Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Oil spill that began in April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Deepwater Horizon oil spill?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the "BP oil spill") was an environmental disaster which began on 20 April 2010, off the coast of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect,[6][7][8][9] considered the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry and estimated to be 8 to 31 percent larger in volume than the previous largest, the Ixtoc I oil spill, also in the Gulf of Mexico. Caused in the aftermath of a blowout and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform, the United States federal government estimated the total discharge at 4.9 MMbbl (210,000,000 US gal; 780,000 m3).[3] After several failed efforts to contain the flow, the well was declared sealed on 19 September 2010.[10] Reports in early 2012 indicated that the well site was still leaking.[11][12] The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is regarded as one of the largest environmental disasters in world history.
Deepwater Horizon oil spill | |
---|---|
Location | Macondo Prospect (Mississippi Canyon Block 252), in the North-central Gulf of Mexico, United States (south of Louisiana) |
Coordinates | 28°44′17″N 88°21′58″W[1] |
Date | 20 April – 19 September 2010 (4 months, 4 weeks and 2 days) |
Cause | |
Cause | Wellhead blowout |
Casualties | 11 people killed 17 people injured |
Operator | Transocean under contract for BP[2] |
Spill characteristics | |
Volume | 4.9 MMbbl (210,000,000 U.S. gal; 780,000 m3) ±10%[3] |
Area | 2,500 to 68,000 sq mi (6,500 to 176,100 km2)[4] |
External videos | |
---|---|
Frontline: The Spill (54:25), Frontline on PBS[5] |
A massive response ensued to protect beaches, wetlands and estuaries from the spreading oil utilizing skimmer ships, floating booms, controlled burns and 1,840,000 US gal (7,000 m3) of oil dispersant.[13] Due to the months-long spill, along with adverse effects from the response and cleanup activities, extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats and fishing and tourism industries was reported.[14] In Louisiana, oil cleanup crews worked four days a week on 55 mi (89 km) of Louisiana shoreline throughout 2013. 4,900,000 lb (2,200 t) of oily material was removed from the beaches in 2013, over double the amount collected in 2012.[15] Oil continued to be found as far from the Macondo site as the waters off the Florida Panhandle and Tampa Bay, where scientists said the oil and dispersant mixture is embedded in the sand.[16] In April 2013, it was reported that dolphins and other marine life continued to die in record numbers with infant dolphins dying at six times the normal rate.[17] One study released in 2014 reported that tuna and amberjack exposed to oil from the spill developed deformities of the heart and other organs which would be expected to be fatal or at least life-shortening; another study found that cardiotoxicity might have been widespread in animal life exposed to the spill.[18][19]
Numerous investigations explored the causes of the explosion and record-setting spill. The United States Government report, published in September 2011, pointed to defective cement on the well, faulting mostly BP, but also rig operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.[20][21] Earlier in 2011, a White House commission likewise blamed BP and its partners for a series of cost-cutting decisions and an inadequate safety system, but also concluded that the spill resulted from "systemic" root causes and "absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur".[22]
In November 2012, BP and the United States Department of Justice settled federal criminal charges, with BP pleading guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to the United States Congress. BP also agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the United States government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments.[23][24][25] As of 2018[update], cleanup costs, charges and penalties had cost the company more than $65 billion.[26][27]
In September 2014, a United States District Court judge ruled that BP was primarily responsible for the oil spill because of its gross negligence and reckless conduct.[28] In April 2016, BP agreed to pay $20.8 billion in fines, the largest environmental damage settlement in United States history.[29]
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig
Deepwater Horizon was a 10-year-old[30] semi-submersible, mobile, floating, dynamically positioned drilling rig that could operate in waters up to 10,000 ft (3,000 m) deep.[31] Built by South Korean company Hyundai Heavy Industries[32] and owned by Transocean, the rig operated under the Marshallese flag of convenience, and was chartered to BP from March 2008 to September 2013.[2] It was drilling a deep exploratory well, 18,360 ft (5,600 m) below sea level, in approximately 5,100 ft (1,600 m) of water. The well is situated in the Macondo Prospect in Mississippi Canyon Block 253 (MC253) of the Gulf of Mexico, in the United States' exclusive economic zone. The Macondo well is found roughly 41 mi (66 km) off the Louisiana coast.[33][34] BP was the operator and principal developer of the Macondo Prospect with a 65% share, while 25% was owned by Anadarko Petroleum, and 10% by MOEX Offshore 2007, a unit of Mitsui.[35]
Explosion
At approximately 7:45 pm CDT, on 20 April 2010, high-pressure methane gas from the well expanded into the marine riser and rose into the drilling rig, where it ignited and exploded, engulfing the platform.[36][37] Eleven missing workers were never found despite a three-day U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) search operation and are believed to have died in the explosion.[38][39] Ninety-four crew members were rescued by lifeboat or helicopter, 17 of whom were treated for injuries.[36][40] The Deepwater Horizon sank on the morning of 22 April 2010.
