APOLOGIA IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A CASE STUDY OF BRITISH

PETROLEUM’S RESPONSE TO THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Communication Studies

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in

Communication Studies

by

Kearsten Shepherd

SPRING 2012

© 2012 Kearsten Shepherd ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii

APOLOGIA IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A CASE STUDY OF BRITISH

PETROLEUM’S RESPONSE TO THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

A Thesis

by

Kearsten Shepherd

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Dr. Jacqueline Irwin

______, Second Reader Dr. Mark Williams

______, Second Reader Dr. Mark Stoner

______Date

iii

Student: Kearsten Shepherd

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

______, Graduate Coordinator ______Dr. Michele S. Foss-Snowden Date

Department of Communication Studies

iv

Abstract

of

APOLOGIA IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A CASE

STUDY OF BRITISH PETROLEUM’S RESPONSE TO THE

DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

by

Kearsten Shepherd

This thesis looks at the apologia employed by British Petroleum in the response to the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer of 2010. The critical question of this thesis is: What modes of apologia did British Petroleum employ in its public rhetoric in an effort to defend itself from accusations over the cause of the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill? This thesis will analyze the press releases made public by

British Petroleum to determine which modes of apologia, if any, were employed by the company to restore its image. This study argues that apologia is used by organizations in responses of self-defense in an effort to improve its image with the public audience.

______, Committee Chair Dr. Jacqueline Irwin

______Date

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I want to acknowledge the continued encouragement I received from Dr. Irwin to not complete my thesis. In all honesty, I should have completed this in the fall of 2010, but continued to put it off until Dr. Irwin talked some

sense into me. Without your constant support, prodding, pushing, and the more than

occasional handholding, I would have never actually finished this program. There are no

words to accurately convey my thanks to you for everything that you have done to get me

to this point. You have been a teacher, a mentor, and above all a friend throughout this

process and I will forever be in your debt for that. In addition I want to thank

Dr. Williams, to whom without I would have never started the Communication Studies

program or ever discovered my love of rhetoric. Throughout this program you have

continued to guide my path and aid my progress as I navigated my way through. I truly

appreciate all you have done to help me achieve my goals. I also want to thank Dr. Stoner

who challenged me to change the way that I learn and the way that I teach others. Thank

you for changing the way I see the world. I want to thank all of you for your guidance

through the thesis process hand helping me to write the best thesis there is – a finished

one!

I also want to thank the many wonderful instructors I have had throughout this

program that have helped steer me down the right path, and share with me their wisdom. I

would especially like to thank Dr. Foss-Snowden for being a mentor and providing me with opportunities I never thought possible. I also want to thank the cohort of students that went through this craziness with me, thank you for being a sympathetic ear and a vi

continued source of support. I will always look back on our late nights in the library and study sessions with great fondness – you all know who you are. To Sarah Billingsley, I want to thank you for sitting through my constant sighing and looking past my sarcastic comments to become one of my best friends; not only in this program but in life. You may be the only other person I know that gets as excited as I do in learning something new. Thank you for your support and continued help with SPSS.

To my family and friends, thank you for putting up with my bad moods, continued neglect, and constant pontification over things I’ve learned that in no way interest you. Your encouragement has helped me more than you will ever know, and without your support I likely would have never gotten through it all. I love you all more than you know.

Lastly, I would like to dedicate this body of work to my husband Kyle without whom I would not be who I am today. Thank you for your constant encouragement and for never letting me give up, even though I wanted to many times throughout this process. I would not have been able to any of this without you.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements ...... vi

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Genre: Classifying Rhetoric ...... 2

Apologia as a Genre ...... 4

Media in the 21st Century: A Summary ...... 8

Image Restoration: Corporate Crisis Management ...... 10

The Deepwater Horizon Spill: Brief Background ...... 13

Methodology ...... 14

Rationale ...... 16

Organization of the Study ...... 18

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 19

Rhetorical Criticism ...... 20

Genre ...... 23

Apologia ...... 27

Image Restoration ...... 31

British Petroleum Organizational History ...... 36

BP’s History of Oil Spills and Environmental Damages ...... 39

The Deepwater Horizon Catastrophe ...... 40

Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill...... 43

viii

3. ANALYSIS OF BP’S RESPONSE TO THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL

SPILL ...... 46

BP Confirms that Transocean Ltd Issued the Following Statement Today ...... 47

BP Offers Full Support to Transocean After Drilling Rig Fire ...... 48

BP Initiates Response to Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill ...... 50

BP Offers Sympathy to the Families of Those Lost in the U.S. Oil Rig Fire ...... 52

BP Forges Ahead with Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response ...... 53

