Deepwater Horizon oil spill

May bring unneeded media.

This article is about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. For the oil rig explosion, see Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion.

Deepwater Horizon oil spill
The oil slick as seen from space by NASA's Terra satellite on May 24, 2010.
Location	Gulf of Mexico near Mississippi River Delta
Coordinates	28.73667°N 88.38716°W / 28.73667; -88.38716
Date	April 20, 2010 – present (5325 days)
Cause
Cause	Wellhead blowout
Casualties	11 dead 17 injured
Operator	Transocean under contract for BP
Spill characteristics
Volume	up to 100,000 barrels (4,200,000 US gallons; 16,000 cubic metres) per day
Area	2,500 to 9,100 sq mi (6,500 to 23,600 km2)

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) is a massive ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, now considered the largest offshore spill in U.S. history. 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. 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.

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, originates from a deepwater wellhead 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below the ocean surface. 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. 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. Scientists have also reported immense underwater plumes of oil not visible at the surface.

Experts fear that the spill will result in an environmental disaster, with extensive impact already on marine and wildlife habitats. 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.

Background

Deepwater Horizon drilling rig

Main article: Deepwater Horizon

class=notpageimage|

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 that could operate in waters up to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) deep and drill down to 30,000 feet (9,100 m). It was owned by Transocean, operated under the Marshalese flag of convenience, and was under lease to BP until September 2013. 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 States exclusive economic zone about 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico. 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. 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 of Mitsui.

Drilling rig explosion and oil spill

Main article: Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion

AHTS 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, multiple platform workers and supervisors expressed concerns with well control. At approximately 9:45 p.m. CDT on 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. Fire then engulfed the platform. Most of the workers were evacuated by lifeboats or were airlifted out by helicopter, but eleven workers were never found despite a three-day Coast Guard search operation, and are presumed to have died in the explosion. 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.

On the afternoon of April 22, 2010, a large oil slick began to spread at the former rig site. Two remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) unsuccessfully attempted to cap the well. BP announced that it was deploying a ROV to the site to assess whether oil was flowing from the well. On April 23, a ROV reportedly found no oil leaking from the sunken rig and no oil flowing from the well. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary 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. 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".

Volume and extent of oil spill

Main article: Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Matthew Simmons, 35 Year Industry Expert, says that 1,100 meters BELOW the surface is a 300-400m lake of heavy oil, covering 40% of the Gulf of Mexico. See http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/Simmons_Says_Nuclear_Device_Only_Option_to_Stop_Oil_Flow

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 82 to 216 million barrels).

Spill flow rate

File:BP oil spill still may 11 1240pm E.jpg

Photo 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. BP initially estimated that the wellhead was leaking only 1,000 barrels (42,000 US gallons; 160 cubic metres) a day. On April 28, 2010, 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. Geologist and oil industry consultant John Amos 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 (1,000,000 US gallons; 4,000 cubic metres) a day. 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. The company has 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. 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.

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. 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. 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; 3,200–15,900 cubic metres) a day. 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.

On May 24, Admiral Thad Allen 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 who are 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. 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, and the government increased its official estimate to that range on May 27. 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. According to Ira Leifer, a member of the Flow Rate Technical Group, the group was only provided an approximately seven minute time segment of low-quality video selected by BP, which showed a lot of variability from very low to very high flows.

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). 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 (1,000,000 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. 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. On June 15, after taking into account the increased flow rate after the riser was cut, Marcia 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. The updated estimates are believed to be more accurate because it was no longer necessary to measure multiple leaks, detailed pressure measurements were available as was more than a week of high-resolution video released by BP. The spill rate for natural gas remains unknown, however oceanographer Ian MacDonald commented that the discharge of gas has been "truly phenomenal" and that the gas is dissolving below the surface, with the potential to reduce the amount of oxygen and carry forth huge amounts of benzene and other toxic compounds.

Spill area

Oil 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. An April 30 estimate placed the total spread of the oil at 3,850 square miles (10,000 km²). The spill quickly approached the Delta National Wildlife Refuge and Breton National Wildlife Refuge, where dead animals, including a sea turtle, were found. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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". On May 13, tarballs began washing up on the shores of three Louisiana parishes and were possibly originating from the oil leak. 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 (1,000,000–3,400,000 US gallons; 4,000–12,700 cubic metres) a day. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. On June 3, a computer model showed that oil would likely reach the Loop Current and travel to Atlantic Seaboard beaches by July. 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. The main stream would likely stay 50 to 60 miles (80 to 100 km) offshore, but pockets of oil could reach the coast. 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. Few tar balls would be likely to reach the Carolinas, and significant environmental damage appeared very unlikely because oil would be heavily diluted.

