Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling - Report to the President¶
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. (2011). Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling - Report to the President: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, Report to the President, January 2011. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- HAZOP Guideword Miss
- Chemical process plants — the canonical setting: guideword misses recur in pre-startup safety reviews and post-incident retrospectives, especially around batch sequencing, utility failures, and operator interventions. Pharmaceutical manufacturing — HAZOP applied to formulation, cleaning, and changeover steps, where misses concentrate on cross-contamination paths the parameter list never enumerates. Offshore oil and gas — HAZOP supplements bowtie and SIL studies; the Deepwater Horizon review surfaced deviations (negative-pressure-test interpretation, displacement sequence) the pre-startup HAZOP never generated
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“The failure to properly conduct and interpret the negative-pressure test was a major contributing factor to the blowout.”
- Chemical process plants — the canonical setting: guideword misses recur in pre-startup safety reviews and post-incident retrospectives, especially around batch sequencing, utility failures, and operator interventions. Pharmaceutical manufacturing — HAZOP applied to formulation, cleaning, and changeover steps, where misses concentrate on cross-contamination paths the parameter list never enumerates. Offshore oil and gas — HAZOP supplements bowtie and SIL studies; the Deepwater Horizon review surfaced deviations (negative-pressure-test interpretation, displacement sequence) the pre-startup HAZOP never generated
- Incident Command System
- No single agency owned the disaster: the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, multiple Gulf states, and the responsible party BP all held authority or resources.
This sourceThe Deepwater Horizon response's multi-party Unified Command, with the Coast Guard as Federal On-Scene Coordinator and EPA, NOAA, the Gulf states and BP each contributing authority or resources.
SupportedVerified against the work's full text
“would become the centers of response operations, with their activities directed by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator as part of the government's Unified Command.”
- No single agency owned the disaster: the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, multiple Gulf states, and the responsible party BP all held authority or resources.
- Joint Information System
- The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil-spill response ran one of the largest joint-information operations to date
This sourceThe commission's account of the Deepwater Horizon response, the largest accidental oil spill in history, whose command organisation included a joint information center. Documents the competing Deepwater Horizon flow-rate estimates - Unified Command's 1,000 barrels per day on 24 April that appears to have come from BP, against the government's 5,000 barrels per day and later estimate of about 60,000 barrels per day.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“The Macondo well blowout caused the largest accidental oil spill in history—one that presented an unprecedented challenge to the response capability of both government and industry.”
- The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil-spill response ran one of the largest joint-information operations to date
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 3 of 3 citations: 1 supported, 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:d78ad14a9fd6 · see in the full table