BP Pledges Full Support for Deepwater Horizon Probes ...... 55

BP Steps Up Shoreline Protection Plans on U.S. Gulf Coast ...... 57

Hayward Applauds President’s Statement ...... 58

Update on the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 5 ...... 60

Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 7 ...... 61

Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 10 ...... 62

Update on Gulf Spill Response – May 17 ...... 63

BP Launches Live Webcam of Riser Flow ...... 64

Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 26 ...... 65

BP Sets Out Enhancements to LMRP Containment Strategy to Keep Oil

Out of Gulf ...... 66

Chairman and CEO Give Assurance that BP will Meet its Obligations in

Gulf of Mexico ...... 68

Update on Gulf of Mexico Spill – June 7 ...... 71

BP Emphasizes that Disagreement with Other Parties Will Not Diminish

its Promise to Clean Up the Spill and Pay Legitimate Claims ...... 72

ix

BP Reiterates Media Access Policy ...... 74

Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill – July 5 ...... 75

Capping Stack Installed on MC252 Well ...... 76

Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill – July 19 ...... 77

BP CEO Tony Howard to Step Down and be Succeeded by Robert Dudley ...... 78

4. APOLOGIA FOR THE NEXT CENTURY ...... 81

Apologia Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry ...... 82

Limitations of this Research ...... 86

Future Research ...... 87

Appendix A. BP Confirms that Transocean Ltd Issued the Following Statement

Today ...... 89

Appendix B. BP Offers Full Support to Transocean After Drilling Rig Fire ...... 90

Appendix C. BP Initiates Response to Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill ...... 91

Appendix D. BP Offers Sympathy to the Families of Those Lost in the U.S. Oil

Rig Fire ...... 93

Appendix E. BP Forges Ahead with Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response ...... 94

Appendix F. BP Pledges Full Support for Deepwater Horizon Probes ...... 96

Appendix G. BP Steps Up Shoreline Protection Plans on U.S. Gulf Coast ...... 97

Appendix H. Hayward Applauds President’s Statement ...... 99

Appendix I. Update on the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 5 ...... 100

Appendix J. Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 7 ...... 102

Appendix K. Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 10 ...... 104

Appendix L. Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 17 ...... 106

x

Appendix M. BP Launches Live Webcam of Riser Flow ...... 108

Appendix N. Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 26 ...... 110

Appendix O. BP Sets Out Enhancements to LMRP Containment Strategy to Keep

Oil Out of Gulf ...... 112

Appendix P. Chairman and CEO Give Assurance that BP will Meet its

Obligations in Gulf of Mexico ...... 114

Appendix Q. Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill – June 7 ...... 117

Appendix R. BP Emphasizes that Disagreement with Other Parties Will Not

Diminish its Promise to Clean Up the Spill and Pay Legitimate

Claims ...... 119

Appendix S. BP Reiterates Media Access Policy ...... 121

Appendix T. Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill – July 5 ...... 122

Appendix U. Capping Stack Installed on MC252Well ...... 124

Appendix V. Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill – July 19 ...... 125

Appendix W. BP CEO Tony Howard to Step Down and be Succeeded by Robert

Dudley ...... 128

References ...... 130

xi 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Since the ancient Greeks, men and women who have been publicly accused of

wrongdoing often respond with a speech of self-defense or apology, and therefore,

apologia is often thought of as a “speech of self defense” (Ware & Linkugel, 1973,

p. 275). Since its inception, apologia had always been considered a rhetorical discourse.

Ware and Linkugel argued the need for apologia to be considered its own genre of

rhetoric so that it could be effectively studied and criticized, primarily because the types

of discourse used in apologia were distinct and different than that of pure rhetorical

discourse.

Individuals and organizations have used apologia over the years to both defend

and explain a specific situation. In an era where politicians and corporations consistently

appear at press conferences and in news clips apologizing to the public, our society has in

many ways become desensitized to its use. Given the current saturation of messages,

compiled with today’s technological advances and a 24-hour news cycle (Rosenberg &

Feldman, 2008), a new environment has been created in which apologia is being used.

There is no question that apologia continues to play an important role in how both public

figures and organizations respond in a crisis, but he question becomes, whether these

messages continue to be effective.

Downey (1993) was one of the first authors to discuss how apologia and its use have changed throughout time. Even before it was accurately labeled a genre, Downey points out how the rhetor employed apologia in different ways based on a number of

2 societal influences. It stands to reason that the inundation of messages the public receives, compiled with an increased access to information, has not only impacted how individuals and organizations utilize apologia but also its influence. In the academic world, apologia is not analyzed or measured by the effect it has on the audience, only on what effect the speaker was hoping to incite through its use. In our current society, the audience plays a roll in how the aforementioned apologia is decided upon and eventually dispersed by the speaker. Thus, it is important to look at how apologia is being used in a present-day crisis to determine if the apologia being used is resonating with the audience, and if not, why?