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. 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. 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.

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. On May 19, 2010, 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. On May 20, 2010 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. 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.

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. Scientists have also complained about prevention of access to information controlled by BP and government sources. Airplanes carrying photojournalists have been prevented from flying over areas of the gulf to document the scope of the disaster. 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.

Efforts to stem the flow of oil

See also: Offshore oil spill prevention

The rig's blowout preventer, a fail-safe device fitted at the source of the well, 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. BP engineers predicted it would take six attempts to close the valves. As of May 2, 2010, they had sent six remotely operated underwater vehicles to close the blowout preventer valves, but all attempts were ultimately unsuccessful. 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.

On May 24, 2010, BP said it 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.” 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. In addition, Thad Allen was quoted in a May 30, 2010 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." 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."

Short-term efforts

Oil 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 (276,000 lb) container dome over the largest of the well leaks and pipe the oil to a storage vessel on the surface. 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. 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. Like the first containment dome, the dome has been deployed successfully in the past but not at such a depth. 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.

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. After three days, BP reported the tube was working. 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. The collected gas rate ranged between 4 and 17 million cubic feet per day (110×10^³ and 480×10^³ m³/d). The gas was flared and oil stored on the board of drillship Discoverer Enterprise. 924,000 US gallons (22,000 barrels) of oil was collected before removal of the tube so shutdown efforts could begin.

BP next tried to shut down the well completely using a technique called "top kill". 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. 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. On May 27, U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is coordinating the government response, 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. 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." On May 29, BP announced that the attempt to clog the ruptured oil well with "junk" had failed.

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 involves 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 the Discoverer 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", meaning the cap would be harder to fit. The cap was finally attached on June 3. 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. BP's CEO Tony Hayward stated his opinion that the amount captured was "probably the vast majority of the oil." However, the live stream of the oil escaping from the capped pipe does not appear to be substantially reduced and Ira Leifer, a member of the government team that estimated the flow rate, claims that the well pipe is clearly gushing more oil than before the cutting of the pipe to put the cap in place.

BP has announced that the company will bring in a floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel Helix Producer 1 that could then be offloaded with a shuttle tanker Loch Rannoch which normally services the Schiehallion oilfield. 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. BP is also working on a system that will allow it to flow oil from the choke and kill valves on the BOP through a subsea manifold to the Q4000 service platform operated by Helix Energy Solutions Group, with processing capacity for about 5,000 barrels (210,000 US gallons; 790 cubic metres) of oil per day. Q4000 will be paired with Sealion Shipping owned well testing vessel Toisa Pisces.

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 BOP. 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) and will cost about US$100 million per well.

Containment and cleanup

United 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. After the discovery that the undersea wellhead was leaking, the oil cleanup was hampered by high waves on April 24 and 25. 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." On May 6, BP launched a section on their corporate web site devoted to the daily response efforts.

On April 28, the US military announced it was joining the cleanup operation. Doug Suttles, chief operating officer of BP, welcomed the assistance of the US military. 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. 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.

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 booms were deployed along the coast. 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. On May 2, high winds and rough waves rendered oil-catching booms largely ineffective.

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; 24,000 cubic metres) of oil-water mix had been recovered. 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. 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.

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.

On May 21, 2010, 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. 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 entire Mississippi watershed. Even with this approach, NOAA is predicting a "massive" landfall to the west of the Mississippi River at Port Fourchon.

On May 23, 2010, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell wrote a letter to Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp of the US Army Corps of Engineers, 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. 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.

On June 3, BP said barrier projects ordered by the Coast Guard's Thad Allen would cost $360 million.

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.

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.

Dispersants

On May 1, two United States Department of Defense C-130 Hercules aircraft were employed to spray oil dispersant. Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A are the main oil dispersants being used. These contain propylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol and dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate. 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.

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. Corexit EC9500A and EC9527A are neither the least toxic, nor the most effective, among the dispersants approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, and they are banned from use on oil spills in the United Kingdom. Twelve other products received better toxicity and effectiveness ratings, but BP says it chose to use Corexit because it was available the week of the rig explosion. Critics contend that the major oil companies stockpile Corexit because of their close business relationship with its manufacturer Nalco. By 20 May, 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.

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. 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.

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." 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. BP spokesman Scott Dean said Friday, 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." 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. 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.”

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. 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".

