was able to produce 20,000 US gallons (76,000 l) a day in the first few days and increasing up to 60,000 US gallons (230,000 L) a day thereafter.[182] BP spokesman Scott Dean said May 20 that BP had responded to the Environmental Protection Agency directive with a letter "that outlines our findings that none of the alternative products on the Environmental Protection Agency 's National Contingency Plan Product Schedule list meets all three criteria specified in yesterday's directive for availability, toxicity and effectiveness."[183] BP has so far refused to offer an acceptable "detailed description of the alternatives investigated and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards" on a public Web site, as called for in a letter sent on May 20 by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to BP CEO Tony Hayward, claiming such full disclosure would compromise its confidential business information.[184][185] In a press conference on May 24, EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the 700,000 US gallons (2,600,000 l) of dispersants already used was "approaching a world record" and that “dissatisfied with BP’s response” she was ordering the EPA to conduct their own evaluation of alternatives to Corexit, while ordering BP to take “immediate steps to scale back the use of dispersants.”[186][187][188]

The EPA released further data on the chemical composition of Corexit, including 2-butoxyethanol, identified as a causal agent in the health problems experienced by cleanup workers after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.[189] Nalco has added a webpage to their site titled, Nalco Releases Additional Technical Information About COREXIT. They claim that COREXIT 9500 "is a simple blend of six well-established, safe ingredients that biodegrade, do not bioaccumulate and are commonly found in popular household products". They state, "The COREXIT products do not contain carcinogens or reproductive toxins. All the ingredients have been extensively studied for many years and have been determined safe and effective by the EPA".[190]

[edit]Additional technologies for cleanup

BP has ordered 32 machines from Ocean Therapy Solutions following owner Kevin Costner's testimony before the United States Congress. The machines separate oil and water, and each machine can extract up to 2,000 barrels of oil per day from the Gulf.[191][192] BP spokesman Bill Salvin confirmed the company has contracted with Costner and Ocean Therapy Solutions to use the machines.[191]

BP agreed to use the technology after testing machines during the past week.[193] "We are very pleased with the results and today we have placed a significant order with OTS (Costner's Ocean Therapy Solutions) and will be working with them to rapidly manufacture and deploy 32 of their machines," said Doug Suttles, BP's chief operating officer.[194]

[edit]ConsequencesSee also: Global industry and economic impact of the Deepwater Horizon disaster[edit]Ecology This section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. See the talk page for details. (June 2010) Heavily oiled Brown Pelicans wait to be cleaned of Gulf spill crude.

In their environmental analysis of the proposed well BP stated that in the unlikely event of an accidental spill "water quality would be temporarily affected by the decomposed components and small droplets", but that "currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water column or dilute the constituents to the background level". They saw "no adverse activities to fisheries" and no danger to endangered or threatened marine mammals and no adverse impact to birds.[47]

The spill threatens environmental disaster due to factors such as petroleum toxicity and oxygen depletion.[195] More than 400 species live in the islands and marshlands at risk, including the endangered Kemp's Ridley turtle. In the national refuges most at risk, about 34,000 birds have been counted, including gulls, pelicans, roseate spoonbills, egrets, terns, and blue herons.[77] A comprehensive inventory of offshore species in the Gulf of Mexico completed in 2009 counted 15,700 species of sea life, with those in the area of the oil spill numbering 8,332 plant and animal species, including more than 1,200 fish, 200 bird, 1,400 mollusk, 1,500 crustacean, 4 sea turtle, and 29 marine mammal species[196][197] As of June 15, there had been 1152 dead animals found in the spill zone including 770 dead birds, 341 sea turtles, and 41 dolphins and other mammals, with some reports of dolphins being spotted running low on food, and 'acting drunk' apparently from effects of the spill[198]. There may be other dead animals that go unfound. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it has not yet been determined if these animals were killed by the oil.[199]Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia indicated that the oil could harm fish directly, and microbes used to consume the oil would also add to the reduction of oxygen in the water, with effects being felt higher up the food chain.[119] According to Joye, it could take the ecosystem years and possibly decades to recover from such an infusion of oil and gas.[200]Oceanographer Ian MacDonald believes the natural gas dissolving below the surface has the potential to reduce the Gulf oxygen levels and carry forth huge amounts of benzene and other toxic compounds.[72] On May 18 BP CEO Tony Hayward insisted the environmental impact of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico would be "very, very modest".[201] Harry Roberts, a professor of Coastal Studies at Louisiana State University has told Bloomberg in early June 2001 that a hypothetical total of 4 million barrels of oil released would be enough to "wipe out marine life deep at sea near the leak and elsewhere in the Gulf" as well as "along hundreds of miles of coastline," while Mak Saito, an Associate Scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts indicated that such an amount of oil "may alter the chemistry of the sea, with unforeseeable results."[202]