In an effort to accomplish this goal, this study will analyze the use of apologia by

British Petroleum (BP) in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that lasted from April 2010 through July 2010.

Specifically, this study will analyze how BP utilized apologia by determining which postures of apologia were used in order to modify the public’s image of the company; and if apologia is still a useful tool, or if it needs to be modified in order to be more useful for organizational use. This analysis will be conducted in order to establish whether apologia continues to be functional as a tool to restore an organization’s image in the 21st century.

Genre: Classifying Rhetoric

Rhetoric has taken many forms over the years, from the Grecians to the post-modern, but rhetoric itself has remained a constant throughout. Campbell and

Jamieson (1976) argue that rhetoric is historical in nature, and that generic criticism

3

beyond the single event that causes the discourse and causes us to focus on the “recurrent

rhetorical action” (p. 27). Over time, simply looking at the way speech has been used

gave way to looking at how speech is used in specific situations (Baird & Thonssen,

1947; Bitzer, 1968). Bitzer argued that the situation was responsible for producing the subsequent rhetoric, thus creating what are called “rhetorical situations” (p. 1).

In categorizing rhetoric through situational response, genres within rhetoric were

formed. Although work within genres had been done in the past, it had not necessarily

been classified in this way. Some of the first generic criticism was produced in the late

1960s by Rosenfield comparing speeches made by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon

(1968) and by Patrick Henry and George Wallace (1969). Through the creation of

genres, critics were able to identify similarities between types of rhetoric and analyze

each in relation to the situations themselves. This also gave critics the tools to identify

how two different speakers employed the use of rhetoric under similar circumstances.

Miller (1984) goes a step further in depicting the use of genre as social action and

that genres are not only tools individuals use in developing rhetoric, but also help mold

how an individual reacts to the situation. Miller implies that these genres have become so

ingrained that we actually need them in order to respond in the appropriate way based on

the situation at hand. A vicious cycle within rhetoric where situations have created a

need for a specified generic response and thus that very need has predicated how one

responds. Giving way to the ability to actually predict how one could or would respond

to a specific situation.

4

As discussed, how the message resonates with the audience is an important element of apologia. The effect of the type of message (or posture) used is as important as the content itself. Miller (1984) makes a point of this in her discussion of rhetorical genre stating similarities in the audience, which receives and interprets the discourse, can also be used to identify a genre (p. 153). This is important to note, as it goes beyond classification of discourse by mere style and form or by situation, and discusses the audience as an active member in the discourse as well. This is important as we discuss the use of apologia, as the audience plays an important role in the interpretation and reaction to the rhetoric used. Miller also stresses motive of the generic discourse, and that all action has a motive and predicated outcome one is trying to achieve. This is also important in the discussion of apologia as the use of this genre of rhetoric has, in large part, to do with the motive behind the action the speaker wishes to incite within the public.

Apologia as a Genre

In 1973, Ware and Linkugel published a paper discussing the need for apologia to be considered its own genre so that it could be effectively studied and criticized, primarily because the types of discourse used in apologia were distinct and different than pure rhetorical discourse. Ware and Linkugel (1973) believed that this genre was significant because it was so different from speech for the sake of speech, it was in fact speech intended to prompt a reaction from the audience. This type of rhetoric was distinctive and could be looked at and analyzed as a genre in and of itself.

5

Ware and Linkugel (1973) were the first to identify the need to have a separate

genre of apologia in rhetorical theory. In their justification they used a number of famous

speeches to point out how the rhetor (the accused) had used one or more of the four

mechanisms of apologia, originally introduced by Abelson (1959). As part of Abelson’s

theory on resolution of belief dilemma, he identified the ‘modes of resolution’ as: denial,

bolstering, differentiation and transcendence (Ware & Linkugel). Ware and Linkugel

determined that one or more of these modes could commonly be found in speeches of

self-defense.

The study of self-defense really started to pick up steam after Ware and Linkugel

(1973) published their paper on apologia and gave others a model to use in analyzing this genre of rhetoric (or self-defense discourse). Since that time, a number of researchers have studied political speeches and the rhetor’s use of apologia including Nixon’s

Watergate speech (Harrell, Ware, & Linkugel, 1975; Katula, 1975; Vartabedian, 1985;

Wilson, 1976), Nixon’s “Checkers” speech (Vartabedian) and Nixon’s 1969 Vietnam

Speech and 1970 Cambodia Address (Vartabedian).

Ware and Linkugel (1973) identify four mechanisms of defense that people

employ when using apologia. Those mechanisms are denial, bolstering, differentiation

and transcendence. Most often, two of these types of apologia are used in conjunction in

order to be most effective in persuading an audience (Benoit, 1995; Benoit & Lindsey,

1987; Ware & Linkugel). Ware and Linkugel identify the use of either denial or

bolstering in conjunction with either transcendence or differentiation “to develop four

apologetic postures or stances of self defense” (Benoit, p. 13). Countless individuals and

6

organizations over the years have utilized these strategies in an effort to change the way a

situation is viewed (Benoit; Downey, 1993).

