Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Waleed AlMutairi

Executive Summary
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster was a major environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico
that greatly damaged the ecosystem and created a major political controversy. It began with an
explosion on April 20 2010. Following an explosion and sinking of the oil rig named Deepwater
Horizon, an 87 day oil spill followed and contaminated the gulf with oil. It is the largest marine oil spill
in the history of the oil industry and it is remembered as one of the most egregious examples of
corporate irresponsibility in recent years. It is also a major case study of corporate apologies and PR, as
the CEO of BP made a famously maligned apology speech. Most research and analysis of this follow a
chronological approach of crisis communication analysis. This white paper will follow this same
approach, examining the news discourse surrounding the even in chronological order. The paper will
use the Aristotelian method to analyze the media reaction to this event.

Introduction
The oil industry is in many ways the worlds most important industry. It is the backbone of the world
economy and the source of a large majority of the worlds energy output. It is also, unfortunately, one
of the most environmentally damaging industries in the world. Essentially every step of its lengthy
process causes some level of disruption to environmental process. This is even greater in the case of
industrial accidents in the petroleum sector. For that reason, this paper will analyze the BP Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, the media discourses surrounding this disaster, and the widely mocked apology
presented by its CEO.

Summary:
This crisis began with an explosion that killed 11 employees and caused the oil rig structure to sink into
the ocean and was lost. This was only the beginning of a major ecological catastrophe that is today
known as the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. This is not only the largest ecological catastrophe in
modern times, but also resulted in the largest settlement in the history of the United States. However,
much of the environmental damage was irreparable, as was the damage to the reputation of BP as
criminally negligent and unprepared for a disaster of this magnitude. Many working people were
outraged that the company was able to settle with fines instead of anyone seeing jail time for their
inadequate safety precautions before the fact.

Objective:
The objective of this research is to examine the BP oil spill for information about the public reaction to
this apology, the media coverage that followed the disaster and the perceptions that were
communicated through the media during the course of this historic crisis.

Methods:
The information for this project was gathered using extensive Google searches for media articles
published at the time of the event and in the following years. A broad sample of media stories were
examined, including the formal apology that was broadcast in commercial format by the CEO of BP,
accepting responsibility for the disaster and explaining the investments made in rectifying the damages.
The concepts of Crisis Management and communications, as described on the website for the Institute
for Public Relations, was used as inspiration for conceptualizing and categorizing the descriptions of
the response of BP to this crisis. The paper uses Aristotelian analysis of logos, ethos and pathos in this
crisis management situation to examine the effects.

Results:
Considering the scale of the disaster, BP did a remarkably good job in immediately accepting
responsibility for the crisis and its cleanup efforts. However, the media still was very critical of the
handling of the disaster and of the oil industry generally. Just days after the disaster, famous British
newspaper the Guardian described the petroleum industry as a bad boy industry, highlighting their
traditional lack of accountability for environmental disasters.1 This is an example of using pathos to
gain an emotional appeal from the audience, associating oil companies with juvenile delinquency and
youthful irresponsibility. This is one of the factors of Aristotelian rhetorical analysis that is relevant to
this situation.
One month after the initial explosion, while oil still poured out of the site, the CEO of BP, Tony
Hayward, issued a public apology in a commercial. In this video he takes responsibility for the disaster
on behalf of the company.2 In his public apology, he used a combination of the Aristotelian techniques
of Ethos (relying on his authority and credibility as the CEO of a major petroleum company) and
Pathos (relying on his apparent sincerity and regret coupled with powerful images of the environmental
devastation his firm caused). Despite this public apology, media coverage continued to be largely
negative toward the firm.
One year after the initial disaster, NPR ran a special story about the critical failures of the CEO
in presenting his apology. Based solely on the catastrophic nature of the disaster in question, it was
readily apparent that a simple apology would not be sufficient for solving the problem. Since the
original apology, a number of major developments had occurred. Firstly, BP executives had decided to
place the blame on their contractors and deny responsibility for the legal aspects of the case.3 This had
revealed the CEOs seemingly heartfelt apology to have been false. Relying on the Ethos aspect of their
authority and expertise, they expected the public to believe their excuses for not accepting criminal
liability for what had occurred. It was revealed to NPR that Tony Hayward had in fact cut the public
relations budget at his time at BP, thus leaving them in a very poor position to recover from this
situation.4 He had failed to understand the media and the American people, and so repeatedly made
mistakes and gaffes that alienated the population. A quoted source in the article stated that: Selig says
it was like a doctor in an emergency room full of dying people telling family members that everything
will be fine.5 He failed to use the proper pathos, communicating the genuine emotional appeals that
recognized the truly catastrophic nature of the situation.
As time passed, the full extent of BPs lies and misinformation regarding the oil spill became
more apparent. BP officials were found to routinely lie to volunteers and cleanup workers about the
dangers of the operation and contaminants.6 Media outlets, under the Aristotelian principle of logos,
broke down the misinformation with facts and first person testimony (ethos). Workers became terribly
ill with rashes, headaches and bloody vomit.7 An extensive coverup was used to conceal the extent of
the damage and also BPs responsibility, and they successfully controlled the narrative through the
abuse of private property rights, control of the cleanup process and the use of toxic chemicals.8 Uding
their authoritative status as a major oil producer, BP successfully fooled the news media into accepting
their premises and lies. They accused critics of exaggerations and political motivations using pathos.9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Tim Webb Oil rig sinking puts bad boy industry in spotlight again. The Guardian. Apr 26 2010
BP Chief to Gulf Residents: Im Sorry CNN. May 30 2010.
Elizabeth Shogren. BP: A Textbook Example of How Not to Handle PR. NPR. Apr 21 2011
Ibid.
Ibid.
Mark hertsgaard. What BP Doesnt Want You To Know About the 2010 Gulf Spill. Newsweek. Apr 22 2013
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.