It is possible the Gulf Stream sea currents may spread the oil into the Atlantic Ocean.[203] If oil follows the Loop Current to the East Coast of the United States, it could impact wildlife even without the oil reaching the beaches. Duke University marine biologist Larry Crowder said threatened loggerhead turtles on Carolina beaches could swim out into contaminated waters. Sea birds, mammals, and dolphins could also be affected. Ninety percent of North Carolina's commercially valuable sea life spawn off the coast and could be contaminated if oil reaches the area. Douglas Rader, a scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, said prey could be negatively affected as well. Steve Ross of UNC-Wilmington said coral reefs off the East Coast could be smothered by too much oil.[204] Eight U.S. national parks are threatened by the spill,[205] with oil washing up on the beaches of Gulf Islands National Seashorebeginning on June 1.[206] Damage to the ocean floor is as yet unknown, and marine life between the ocean floor and the surface could be affected.[97] Adm Thad Allen, coordinator of the clean-up operation, has said it would take "a couple of months" to clear the oil slick from the surface of the Gulf, but "long-term issues of restoring environments and habitats will be years".[207] Many other oil spills, including spills in environments similar to the US Gulf coast, continue to cause great environmental damage for years, or even decades.[208]

[edit]Fisheries and tourismAs of June 2, 2010, the area closed to fishing encompassed 88,522 square miles (229,270 km2), or about 37% of Gulf of Mexico federal waters.

In BP's Initial Exploration Plan, dated March 10, 2009, they said that "it is unlikely that an accidental spill would occur" and "no adverse activities are anticipated" to fisheries or fish habitat.[47] On April 29, 2010, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal declared a state of emergency in the state after weather forecasts predicted the oil slick would reach the Louisiana coast.[209] An emergency shrimping season was opened on April 29 so that a catch could be brought in before the oil advanced too far.[210] By April 30 the Coast Guard received reports that oil had begun washing up to wildlife refuges and seafood grounds on the Louisiana Gulf Coast.[211] On May 22 The Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board stated said 60 to 70 percent of oyster and blue crab harvesting areas and 70 to 80 percent of fin-fisheries remained open.[212]The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals closed an additional ten oyster beds on May 23, just south of Lafayette, Louisiana, citing confirmed reports of oil along the state's western coast.[213]

On May 2 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration closed commercial and recreational fishing in affected federal waters between the mouth of the Mississippi River and Pensacola Bay. The closure initially incorporated 6,814 square miles (17,650 km2).[214][215] By June 2 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had increased the area under closure thirteen times in a month, finally encompassing 88,522 square miles (229,270 km2).[216][217] On May 24 the federal government declared a fisheries disaster for the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.[218] Initial cost estimates to the fishing industry were $2.5 billion.[211]