Throughout time apologia has been used as a method of self-defense, although it

has progressed and changed to suit the needs of the rhetor within the societal framework

in which the rhetor resides. For instance, Downey (1993) states that during the Classical

period (1200 BC–1 BC) apologia was used to defend oneself in a legal setting. It was

against the law to have a lawyer; therefore the accused was forced to defend himself or

herself. In the Classical period, Downey argues that the rhetor used a vindicative stance,

which employs both denial and transcendence as defined by Ware and Linkugel (1973).

In the Medieval Era (1000–1700), the rise of monotheistic religions also gave rise to a change in apologia, “evolving from a exoneration to absolution” (Downey, 1993, p. 50). Apologia then became a discourse that was used often to defend oneself from persecution for one’s religious beliefs. Downey argued that the accused used a justificative stance, which uses both bolstering and transcendence as defined by Ware and

Linkugel (1973), much different than those applied during the Classical period. The self-defense rhetoric was used in self-defense, but not really to persuade or change the audience’s perception of the rhetor as it had in the Classical period. Often the rhetor was going to die for his or her beliefs no matter what he or she said anyway. “Accepting ones fate, welcoming ones death, and convincing oneself of the forgiveness of God merged to form the substance of medieval apologia” (Downey, p. 49).

In the Modern period (1700–1900), apologia changed again employing some of both the Classical and Medieval techniques. The rhetor used self-defense discourse

7 employing an explanative stance of apologia, which employed both bolstering and differentiation as defined by Ware and Linkugel (1973) and Downey (1993). “Where most classical apologia determined the apologist’s fate, and most medieval apologia were incapable of altering fate, the value of most modern apologia lay in directing the responsibilities” (Downey, p. 52). In the modern period, the responsibilities of both the accused and audience became important.

During the Contemporary period (1950–1990), also the most studied period of apologia, rhetors often employed the use of an absolutive posture of apologia, which uses both denial and differentiation as defined by Ware and Linkugel (1973) and Downey

(1993). Rhetors in this period also relied on applying their actions to cultural values and employed the use of explanative (both bolstering and differentiation) apologia (Downey).

Downey states that, “in using both absolutive and explanative apologia, the rhetor’s goal is to vindicate the rhetor and reframe the situation to work in the best interests of the speaker” (p. 54).

While Downey’s (1993) work has provided a road map of how apologia has been used throughout time, there have been no definitive studies picking up where she left off that have looked at how apologia has been used in the last 20 years using similar methodology. There are many factors that go into looking at how apologia has changed over the past two decades, including the way in which we as a society receive information. While all rhetoric has a historical perspective (Campbell & Jamieson,

1976), how the audience consumes rhetoric has changed drastically in the last 20 years.

Americans are not reliant on newspapers and television for their information and are now

8

turning to the Internet (Edmonds, 2010). Most notably, the public has access to

information through the Internet that was once unattainable from both the corporate and

government sectors (Johnson, 1998). This has undoubtedly had an impact on the

dissemination of information by both of the aforementioned groups and the messages that

are used in the public, including apologia.

Media in the 21st Century: A Summary

It comes as no surprise that individuals and organizations use the media to help push an idea or issue to the public. In the public relations world, this is called “earned media,” or media coverage that is not paid for. The media is also an easy and efficient way for information to be pumped out to the public in a quick and widespread manner.

Looking back at the events that took place on September 11, 2001, nearly every person can remember watching the news or getting updates from the Internet on what was happening on the East Coast that day. And while the media continues to provide our society with information, the way that information is being produced and consumed is ever changing.

The 21st century has brought forth a number of new, emerging technologies that has provided the public with a number of venues for receiving information. Americans are able to access media instantly on their computer through the Internet or even on a smart phone through a wireless Internet connection or a mobile application (also known

as an app; Horrigan, 2008). In fact, a recent study by Affinity’s American Magazine,

which tracks the use and adaptation of digital technologies by American adults, reported

that 42% of American adults have smartphones (Cox, 2011). As a result, the nation has

9 become hyper-mediated and accustom to receiving information immediately and reacting to that information as instantly (Dimmick, Yan, & Zhan, 2004). Each event that is portrayed through the media becomes an isolated occasion that is seen through a skewed lens, creating a new understanding for what that event is.

There is no question that much of the information we receive is from the media.