The oil leak was discovered on the afternoon of 22 April 2010 when a large oil slick began to spread at the former rig site.[41] The oil flowed for 87 days. BP originally estimated a flow rate of 1,000 to 5,000 barrels per day [bbl/d] (160 to 790 m3/d). The Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) estimated the initial flow rate was 62,000 bbl/d (9,900 m3/d).[42][43][44] The total estimated volume of leaked oil approximated 4.9 MMbbl (210,000,000 US gal; 780,000 m3) with plus or minus 10% uncertainty,[3] including oil that was collected,[45] making it the world's largest accidental spill.[6][46] BP challenged the higher figure, saying that the government overestimated the prefaced volume. Internal emails released in 2013 showed that one BP employee had estimates that matched those of the FRTG, and shared the data with supervisors, but BP continued with their lower number.[47][48] The company argued that government figures do not reflect over 810,000 bbl (34 million US gal; 129,000 m3) of oil that was collected or burned before it could enter the Gulf waters.[45]
According to the satellite images, the spill directly affected 70,000 sq mi (180,000 km2) of ocean, comparable to the area of Oklahoma.[4][49] By early June 2010, oil had washed up on 125 mi (201 km) of Louisiana's coast and along the Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama coastlines.[50][51] Oil sludge appeared in the Intracoastal Waterway and on Pensacola Beach and the Gulf Islands National Seashore.[52] In late June, oil reached Gulf Park Estates, its first appearance in Mississippi.[53] In July, tarballs reached Grand Isle and the shores of Lake Pontchartrain.[54][55] In September a new wave of oil suddenly coated 16 mi (26 km) of Louisiana coastline and marshes west of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish.[56] In October, weathered oil reached Texas.[57] As of July 2011[update], about 491 mi (790 km) of coastline in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida were contaminated by oil and a total of 1,074 mi (1,728 km) had been oiled since the spill began.[58] As of December 2012[update], 339 mi (546 km) of coastline remain subject to evaluation and/or cleanup operations.[59] The reported 3.19 million barrels of spilled oil was not the only effect of this disaster. A report detailed the release of thousands of tons of hydrocarbon gases (HC) into the atmosphere.[60]
Concerns were raised about the appearance of underwater, horizontally-extended plumes of dissolved oil. Researchers concluded that deep plumes of dissolved oil and gas would likely remain confined to the northern Gulf of Mexico and that the peak impact on dissolved oxygen would be delayed and long-lasting.[61] Two weeks after the wellhead was capped on 15 July 2010, the surface oil appeared to have dissipated, while an unknown amount of subsurface oil remained.[62] Estimates of the residual ranged from a 2010 NOAA report that claimed about half of the oil remained below the surface to independent estimates of up to 75%.[63][64][65]
That means over 100×10^6 US gal (380 Ml) (2.4 million barrels) remained in the Gulf.[59] As of January 2011[update], tar balls, oil sheen trails, fouled wetlands marsh grass and coastal sands were still evident. Subsurface oil remained offshore and in fine silts.[66] In April 2012, oil was still found along as much as 200 mi (320 km) of Louisiana coastline and tar balls continued to wash up on the barrier islands.[67] In 2013, some scientists at the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference said that as much as one-third of the oil may have mixed with deep ocean sediments, where it risks damage to ecosystems and commercial fisheries.[68]
In 2013, more than 4,600,000 lb (2,100 t) of "oiled material" was removed from the Louisiana coast.[15][69] Although only "minute" quantities of oil continued to wash up in 2013, patches of tar balls were still being reported almost every day from Alabama and Florida Panhandle beaches. Regular cleanup patrols were no longer considered justified but cleanup was being conducted on an as-needed basis, in response to public reports.[70]
It was first thought that oil had not reached as far as Tampa Bay, Florida; however, a study done in 2013 found that one of the plumes of dispersant-treated oil had reached a shelf 80 mi (130 km) off the Tampa Bay region. According to researchers, there is "some evidence it may have caused lesions in fish caught in that area".[16][71]
Short-term efforts
First, BP unsuccessfully attempted to close the blowout preventer valves on the wellhead with remotely operated underwater vehicles.[72][73] Next, it placed a 125-tonne (280,000 lb) containment dome over the largest leak and piped the oil to a storage vessel. While this technique had worked in shallower water, it failed here when gas combined with cold water to form methane hydrate crystals that blocked the opening at the top of the dome.[74] Pumping heavy drilling fluids into the blowout preventer to restrict the flow of oil before sealing it permanently with cement ("top kill") also failed.[75][76]