Suggested technologies to cleanup

After Kevin Costner testified before Congress that he has the technology to help with the clean up effort, BP ordered 32 machines from Ocean Therapy Solutions. The machines separate oil and water, and each machine can extract up to 2,000 barrels of oil per day from the Gulf. After initial testing, the machines are expected to be implemented. Other companies also suggested their own decisions to cleanup the Gulf, which also are claimed to be very effective.

Consequences

Ecology

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.

The spill threatens environmental disaster due to factors such as petroleum toxicity and oxygen depletion. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. According to Joye, it could take the ecosystem years and possibly decades to recover from such an infusion of oil and gas. On May 18, 2010, BP chief executive Tony Hayward insisted the environmental impact of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will be "very, very modest".

An Associated Press review of BP's 2009 government approved regional spill plan for the Gulf and its site-specific plan for the Deepwater Horizon rig found numerous omissions and errors. One scientist listed as a national wildlife expert died in 2005. Under the heading "sensitive biological resources," the plan lists marine mammals including walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals, none of which live anywhere near the Gulf, and fish, marine mammals and birds were not expected to suffer serious harm. The projections were for a leak about 10 times worse than what has been calculated for the ongoing spill.

It is possible the Gulf Stream sea currents may spread the oil into the Atlantic Ocean. 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. Eight U.S. national parks are threatened by the spill, with oil washing up on the beaches of Gulf Islands National Seashore beginning on June 1st. Damage to the ocean floor is as yet unknown, and marine life between the ocean floor and the surface could be affected. Thad Allen of the Coast Guard said removing the oil from the ocean surface would take "a couple of months" but getting it out of marshlands "will take years". 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

Fisheries and tourism

As 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. 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. An emergency shrimping season was opened on April 29, 2010, so that a catch could be brought in before the oil advanced too far. 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. 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. 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.

On May 2, 2010 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). 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). On May 24, the federal government declared a fisheries disaster for the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. Initial cost estimates to the fishing industry were $2.5 billion.

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. By June, many people were cancelling vacations while they could do so, fearing the arrival of oil on the beaches. University of Central Florida economist Abraham Pizam said the oil slick may become "the worst disaster in the history of Florida tourism." Initial cost estimates were that the impact on tourism along Florida's Paradise Coast could be $3 billion.

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. The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 limits BP's liability for non-cleanup costs to $75 million unless gross negligence is proven. 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. 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. 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. As of June 2010, BP's stock had lost more than one-third of its value compared to the period before accident, equivalent to $62.7 billion in market capitalization. BP is reportedly vulnerable to a corporate takeover as a result of the fall of its stock value and potential for continuing decline.

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. 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.

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.

Litigation

More than 130 lawsuits relating to the spill have been filed. According to Michael Stag, a lawyer for the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, the cases are likely to be combined into one court, as a multidistrict litigation, for evidence gathering and pretrial decisions. BP, Transocean, Cameron International, and Halliburton Energy Services have all been named in one or more of the lawsuits. 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. The oil company says 23,000 individual claims have already been filed, of which 9,000 have so far been settled. BP and Transocean want the cases to be heard in Houston, seen as friendly to the oil business. Some plaintiffs want the case heard in Louisiana, while others prefer Mississippi or Florida. Five New Orleans judges have recused themselves from hearing oil spill cases because of stock ownership in companies involved or other conflicts of interest. BP has retained a major law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, to defend most of the lawsuits arising from the oil spill.

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 chest pains, dizziness, headaches and nausea. 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.” Crude oil contains a mixture of volatile hydrocarbon compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that typically include benzene, toluene, and xylene, which are known for their carcinogenic effects. 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.

On June 15 Marylee Orr, Executive Director for Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), stated 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. By June 13, 109 oil spill exposure-related cases had been reported to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) 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.

U.S. and Canadian offshore drilling policy

Main 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. 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.

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. 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. On May 3, Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger withdrew his support for a proposed plan to allow expanded offshore drilling projects in California.

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. The chief argument in the U.S. offshore drilling debate has been to make the United States less dependent on imported oil. American dependence on imports grew from 24% in 1970 to 66% in 2008.

Reactions

U.S. government

Obama 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 and authorized SWAT teams to investigate 29 oil rigs in the Gulf in an effort to determine the cause of the disaster. 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. 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. According to the New York Times, the Department of Homeland Security is denying media access to the area.

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. 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 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." On June 16, President Obama met with BP executives at the White House, where they agreed for BP to place $20 billion in an escrow fund to compensate victims of the oil spill, to be administered by Kenneth Feinberg, the U.S. "pay czar."