Through newspapers, television programs, talk radio, and now, the Internet. When

Downey (1993) first published her article on the history of apologia, the Mosaic browser software was just being introduced and providing millions of people with access to information (Althaus & Tewksbury, 2000). By the year 2000, every television network and cable news service (such as CNN) was streaming content online and led Althaus and

Tewksbury to speculate that soon consumers would abandon newspapers and television news all together, relying solely on online news sources. Although that has not completely come true, many consumers have strayed from reading the newspaper in favor of Internet news sources. In fact, in 1999 the annual media consumption per person for television was 163 hours, for the Internet was 181 hours, and for newspapers was

169 hours (Straubhaar, Larose, & Davenport, 2011).

The way Americans consume information, including news, has changed and adapted many times over the years, much like the use of apologia has changed and adapted as outlined by Downey (1993). The ever-increasing consumption of Internet news and information has also changed the way that companies, celebrities, political figures and the like respond to situations. While many still utilize apologia as part of responding to a crisis situation, the public’s access to information via the Internet has

10

created new implications in the use those apologia messages. The first, and most

important implication is the sheer speed at which information is sent and processed

online. Not only that, but the fact that the public expects (and often demands) a quick

response to negative information regarding a company or a person (Coombs, 1995).

The second implication is that the information disseminated through the Internet

stays online for a virtual eternity. Search engines offer consumers the ability to find just

about anything by typing a simple keyword (Purcell, 2011). Gone are the days of what’s

printed in today’s paper line tomorrow’s birdcages. What is said and printed online often

lives on in Internet infamy (Rosen, 2010). In fact, nearly all of the artifacts that are

utilized in this research have been found and obtained through the Internet (Lefever, Dal,

& Matthíasdóttir, 2007). Americans are using the Internet more and more to find basic

information as well (Horrigan, 2008). Virtually everything is literally at our fingertips.

Therefore, as individuals and organizations are publicly responding to accusations or

crisis situations, those responses are available to the public in a number of ways online.

This has implications on both what is said and on the audiences’ reaction, especially

when utilizing apologia in response to a crisis situation.

Image Restoration: Corporate Crisis Management

As part of the evolution of the media landscape and the over-saturation of

information, it stands to reason that the way corporations respond to crisis and present information through the media has changed as well. When Ware and Linkugel (1973) first introduced apologia as a genre and outlined the postures used, there were numerous instances that the authors could point to throughout the past to build a case for the need

11 for the genre. Primarily the authors looked at individual speeches that were given by political figures like Richard Nixon and Edward Kennedy. Benoit (1997) would later detail how corporations in crisis also employed apologia in an effort to improve their image to a variety of publics. Benoit (1995) pointed out that the research done on apologia theory was essential to understanding image restoration discourse as well

(p. 17).

In developing the theory of image restoration, one must first assume that a corporation’s image is important (Benoit, 1995). This is vital to the need for discourse that would work to restore that image. The corporate image is important based on advertising and market research that shows consumers are aware of corporate image and often make decisions based on such images (Fombrun, 1996). Maintaining a favorable image is a goal of most corporate communication, especially in a crisis situation. Benoit states, “when our reputation is threatened, we feel compelled to offer explanations, defenses, justifications, rationalizations, apologies or excuses for our behavior” (p. 70).

Therefore, the theory of image restoration works toward one main goal, which is the restoration or protection of image. While this may not be the only goal, it is the central component of the discourse.

Often when a corporation’s image is under attack it is due to a situation or event that has damaged that image. Coombs (1995) identifies four situations in which a corporation must defend itself which include accidents, scandals and illegalities, product safety incidents and social irresponsibility. No matter what the situation is, companies must face their offense and face their guilt in an effort to gain restoration (Hearit, 1999).

12

Whether that includes a defense of its actions or shifting blame to another, a corporation

must attempt to save its reputation against any attack (Benoit, 1997). Postures of

apologia are often used in these efforts to restore image. Ryan (1982) points out that an

important component of image restoration theory is the relationship between the attack

(or situation) and the defense. While Ware and Linkugel (1973) have developed the

postures, Ryan points out that the decision of what posture is used in image restoration is based primarily on the situation of the attack.

Benoit (1995) developed five strategies of image restoration, which both encompass the postures of apologia as well as add on to them. Benoit identified those strategies as denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness of event, corrective action, and mortification (p. 95). Benoit analyzes a number of events through the image restoration theory including the Cola wars between Pepsi and Coke and Exxon’s Valdez

Oil Spill. It is the later that is of most importance, as it is similar to the event that will be analyzed in this paper. Let’s face it, oil companies are constantly dealing with image issues from unsurpassed profits to environmental issues, oil spills in the U.S. are unfortunately not new for us as residents or the corporations.

This history is what led to the image restoration issues that plagued BP in the months surrounding the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The image restoration strategies employed by BP during this time will be analyzed within the situational context discussed previously along with the apologia postures employed. More importantly, the numerous amount of media attention paid to the event itself, along with the over-saturation of information by the pubic will all be looked at.