BP then inserted a riser insertion tube into the pipe and a stopper-like washer around the tube plugged at the end of the riser and diverted the flow into the insertion tube.[77] The collected gas was flared and oil stored on board the drillship Discoverer Enterprise.[78] Before the tube was removed, it collected 924,000 US gal (22,000 bbl; 3,500 m3) of oil.[79] On 3 June 2010, BP removed the damaged drilling riser from the top of the blowout preventer and covered the pipe by the cap which connected it to another riser.[80] On 16 June, a second containment system connected directly to the blowout preventer began carrying oil and gas to service vessels, where it was consumed in a clean-burning system.[81] The United States government's estimates suggested the cap and other equipment were capturing less than half of the leaking oil.[52] On 10 July, the containment cap was removed to replace it with a better-fitting cap ("Top Hat Number 10").[82][83] Mud and cement were later pumped in through the top of the well to reduce the pressure inside it (which did not work either). A final device was created to attach a chamber of larger diameter than the flowing pipe with a flange that bolted to the top of the blowout preventer and a manual valve set to close off the flow once attached. On 15 July, the device was secured and time was taken closing the valves to ensure the attachment under increasing pressure until the valves were closed completing the temporary measures.[84]
Well declared "effectively dead"
Transocean's Development Driller III started drilling a first relief well on 2 May 2010. GSF Development Driller II started drilling a second relief on 16 May 2010.[85][86][87] On 3 August 2010, first test oil and then drilling mud was pumped at a slow rate of approximately 2 bbl (320 L) per minute into the well-head. Pumping continued for eight hours, at the end of which the well was declared to be "in a static condition."[88] On 4 August 2010, BP began pumping cement from the top, sealing that part of the flow channel permanently.[89]
On 3 September 2010, the 300-ton failed blowout preventer was removed from the well and a replacement blowout preventer was installed.[90][91] On 16 September 2010, the relief well reached its destination and pumping of cement to seal the well began.[92] On 19 September 2010, National Incident Commander Thad Allen declared the well "effectively dead" and said that it posed no further threat to the Gulf.[10]
Recurrent or continued leakage
In May 2010, BP admitted they had "discovered things that were broken in the sub-surface" during the "top kill" effort.[93]
Oil slicks were reported in March[94] and August 2011,[95][96] in March[11] and October 2012,[97][98][99] and in January 2013.[100] Repeated scientific analyses confirmed that the sheen was a chemical match for oil from the Macondo well.[101][102]
The USCG initially said the oil was too dispersed to recover and posed no threat to the coastline,[103] but later warned BP and Transocean that they might be held financially responsible for cleaning up the new oil.[104] USGS director Marcia McNutt stated that the riser pipe could hold at most 1,000 bbl (160 m3) because it is open on both ends, making it unlikely to hold the amount of oil being observed.[105]
In October 2012, BP reported that they had found and plugged leaking oil from the failed containment dome, now abandoned about 1,500 ft (460 m) from the main well.[106][107][108] In December 2012, the USCG conducted a subsea survey; no oil coming from the wells or the wreckage was found and its source remains unknown.[59][109] In addition, a white, milky substance was observed seeping from the wreckage. According to BP and the USCG, it is "not oil and it's not harmful."[110]
In January 2013, BP said that they were continuing to investigate possible sources of the oil sheen. Chemical data implied that the substance might be residual oil leaking from the wreckage. If that proves to be the case, the sheen can be expected to eventually disappear. Another possibility is that it is formation oil escaping from the subsurface, using the Macondo well casing as flow conduit, possibly intersecting a naturally occurring fault, and then following that to escape at the surface some distance from the wellhead. If it proves to be oil from the subsurface, then that could indicate the possibility of an indefinite release of oil. The oil slick was comparable in size to naturally occurring oil seeps and was not large enough to pose an immediate threat to wildlife.[11][111]
The fundamental strategies for addressing the spill were containment, dispersal and removal. In summer 2010, approximately 47,000 people and 7,000 vessels were involved in the project. By 3 October 2012, federal response costs amounted to $850 million, mostly reimbursed by BP. As of January 2013[update], 935 personnel were still involved. By that time cleanup had cost BP over $14 billion.[59]