Although many people cancelled their vacations at first, hotels close to the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama reported dramatic increases in business from 2009 during the first half of May 2010. On May 25 BP gave Florida $25 million to promote its beaches, which the oil had not reached, and the company planned $15 million each for Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. The Bay Area Tourist Development Council bought digital billboards showing recent photos from the beaches as far north as Nashville, Tennessee and Atlanta. Along with these and other assurances that the beaches are so far unaffected, hotels have cut rates and offered deals such as free golf. Also, cancellation policies have changed, and refunds have been promised to those where oil arrives. However, 2009 was a slow year, and those working to deal with the spill have rented rooms in the area. Revenues remain below 2009 levels due to the special deals.[219] By June many people were cancelling vacations while they could do so, fearing the arrival of oil on the beaches.[94] University of Central Florida economist Abraham Pizam said the oil slick may become "the worst disaster in the history of Florida tourism."[220] Initial cost estimates were that the impact on tourism along Florida's Paradise Coast could be $3 billion.[211]

[edit]Other economic consequences

On June 14 BP reported that its own expenditures on the oil spill had reached $1.6 billion, which includes the costs of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to U.S. Gulf states, claims paid and federal costs.[221] The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 limits BP's liability for non-cleanup costs to $75 million unless gross negligence is proven.[222]BP has said it would pay for all cleanup and remediation regardless of the statutory liability cap. Nevertheless, some Democratic lawmakers are seeking to pass legislation that would increase the liability limit to $10 billion.[223] Analysts for Swiss Re have estimated that the total insured losses from the accident could reach $3.5 billion. According to UBS, final losses could be $12 billion.[224] According to Willis Group Holdings, total losses could amount to $30 billion, of which estimated total claims to the market from the disaster, including control of well, re-drilling, third-party liability and seepage and pollution costs, could exceed $1.2 billion.[225] As of June BP's stock had lost more than 40% of its value compared to the period before the accident, equivalent to $80 billion in market capitalization.[226] BP is reportedly vulnerable to a corporate takeover as a result of the fall of its stock value and potential for continuing decline.[226]

Local officials in Louisiana have expressed concern that the offshore drilling moratorium imposed in response to the spill will further harm the economies of coastal communities.[227]The oil industry employs about 58,000 Louisiana residents and has created another 260,000 oil-related jobs, accounting for about 17 percent of all Louisiana jobs.[227]

BP has announced that it is setting up a new unit to oversee management of the oil spill and its aftermath, which will be headed by former TNK-BP chief executive Robert Dudley.[139]

[edit]LitigationMain article: Deepwater Horizon litigation

By May 26 over 130 lawsuits relating to the spill had been filed[224] against one or more of BP, Transocean, Cameron International, and Halliburton Energy Services,[228] although it is considered likely by observers that these will be combined into one court as a multidistrict litigation.[228] By June 17 over 220 lawsuits were filed against BP alone.[229] Because the spill has been largely lingering offshore, the plaintiffs who can claim damages so far are mostly out-of-work fishermen and tourist resorts that are receiving cancellations.[230] The oil company says 23,000 individual claims have already been filed, of which 9,000 have so far been settled.[224] BP and Transocean want the cases to be heard in Houston, seen as friendly to the oil business. Plaintiffs have variously requested the case be heard in Louisiana, Mississippi or Florida.[230] Five New Orleans judges have recused themselves from hearing oil spill cases because of stock ownership in companies involved or other conflicts of interest.[231] BP has retained law firm Kirkland & Ellis to defend most of the lawsuits arising from the oil spill.[232]

[edit]Health consequences

As of May 29, ten oil spill clean-up workers had been admitted to West Jefferson Medical Center in Marrero, Louisiana. All but two had been hospitalized suffering from symptoms emergency room doctors thought were caused by dehydration. At a press briefing about the May 26th medical evacuation of seven crewmembers from Vessels of Opportunity working in the Breton Sound area, Coast Guard Captain Meredith Austin, Unified Command Deputy Incident Commander in Houma, LA, said that air monitoring done in advance of beginning work showed no volatile organic compounds above limits of concern. No respiratory protection was issued, said Austin “because air ratings were taken and there were no values found to be at an unsafe level, prior to us sending them in there.”[233] Crude oil contains a mixture of volatile hydrocarbon compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that typically include benzene, toluene, and xylene, which are known carcinogens. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) have caused tumors in laboratory animals when they breathed these substances. Symptoms of exposure to these petroleum compounds include dizziness, headaches, nausea, and rapid heart beat. Kerosene (a component of the dispersants being used in the Gulf) exposure causes similar symptoms.[234]