13

The Deepwater Horizon Spill: Brief Background

The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, also commonly referred to as the BP oil spill,

occurred off the Gulf of Mexico as a result of an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon

oil-drilling rig (Ferguson, 2011). The explosion occurred on April 20, 2010 and the

resulting spill lasted three months and released approximately 4.9 million barrels of crude

oil into the ocean until it was capped on July 15, 2010 (Hoch, 2010). The spill damaged

marine and wildlife habitats in the area and literally killed the Gulf’s fishing and tourism

industries (Coy et al., 2010). Even more than two years later, the area is still working to

recover from the extensive damage caused by the spill.

There was a huge backlash against BP due to their lack of immediate response

and overall credibility after it was found that the corporation lied in a number of

instances, including the amount of oil that was spewing from the damaged line and the

damage the cleaning solutions used would have on the surrounding environment (Harlow,

Brantley, & Harlow, 2011). While BP eventually took responsibility for the spill, this did not happen right away and led to intense scrutiny by both the public and the media, both of which continued to feed off each other throughout the event (Coy et al., 2010).

During this time of distress for the company, BP employed image restoration

discourse in an effort temper the public’s criticism for the company (Harlow et al., 2011).

BP used traditional media outlets to disseminate information as well as new media outlets

including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (Muralidharan, Dillistone, & Shin, 2011).

The company even developed a webpage that was designed to update both the media and

the public with information about the incident, and what was being done by BP to correct

14 the incident: BP.com. The website is still active today, providing information to help the corporation restore its image.

Methodology

Genre criticism functions as a method of comparing and critiquing rhetoric based upon the situational measures (Miller, 1984). While there are many genres that could be used as models in critiquing rhetoric, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill created a situation in which BP was forced to respond in a self-defensive manner. Thus, apologia is the model that is most appropriate to use in analyzing the rhetoric employed by BP. This research will conduct a case study of the apologia employed by BP in response to the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill (April–July, 2010). The oil spill, which lasted three months, created a situation in which BP was forced to respond to in a number of ways. This will provide enough material to be analyzed for the purposes of this project and will provide insight into how corporate apologia is used in an effort to restore an image.

Specifically, an analysis of the apologia used by BP in public responses to the media and other audiences in reaction to the explosion and subsequent oil spill in the

Gulf of Mexico will be done. Utilizing the press releases that were released by BP to the media and made available on their website, these artifacts will be analyzed to determine which postures of apologia as outlined by Ware and Linkugel (1973), if any, were employed by the company to restore its image. Benoit’s (1995) strategies of image restoration, denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness of event, corrective action, and mortification (p. 95), will serve as the model used for this analysis.

15

The incident, also known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, is the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry (Campbell & Krauss,

2010). While the impact of the incident is still being felt, this research will look at selected press releases from BP’s response the day after the explosion (April 21, 2010) to the day that BP announced the change of company leadership (July 27, 2010).

English-language press releases that were sent out during the three month period in which the oil spill continued in 2010 will be looked at and analyzed to identify how apologia was adapted by BP and used in response to this crisis.

The Wall Street Journal produced a timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on its website in which it documented, through newspaper articles and graphical research, the overall picture of the incident (Wall Street Journal Research, 2010). The press releases chosen were based on the timeline that The Wall Street Journal produced in highlighting the important points of the overall incident. Thus, the press releases chosen will be analyzed in chronological order starting with the first press release sent out by BP on April 21, 2010 and the ending with the press release sent out on July 27, 2010, when the company announced new leadership for the company. Due to time constraints and project length a complete assessment of every press release cannot be done, but the press releases chosen based on The Wall Street Journal timeline should provide sufficient examples for analysis (Wall Street Journal Research). A total of 23 artifacts will be chosen based on the criteria listed above.

These press releases will all be analyzed to determine which postures of apologia

(Ware & Linkugel, 1973) were used in an effort to restore its image as outlined by Benoit

16

(1995). The focus of this research is to provide information and evidence for how

corporations and organizations employ apologia in response to a crisis in order to restore

its image. Potential outcomes include a description of how organizations use apologia in

our current culture in an effort to illicit a desired response. This would provide new

insight into the theory of apologia and provide avenues for further research in this area.

In more practical terms, it could also impact how companies respond in crisis situations

in the future by providing a model for other organizations to follow. As a secondary

issue, there may be areas in which the company adapted traditional apologia techniques

or used other rhetorical techniques in an effort to restore its image causing a new area for

research all together.

Rationale

The basic reason for the use of apologia is to in some way change the way the public feels about a particular situation that has occurred (Benoit, 1995). In the 21st

Century, the public is bombarded with politicians, celebrities and sports figures getting caught making poor choices in their personal lives that in turn effect them professionally.