It was estimated with plus-or-minus 10% uncertainty that 4.9 MMbbl (780,000 m3) of oil was released from the well; 4.1 MMbbl (650,000 m3) of oil went into the Gulf.[112] The report led by the Department of the Interior and the NOAA said that "75% [of oil] has been cleaned up by Man or Mother Nature"; however, only about 25% of released oil was collected or removed while about 75% of oil remained in the environment in one form or another.[113] In 2012, Markus Huettel, a benthic ecologist at Florida State University, maintained that while much of BP's oil was degraded or evaporated, at least 60% remains unaccounted for.[114]
In May 2010, a local native set up a network for people to volunteer their assistance in cleaning up beaches. Boat captains were given the opportunity to offer the use of their boats to help clean and prevent the oil from further spreading. To assist with the efforts the captains had to register their ships with the Vessels of Opportunity; however, an issue arose when more boats registered than actually participated in the clean-up efforts – only a third of the registered boats. Many local supporters were disappointed with BP's slow response, prompting the formation of The Florida Key Environmental Coalition. This coalition gained significant influence in the clean-up of the oil spill to try to gain some control over the situation.[115]
Containment
Containment booms stretching over 4,200,000 ft (1,300 km) were deployed, either to corral the oil or as barriers to protect marshes, mangroves, shrimp/crab/oyster ranches or other ecologically sensitive areas. Booms extend 18–48 in (0.46–1.22 m) above and below the water surface and were effective only in relatively calm and slow-moving waters. Including one-time use sorbent booms, a total of 13,300,000 ft (4,100 km) of booms were deployed.[116] Booms were criticized for washing up on the shore with the oil, allowing oil to escape above or below the boom, and for ineffectiveness in more than three- to four-foot (90–120 cm) waves.[117][118][119]
The Louisiana barrier island plan was developed to construct barrier islands to protect the coast of Louisiana. The plan was criticised for its expense and poor results.[120][121] Critics allege that the decision to pursue the project was political with little scientific input.[122] The EPA expressed concern that the booms would threaten wildlife.[123]
For a time, a group called Matter of Trust, citing insufficient availability of manufactured oil absorption booms, campaigned to encourage hair salons, dog groomers and sheep farmers to donate hair, fur and wool clippings, stuffed in pantyhose or tights, to help contain oil near impacted shores, a technique dating back to the Exxon Valdez disaster.[124][125]
Use of Corexit dispersant
The spill was also notable for the volume of Corexit oil dispersant used and for application methods that were "purely experimental."[116] Altogether, 1.84×10^6 US gal (7,000 m3) of dispersants were used; of this, 771,000 US gal (2,920 m3) were released at the wellhead.[13] Subsea injection had never previously been tried but, due to the spill's unprecedented nature, BP, together with USCG and EPA, decided to use it.[126] Over 400 sorties were flown to release the product.[116] Although usage of dispersants was described as "the most effective and fast moving tool for minimizing shoreline impact",[116] the approach continues to be investigated.[127][128][129]
A 2011 analysis conducted by Earthjustice and Toxipedia showed that the dispersant could contain cancer-causing agents, hazardous toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals.[130][medical citation needed] Environmental scientists expressed concerns that the dispersants add to the toxicity of a spill, increasing the threat to sea turtles and bluefin tuna. The dangers are even greater when poured into the source of a spill, because they are picked up by the current and wash through the Gulf.[131] According to BP and federal officials, dispersant use stopped after the cap was in place;[132][133] however, marine toxicologist Riki Ott wrote in an open letter to the EPA that Corexit use continued after that date[134] and a GAP investigation stated that "[a] majority of GAP witnesses cited indications that Corexit was used after [July 2010]".[135]
According to a NALCO manual obtained by GAP, Corexit 9527 is an "eye and skin irritant. Repeated or excessive exposure ... may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver". The manual adds: "Excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects". It advises, "Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing", and "Wear suitable protective clothing". For Corexit 9500, the manual advised, "Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing", "Avoid breathing vapor", and "Wear suitable protective clothing". According to FOIA requests obtained by GAP, neither the protective gear nor the manual were distributed to Gulf oil spill cleanup workers.
Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A were the principal variants.[136] The two formulations are neither the least toxic, nor the most effective, among EPA's approved dispersants, but BP said it chose to use Corexit because it was available the week of the rig explosion.[137][138] On 19 May, the EPA gave BP 24 hours to choose less toxic alternatives to Corexit from the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule and begin applying them within 72 hours of EPA approval or provide a detailed reasoning why no approved products met the standards.[139][140] On 20 May, BP determined that none of the alternative products met all three criteria of availability, non-toxicity and effectiveness.[141] On 24 May, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson ordered EPA to conduct its own evaluation of alternatives and ordered BP to reduce dispersant use by 75%.[142][143][144] BP reduced Corexit use by 25,689 to 23,250 US gal (97,240 to 88,010 L) per day, a 9% decline.[145] On 2 August 2010, the EPA said dispersants did no more harm to the environment than the oil and that they stopped a large amount of oil from reaching the coast by breaking it down faster.[132] However, some independent scientists and EPA's own experts continue to voice concerns about the approach.[146]
Underwater injection of Corexit into the leak may have created the oil plumes which were discovered below the surface.[138] Because the dispersants were applied at depth, much of the oil never rose to the surface.[147] One plume was 22 mi (35 km) long, more than 1 mi (1,600 m) wide and 650 ft (200 m) deep.[148] In a major study on the plume, experts were most concerned about the slow pace at which the oil was breaking down in the cold, 40 °F (4 °C) water at depths of 3,000 ft (900 m).[149]
In late 2012, a study from Georgia Tech and Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes in Environmental Pollution journal reported that Corexit used during the BP oil spill had increased the toxicity of the oil by 52 times.[150] The scientists concluded that "Mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity to ecosystems" and made the gulf oil spill worse.[151][152]
Removal
The three basic approaches for removing the oil from the water were: combustion, offshore filtration, and collection for later processing. USCG said 33,000,000 US gal (120,000 m3) of tainted water was recovered, including 5,000,000 US gal (19,000 m3) of oil. BP said 826,800 bbl (131,450 m3) had been recovered or flared.[153] It is calculated that about 5% of leaked oil was burned at the surface and 3% was skimmed.[113] On the most demanding day, 47,849 people were assigned on the response works and over 6,000 Marine vessels, 82 helicopters, and 20 fixed-wing aircraft were involved.[3]
From April to mid-July 2010, 411 controlled in-situ fires remediated approximately 265,000 bbl (11.1 million US gal; 42,100 m3).[116] The fires released small amounts of toxins, including cancer-causing dioxins. According to EPA's report, the released amount is not enough to pose an added cancer risk to workers and coastal residents, while a second research team concluded that there was only a small added risk.[154]
Oil was collected from water by using skimmers. In total, 2,063 various skimmers were used.[3] For offshore, more than 60 open-water skimmers were deployed, including 12 purpose-built vehicles.[116] EPA regulations prohibited skimmers that left more than 15 parts per million (ppm) of oil in the water. Many large-scale skimmers exceeded the limit.[155] Due to use of Corexit, the oil was too dispersed to collect, according to a spokesperson for shipowner TMT.[156] In mid-June 2010, BP ordered 32 machines that separate oil and water, with each machine capable of extracting up to 2,000 bbl/d (320 m3/d).[157][158] After one week of testing, BP began to proceed[159] and, by 28 June, had removed 890,000 bbl (141,000 m3).[160]
After the well was capped, the cleanup of shore became the main task of the response works. Two main types of affected coast were sandy beaches and marshes. On beaches, the main techniques were sifting sand, removing tar balls, and digging out tar mats manually or by using mechanical devices.[3] For marshes, techniques such as vacuum and pumping, low-pressure flush, vegetation cutting, and bioremediation were used.[116]
Oil-eating microbes
Dispersants are said to facilitate the digestion of the oil by microbes but conflicting results have been reported on this in the context of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[161] Mixing dispersants with oil at the wellhead would keep some oil below the surface and, in theory, allow microbes to digest the oil before it reached the surface. Various risks were identified and evaluated, in particular, that an increase in microbial activity might reduce subsea oxygen levels, threatening fish and other animals.[162]