International governments

As of May 6, 2010, the United Nations and thirteen 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 are Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. A news report dated June 14 said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that the United States 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".

On 14 June, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Rt Hon. Chris Huhne MP, made a formal statement to the House of Commons in London about the implications of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill for the UK. In it he expressed the UK Government’s profound sympathy to those in the U.S. affected by this accident and by its aftermath. The Secretary of State further stated that the priority must be to address the environmental consequences of the spill, and that the UK Government’s concentration has been, and remains, focused on practical measures that can help to achieve this, including offering the U.S. authorities dispersant chemicals.

During his statement, the Secretary of State summarised the events of recent weeks concerning the drilling rig that was operated by Transocean under contract to BP, and sympathised with the U.S. Government’s frustration that oil continues to leak at the rate that it does. He acknowledged that the U.S. administration has said that BP is doing everything asked of it in the effort to combat the spill and looked to the company to continue to do this.

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." Hayward also initially stated that the environmental impact of the Gulf spill would likely be "very very modest." 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. 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."

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. BP established a new division, headed by board member and managing director Bob Dudley to handle the company's response. On June 4 BP began running TV ads featuring CEO Tony Hayward as he apologized for the disaster, adding "We will make this right." The company also ran print ads in newspapers including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and The Washington Post. According to Jon Bond, co-founder of the Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal agency, the cost for the BP public relations campaign was about $50 million. 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.

Public reaction

Public 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 and by June 14 "Boycott BP" had nearly doubled its fan base to more than 610,000 members. That same month, a controversial collection of images, showing damage to the environment and wildlife, was posted and maintained at LOLbp.com 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. Across the US, thousands of people participated in dozens of protests at BP gas stations and other locations. Alternative metal band Korn is boycotting the use of BP fuel in their tour bus for all upcoming tour dates, and are also encouraging the other bands on the 2010 Mayhem Festival to do the same. 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. 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".

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. 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. 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. 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. In the CBS survey, 70 percent disapproved of BP's response, with only 18 percent approving and 12 percent undecided. 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. Of those polled, 81 percent viewed the BP response negatively and 69 percent viewed the federal government response negatively. Sixty-four percent of those polled expressed support for criminal prosecution of BP.

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 request for food assistance have increased as a result of the spill.

Investigations

On April 22, 2010, the United States Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service launched an investigation of the possible causes of the explosion. On May 11, 2010, 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. 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.

Attention has focused on the cementing procedure and the blowout preventer, which failed to fully engage. 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.

Just hours before the explosion, a BP representative overruled Transocean employees and insisted on displacing protective drilling mud with seawater. 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.

On May 22, 2010 President Obama announced that he has signed an executive order 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."

On June 1, 2010 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.

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.

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

See also

• 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) – the largest oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
• Offshore oil and gas in the US Gulf of Mexico
• Oil Pollution Act of 1990

External links

• Live Video link Live Feeds from remotely operated vehicles (Sitelab Internet Engineering)
• Gulf of Mexico response from BP, including live video feed of riser
• Deepwater Horizon Response from the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command (U.S. Government/BP/Transocean)
• Deepwater BP Oil Spill at Whitehouse.gov
• Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
• Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation by the U.S. Coast Guard and Mineral Management Service
• Reporting of Oil Spill-Related Illnesses and Injuries to DHH - Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
• Impacts of BP oil spill on Gulf of Mexico Seaweeds

Directories

• Template:Dmoz
• Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico online resources from The Gulf of Mexico Sea Grant Programs
• Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill links to government documents and resources from the University of South Alabama
• Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill at Google Crisis Response

News media

• Full coverage on BBC News
• Full coverage on C-SPAN video library
• Full coverage on CNN
• Full coverage on The Guardian
• Full coverage from the Houston Chronicle
• Full coverage from the Los Angeles Times Greenspace
• Full coverage from The Miami Herald
• Full coverage on The New York Times
• Full coverage from The Times-Picayune (New Orleans)
• Full coverage from the Press-Register (Mobile, Alabama)
• Full coverage from The Wall Street Journal

Images

• Rig fire at Deepwater Horizon 4/21/10 video at CNN iReport
• GOES-13 satellite images on the CIMSS Satellite Blog
• Visualizing the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Disaster on beowulfe.com
• Gulf Oil Spill: Animal Disaster - slideshow by Life magazine
• Anti-BP Art: The Best Visual Jabs To Come From The Oil Spill - slideshow by The Huffington Post

Report spill-related incidents

• SkyTruth.org interactive map for viewing or reporting local sightings possibly related to Deepwater oil spill.