Large corporations and companies throughout the world are also continually looking to put a positive spin on a public problem, product recall (Benoit & Lindsey, 1987), or environmental catastrophe (Benoit, 1997). Frequently, these entities turn to a team of professionals to help guide them through the crisis they have created in an effort to save some credibility and improve the publics’ overall attitude of them (Benoit, 1995). This is an important component to not only how messages are given and received in these

17

situations, but the fact that the public is continually subjected to these messages also has

an impact on how a message resonates.

While there are a number of authors that have analyzed apologia by individuals, including Ware and Linkugel (1973), Gold (1978) and Downey (1993), there have been far less authors that have provided research in the use of corporate apologia outside of the work done by Benoit (1995, 1997) and Benoit and Lindsey (1987). Much of the research that precedes this study has focused on how individuals have used apologia, and as such there is a large area of research that has not been explored regarding how organizations and corporations utilize this genre of rhetoric (Huxman & Bruce, 1995). A corporate entity must have and maintain a positive image in order to remain viable; therefore, it stands to reason that companies would employ strategies of image restoration in response to crisis events (Benoit, 1995). This case study will analyze what postures of apologia

(Ware & Linkugel) BP employed within the strategies of image restoration (Benoit,

1995) in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the summer of 2010.

More specifically, this research will determine what postures of apologia (Ware &

Linkugel, 1973) are most used and most appropriate for organizational use. As discussed, there may be times when apologia needs to be modified and changed in some way in order to be effective in restoring a company’s image. There is a need for more research in the use of organizational use of apologia in the wake of a crisis. Thus, this case study will provide new insight within this area of research in an effort to determine how apologia is utilized in the 21st century.

18

Organization of the Study

Chapter two of this study will discuss the relevant literature as it pertains to genre

of rhetoric as well as apologia as a genre and its implementation throughout time, and

more specifically, throughout the last century. This chapter will also look at how the

media utilizes information and produces content that shapes how we interpret information

as a society, particularly in understanding events within a hyper-mediated culture.

Lastly, this chapter will look at how corporations specifically utilize both apologia and media messaging to produce content that will restore an image.

Chapter three will be the analysis portion of this study. This study will analyze 23 press releases from BP as discussed earlier in this chapter in order to determine the postures of apologia that were used and how those messages actually worked to restore its image. Each artifact will be analyzed and discussed individually.

The final chapter will discuss the conclusions gathered through the analysis portion of the study. This section will detail findings and discuss the implications, limitations, and areas for further study.

19

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Aristotle (1354/1954) is as well known for his own prolific speeches as he is for critiquing the speech of others. He was also the first to identify certain types of speech as rhetoric, defining rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle, p. 24). Aristotle described rhetoric as an “offshoot of dialectic and also the ethical studies,” and like those that came before him, a discourse based in truth “or an apparent truth” (p. 25). Dialectic is the form of argument in which if the information is true, the conclusion is necessary. Rhetoric is the form of argument that deals with ones virtues and leads us to probable reasoning through discussion and debate, and of course persuasion. Aristotle also identified the “modes of persuasion” as being the credibility of the speaker (ethos), the use of a logical argument (logos) and the use of emotional content (pathos) (p. 24). These modes would become the roadmap of future rhetorical works and the tools for rhetorical criticism.

Rhetorical criticism gives the critic a view into the rhetor’s life and times. How a rhetor delivers discourse is as important to the words that are used. Another important aspect is the broader context or situation in which the rhetor delivers that discourse.

Thus, rhetorical genres are an important component in rhetorical criticism, creating a better method for comparing rhetoric based on the type of discourse and the context in which it was created. Apologia, a genre identified by Ware and Linkugel (1973), defines rhetoric that is created in the context of self-defense. Utilized by both individuals (Ware

& Linkugel) and organizations (Benoit, 1995), apologia is employed by the rhetor when

20 he or she is under attack or is accused of wrongdoing (Ware & Linkugel). Downey

(1993) identified how apologia has been used throughout history, changing to meet the needs of the rhetor given the context presented by the time period in which it was employed.

There are ample cases of apologia use in the past twenty years since Downey

(1993) presented her research on the subject including celebrity sports figures like Tiger

Woods and Michael Vic, and organizations like Toyota and Firestone Tires. Part of the changing environment in which these individuals and organizations were influenced by the amount of media coverage provided to the public related to each of their situations.

In the 21st century, individuals and organizations are operating within a 24/7 media cycle that makes every word public to the world. Under these conditions, apologia is employed through methods not considered by Ware and Linkugel when they identified the genre in

1973. Epic speeches are no longer the medium for which the public receives information; it is now presented in 15-second sound bites. Thus, the artifacts analyzed and methods of employment have evolved and so has rhetorical criticism.