On June 15 Marylee Orr, Executive Director for Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN),[235] said on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann that people along the Gulf Coast are getting very sick, with symptoms of dizziness, vomiting, nausea, headaches, and chest pains, not only from the first responders to the crisis, but residents living along the coast as well. LEAN has been distributing protective gear to the first responders, however LEAN's director reported that BP has threatened to fire their workers if they use them.[236] By June 13, 109 oil spill exposure-related cases had been reported to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH)[237] since the crisis began. Seventy-four of those cases involved workers in the oil spill clean-up efforts, while thirty-five were reported by the general public.[238]

[edit]U.S. and Canadian offshore drilling policyMain article: United States offshore drilling debate

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar stated that the disaster would have huge ramifications for energy development in the oceans all around the world.[154] Salazar ordered immediate inspections of all deep-water operations in the Gulf of Mexico. An Outer Continental Shelf safety review board within the Department of the Interior will provide recommendations for conducting drilling activities in the Gulf.[149]

On April 28 the National Energy Board of Canada, which regulates offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic and along the British Columbia Coast, issued a letter to oil companies asking them to explain their argument against safety rules which require same-season relief wells.[239] Five days later, the Canadian Minister of the Environment Jim Prentice said the government would not approve a decision to relax safety or environment regulations for large energy projects.[240] On May 3 Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger withdrew his support for a proposed plan to allow expanded offshore drilling projects in California.[241][242]

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), offshore drilling, just in the Gulf of Mexico, accounts for 23.5% of U.S. oil production.[243] The chief argument in the U.S. offshore drilling debate has been to make the United States less dependent on imported oil.[244][245] American dependence on imports grew from 24% in 1970[246] to 66% in 2008.[247]

[edit]Spill response fund

On June 16, after meeting with President Obama, BP executives agreed to create a $20 billion spill response fund.[138][248][249] BP has said it will pay $3 billion in third quarter of 2010 and $2 billion in fourth quarter into the fund followed by a payment of $1.25 billion per quarter until it reaches $20 billion. In the interim, BP posts its US assets worth $20 billion as bond. The amount of this fund is not a cap on BP's liabilities. For the fund's payments, BP will cut its capital spending budget, sell $10 billion in assets, and drop its dividend.[138][250] The fund will be administered by Kenneth Feinberg.[138][248][249] According to BP's officials the fund can be used for natural resource damages, state and local response costs and individual compensation but cannot be used for fines or penalties.[138] In addition, BP has agreed to allocate $100 million for payments to offshore oil workers who are unemployed due to the six-month moratorium on drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico.[138]

[edit]Reactions[edit]U.S. governmentObama speaking in the Oval Office about the spill.

On April 30 President Barack Obama issued an order for the federal government to hold issuing new offshore drilling leases until a thorough review determines whether more safety systems are needed[251] and authorized SWAT teams to investigate 29 oil rigs in the Gulf in an effort to determine the cause of the disaster.[252] On May 11 Department of the Interior released a press release, announcing that the inspection of deepwater drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico found no major violations.[253] On June 9 the FAA issued a no-fly zone over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the affected area, effective until further notice.[254] According to the New York Times, the Department of Homeland Security is denying media access to the area.[255]

The Obama administration sent a $69 million bill to BP for the U.S. government's clean up effort. The bill was also sent to Transocean, Andarko, Moex Offshore and QBE Underwriting.[256] On June 15 President Obama made his first speech from the Oval Office, addressing the BP oil spill crisis, saying, "This oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced... Make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy."[257]