Several studies suggest that microbes successfully consumed part of the oil.[59][163] By mid-September, other research claimed that microbes mainly digested natural gas rather than oil.[164][165] David L. Valentine, a professor of microbial geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara, said that the capability of microbes to break down the leaked oil had been greatly exaggerated.[166] However, biogeochemist Chris Reddy said natural microorganisms are a big reason why the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was not far worse.[167][168]
Genetically modified Alcanivorax borkumensis was added to the waters to speed digestion.[166][169] The delivery method of microbes to oil patches was proposed by the Russian Research and Development Institute of Ecology and the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources.[citation needed]
On 18 May 2010, BP was designated the lead "Responsible Party" under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which meant that BP had operational authority in coordinating the response.[170][171]
The first video images were released on 12 May, and further video images were released by members of Congress who had been given access to them by BP.[172]
During the spill response operations, at the request of the Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implemented a 900 sq mi (2,300 km2) temporary flight restriction zone over the operations area.[173][174][175] Restrictions were to prevent civilian air traffic from interfering with aircraft assisting the response effort.[172] All flights in the operations' area were prohibited except flight authorized by air traffic control; routine flights supporting offshore oil operations; federal, state, local and military flight operations supporting spill response; and air ambulance and law enforcement operations. Exceptions for these restrictions were granted on a case-by-case basis dependent on safety issues, operational requirements, weather conditions, and traffic volume. No flights, except aircraft conducting aerial chemical dispersing operations, or for landing and takeoff, were allowed below 1,000 m (3,300 ft).[173] Notwithstanding restrictions, there were 800 to 1,000 flights per day during the operations.[176]
Local and federal authorities citing BP's authority denied access to members of the press attempting to document the spill from the air, from boats, and on the ground, blocking access to areas that were open to the public.[172][177][178][179][180][181][182] In some cases photographers were granted access only with BP officials escorting them on BP-contracted boats and aircraft. In one example, the U.S. Coast Guard stopped Jean-Michel Cousteau's boat and allowed it to proceed only after the Coast Guard was assured that no journalists were on board.[179] In another example, a CBS News crew was denied access to the oil-covered beaches of the spill area. The CBS crew was told by the authorities, "This is BP's rules, not ours," when trying to film the area.[179][183][184] Some members of Congress criticized the restrictions placed on access by journalists.[172]
The FAA denied that BP employees or contractors made decisions on flights and access, saying those decisions were made by the FAA and Coast Guard.[172][175] The FAA acknowledged that media access was limited to hired planes or helicopters, but was arranged through the Coast Guard.[176] The Coast Guard and BP denied having a policy of restricting journalists; they noted that members of the media had been embedded with the authorities and allowed to cover response efforts since the beginning of the effort, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date.[181] They also said that they wanted to provide access to the information while maintaining safety.[181]
On 15 April 2014, BP announced that cleanup along the coast was substantially complete, while the United States Coast Guard work continued using physical barriers such as floating booms, the cleanup workers' objective was to keep the oil from spreading any further. They used skimmer boats to remove a majority of the oil and they used sorbents to absorb any remnant of oil like a sponge. Although that method did not remove the oil completely, chemicals called dispersants were used to hasten the oil's degradation to prevent the oil from doing further damage to the marine habitats below the surface water. For the Deep Horizon oil spill, cleanup workers used 1,400,000 US gal (5,300,000 L; 1,200,000 imp gal) of various chemical dispersants to further breakdown the oil.[185]
The State of Louisiana was funded by BP to do regular testing of fish, shellfish, water, and sand. Initial testing regularly showed detectable levels of dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, a chemical used in the clean up. Testing over the past year (2019) reported by GulfSource.org, for the pollutants tested have not produced results.[186]
Due to the Deepwater Horizon spill, marine life was suffering. Thousands of animals were visibly covered in oil.[187] The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rescued animals to help with the spill cleanup, although there were many animals found dead. The organization Smithsonian's National Zoological Park also helped to rescue the remaining marine life.