Though this had a short term benefit of obscuring the truth from most Americans, they could not keep
the information hidden forever.
One way that BP avoided responsibility for the disaster was by using their wealth and influence
to accuse people claiming damages as attempting to defraud them.10 BP used the principle of pathos to
convince the public that many of the people demanding restitution were actually just cheats looking for
free money. It was a very intelligent strategy based on their underestimation of the amount of damages
claims they would receive.11 Using smear tactics, they attempted (ultimately unsuccessfully) to
minimize the public perception of their damages to the environment and the scope of their
responsibility for it.
Even years later, the oil industrys reputation was permanently damaged by this spill. The scale
of the damage was so great that it fundamentally changed peoples perceptions of the oil industry and
the potential for damage from it. Now, the petroleum industry suffers from a significant credibility
issue, that is to say a lack of pathos.12 Major oil executives have had to come out with public
statements regarding demands for an end to fossil fuel use. The pathos criticisms, relying on the
emotional appeal of the suffering and injustice in the Gulf spill, has created a more critical political
climate for the oil industry than before. Philanthropic funds used for things such as the arts are widely
mocked or criticized as cynical.13 What was once considered a legitimate endeavor for companies
interested in improving their public image is now decried because of the terrible effects that the
industry has had on the world.
Ultimately, BP was found guilty and required to pay the largest settlement in history, $20
billion.14 They were found to be grossly negligent in the affair and suffered the largest possible
penalty. The immense damage to the regional economy will be one of the main focuses of using these
funds. The reputation of BP is permanently damaged on account of this decision, but restitution can go
a long way toward making the situation right.

Discussion
The BP oil spill disaster and the crisis communication situation that followed it illustrated very
well the way that public outcry can affect the circumstances of a public apology. Even though the CEO
early on went on TV to give an apology, he was extensively criticized for not taking the full breadth of
the problem into account. He was criticized for being too relaxed and indifferent to the real human
suffering of the people. His public apology looked like what it was, cynical PR. It is important to learn
that a public apology in a situation like this does not seem genuine, especially when it is coupled with
various deceptions regarding the cleanup and true responsibility for the problems. Many industries and
workers that relied on the fish and sealife from the Gulf have been permanently devastated, and many
people were left completely without the ability to make a living. While the settlement will work toward
fixing this situation, it is only a small gesture in light of a truly enormous situation.

Conclusion
The science of crisis communication can only do so much in a serious situation such as the one
faced by BP after the largest oil spill of all time. The damage caused by the spill was unprecedented,
10
11
12
13
14

Farron Cousins. BP Launches Massive PR Campaign To Demonize Spill Victims. DeSmog Blog. Aug 26 2013.
Ibid.
Shell Boss Calls Fuel Critics naive but Admits Big Oil Has a Credibility Issue. The Guardian. Feb 11 2015.
Oil companies sponsorship of the arts is cynical PR strategy. The Guardian. Apr 19 2015
Tim Stelloh. Judge Approves $20 billion Settlement in BP Oil Spill. The Associated Press. Apr 2 2016.

and the public apologies offered by the CEO were inadequate to solve the problem. This was especially
true considering the systematic deception that we can see from the sources. The public image of BP
could not have been fixed in any way except for immediate action. Unfortunately, much of this action
resulted in the poising of their workers and volunteers and a lengthy and ineffective attempt to plug the
leaking hole.