[edit]International governments

As of May 6, the United Nations and fourteen countries offered their assistance, but the U.S. government refused the offer, with a State Department email to reporters stating "there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet." The countries offering help were Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Iran, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[258][259] On June 14 it was reported that State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. has received 21 aid offers from 17 countries and four international groups. "We are maintaining contact with these countries, we are grateful for the offers, and we will take them up on these offers."[260] That same day the U.K. Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne, made a formal statement to the House of Commons in London about the implications of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill for the U.K. In it he expressed the U.K. Government’s sympathy to those affected by this crisis. He further said that the priority must be to address the environmental consequences of the spill, and that the U.K. Government will remain focused on practical measures that can help to achieve this, including offering the U.S. dispersant chemicals.[261]

[edit]BP public relations

Initially BP downplayed the incident; CEO Tony Hayward called the amount of oil and dispersant "relatively tiny" in comparison with the "very big ocean."[262] Hayward also initially stated that the environmental impact of the Gulf spill would likely be "very very modest."[263] Later, he said that the spill was a disruption to Gulf Coast residents and himself adding, “You know, I’d like my life back.” He later apologized for his statements.[264] BP’s chief operating officer Doug Suttles contradicted the underwater plume discussion noting, "It may be down to how you define what a plume is here… The oil that has been found is in very minute quantities." [265] On June 16 BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, speaking to reporters after meeting with President Obama at the White House said, "I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies who don't care. But that is not the case in BP. We care about the small people."[266]

Google search result for "oil spill" showing sponsored link by BP, followed by link to news for oil spill

On May 30 BP hired Anne Kolton, former head of public affairs at the U.S. Department of Energy and former spokesperson for Dick Cheney, as head of U.S. media relations.[267][268] BP established a new division, headed by board member and managing director Bob Dudley to handle the company's response.[269] On June 4 BP began running TV ads featuring CEO Tony Hayward as he apologized for the disaster, adding "We will make this right."[270] The company also ran print ads in newspapers including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal,USA Today and The Washington Post.[270] According to Jon Bond, co-founder of the Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal agency, the cost for the BP public relations campaign was about $50 million.[270] BP spokesperson Toby Odone told ABC News that BP had successfully bid for several search terms related to the oil spill on Google and other search engines so that the first sponsored search result links directly to the company's website. This is "a great PR strategy" commented Kevin Ryan, CEO of an internet communications firm, and one not used before by other firms facing similar public relations "nightmares," adding that research suggests most people cannot distinguish between sponsored links and actual news sites.[271][272]

[edit]Public reactionPublic protest in New Orleans following the oil spill.

There has been a great deal of criticism of BP both in the US and worldwide for its role in the oil spill. By June 5, a Facebook page called "Boycott BP" had obtained 384,000 fans and generated media stories[273][274] and by June 14 "Boycott BP" had nearly doubled its fan base to more than 610,000 members. The Public Citizen consumer advocacy group has had more than 15,500 people sign an online petition pledging not to buy any BP products for three months.[275] Across the US, thousands of people participated in dozens of protests at BP gas stations and other locations.[276][277][278] Alternative metal band Korn is boycotting the use of BP fuel in their tour bus for all upcoming tour dates, and also encouraged the other bands to do the same.[279][280] Korn eventually got the entire 2010 Mayhem Festival to join the boycott, and several other recording artists including Lady Gaga, Creed, Disturbed and Rise Against among others.[281] While BP does not own any gas stations in the US, it does sell gasoline to BP, ARCO and other gas stations in the US and internationally.[282] In late May, Greenpeace activists in London scaled BP's company headquarters in St. James's Square and unfurled mock BP logo banners imprinted with oil stains reading "british polluters".[283]

[edit]Public opinion

Regarding the handling of the situation, according to a USA Today-Gallup poll conducted in late May, 53 percent of Americans rated President Obama's performance as poor or very poor, while 43 percent rated it as good or very good.[284] Approximately 60 percent said the federal government had done a poor or very poor job, while 35 percent rated the government's performance as good or very good.[284] A CBS News poll also conducted in late May likewise found a negative evaluation of Obama, with 45 percent disapproving of his performance, 35 percent approving, and 20 percent undecided.[284] 73 percent in the Gallup poll describing BP's response as poor or very poor, while 24 percent said it had been good or very good.[284] In the CBS survey, 70 percent disapproved of BP's response, with only 18 percent approving and 12 percent undecided.[284] An opinion poll conducted by Washington Post-ABC News in early June found that nearly three-fourths of Americans considered the spill a major environmental disaster.[285] Of those polled, 81 percent viewed the BP response negatively and 69 percent viewed the federal government response negatively.[285] Sixty-four percent of those polled expressed support for criminal prosecution of BP.[285]

[edit]Charity

More than $4 million has been donated to offset economic and environmental damage. Almost half of that amount has been from oil companies. BP America made a $1 million donation to Second Harvest Food as requests for food assistance have increased as a result of the spill.[286]

[edit]Investigations

On April 22 the United States Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service launched an investigation of the possible causes of the explosion.[27] On May 11 the Obama administration requested the National Academy of Engineering conduct an independent technical investigation to determine the root causes of the disaster so that corrective steps could be taken to address the mechanical failures underlying the accident.[287] The United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce asked Halliburton to brief it as well as provide any documents it might have related to its work on the Macondo well.[149]

Attention has focused on the cementing procedure and the blowout preventer, which failed to fully engage.[288] A number of significant problems have been identified with the blowout preventer: There was a leak in the hydraulic system that provides power to the shear rams. The underwater control panel had been disconnected from the bore ram, and instead connected to a test hydraulic ram. The blowout preventer schematic drawings, provided by Transocean to BP, do not correspond to the structure that is on the ocean bottom. The shear rams are not designed to function on the joints where the drill pipes are screwed together or on tools that are passed through the blowout preventer during well construction. The explosion may have severed the communication line between the rig and the sub-surface blowout preventer control unit such that the blowout preventer would have never received the instruction to engage. Before the backup dead man's switch could engage, communications, power and hydraulic lines must all be severed, but it is possible hydraulic lines were intact after the explosion. Of the two control pods for the deadman switch, the one that has been inspected so far had a dead battery.[289]

Just hours before the explosion, a BP representative overruled Transocean employees and insisted on displacing protective drilling mud with seawater.[290] One of the BP representatives on the board responsible for making the final decision, Robert Kaluza, refused to testify on the Fifth Amendment grounds that he might incriminate himself; Donald Vidrine, another BP representative, cited medical reasons for his inability to testify, as did James Mansfield, Transocean's assistant marine engineer on board.[291][292][293]

On May 22 President Obama announced that he had issued Executive Order 13543 establishing the bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, with former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly serving as co-chairs. The purpose of the commission is to "consider the root causes of the disaster and offer options on safety and environmental precautions."[294][295]

On June 1 U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he has opened a criminal investigation of the BP oil spill. "There are a wide range of possible violations, and we will closely examine the actions of those involved in this spill," Holder said.[296]

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is investigating the incident. In a statement made in June they noted that in a number of cases leading up to the explosion, BP appears to have chosen riskier procedures to save time or money, sometimes against the advice of its staff or contractors.[297]

Rolling Stone and Newsweek magazines have suggested that corner cutting by BP and lax oversight by the government may have led to the disaster.[298][299]

In a June 18 statement, Jim Hackett, the CEO of Anadarko Petroleum Corp., owner of one-fourth of the Deepwater Horizon well, said research "indicates BP operated unsafely and failed to monitor and react to several critical warning signs during the drilling. ... BP's behavior and actions likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct."[45] BP responded strongly disagreeing with the Anadarko statement, and said that, despite being contractually liable for sharing clean-up costs, Anadarko is "refusing to accept responsibility for oil spill removal costs and damages".[300]

[edit]See also United States portal Environment portal

• Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
• List of industrial disasters
• List of oil spills
• Largest oil spills
• Exxon Valdez oil spill (1989)
• Ixtoc I oil spill (1979)
• Piper Alpha (1988)
• Offshore oil and gas in the US Gulf of Mexico
• Oil Pollution Act of 1990
• Unified Command (Deepwater Horizon oil spill)

[edit]