Rhetorical Criticism

The rhetorical criticism utilizing Aristotle’s works are classified as neo-Aristotelian (Black, 1965). Although there are a number of other methods of rhetorical critique now, the development and study of rhetorical critique did not become popular until the early 1900s (Wichelns, 1924). Wichelns was first to note the need for a separation between the criticism of oratory and literary criticism, classifying the former as rhetorical criticism. Since that time, the term “rhetorical criticism” has been the

21

critique of the spoken word, or what Wichelns described as oratory. Wichelns

determined that while there seemed to be much critique of the written word or literature, there was a need for the critique of rhetoric, as well as the tools that were needed to accurately conduct a rhetorical critique.

Wichelns (1924) discuses the idea that while there is crossover in certain aspects

of both literature and rhetoric there are also clear distinctions, most importantly that of

motive and audience. The motive of literature is most often to inform or provide

information of some kind to the reader while the motive of rhetoric is persuasion

(Wichelns). Thus, the audience is an important aspect of rhetoric in that its intent is to

persuade the audience to think, feel or do something in particular; rather than simply

inform them of something. While the spoken word can be as beautiful as literature in its

style and prose, its function is different and, therefore, the criticism of such work must in

turn look at different elements as well (Wichelns).

Drawing on the work of Smith (1909), who determined that criticism must be

based on three main points; “the date, the author, and the work” (p. 15), Wichelns (1924)

pointed out “the man, his work, his times, are the necessary common topics of criticism”

(p. 183). Wichelns noted that there had not been much “serious criticism of

oratory. . .Oratory is intimately associated with statecraft; it is bound up with the things

of the moment” (p. 182), and focused on the idea that rhetoric was situational, but

focused on the immediate effects of the moment rather than the historical development of

the discourse.

22

Other authors would later come along and develop the methodology and standards that would be used to critique speeches. Most notably were Baird and Thonssen (1947) who built on the work of Wichelns (1924) in developing methods and standards for critiquing rhetoric. Baird and Thonssen developed four major areas of oratory criticism and the methodology that should be employed by the critic. Through the survey of historical rhetoric they developed a system for examining speeches, which would go on to be called neo-Aristotelian criticism (Black, 1965; Campbell & Jamieson, 1976). In his book Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method, Black (1965) identified the limitations in critical study up to that date, and developed a frame of reference for rhetorical criticism that had a generic point of view.

Black (1965) defines criticism as a process of perception and evaluation. Black discussed three main types of rhetorical criticism popular up until that time which included, the movement study, the psychological study and the neo-Aristotelian study.

Black defined neo-Aristotelian study as on which “the critic applies to the rhetoric, particularly the course canons derived from classical rhetoric, particularly the Rhetoric of

Aristotle” (p. 19). Black also identifies this to be the most popular of the critical studies.

Black also points out that while popular, the neo-Aristotelian study was too limited and left areas of rhetoric that did not fit the mold set by Aristotle’s (1354/1954) Rhetoric:

As rhetorical criticism is confined to the explication of discourses whose only use

of emotionality is to bias the judgment of auditors, neo-Aristotelian criticism

should function adequately; but once we recognize a genre of discourse that

operates differently, then we are outside of the purview of Aristotle. Such a genre

23

of discourse is that in which the evocation of an emotional response in the

audience induces belief in the situation to which the emotion is appropriate.

(p. 138).

Thus, as Black (1965) points out, there are genres of rhetoric that do not fall into the same mold and, therefore, cannot be critiqued using the same methods. These are classified as “deliberative, epideictic and forensic genres” (Campbell & Jamieson, 1976, p. 13). Each genre has its own unique characteristics that make it identifiable and brings about the need for its own unique critique based on those characteristics.

Genre

In is work, Rhetoric, Aristotle (1354/1954) recognizes that different situations require the speaker to address his audience differently through the speech that he gives, thus creating rhetoric that is dependent on a specific situation. Although they are not identified as genres as we currently define them, Aristotle identified them based on the type of situation to which the rhetor is responding. Thus, the situation in which the rhetor finds himself also dictates the type of rhetoric used by the rhetor.

Bitzer (1968) argues that the situation is the most important element of the rhetorical act and dominates the discourse in such a way that it actually determines the response of the rhetor. These “rhetorical situations” are what Bitzer contends drive the rhetoric employed and thus determines the genre that is engaged by the rhetor. Critics have long employed the use of genre as a way to better understand discourse, as well as a tool to aid in comparing and criticizing situational responses that are deemed to be

24 similar. Thus, the situation is an important aspect to rhetorical criticism given that the purpose of this study is to look at rhetoric as it relates to a crisis event.

The most important factor within the situation, according to Bitzer (1968), is the urgency of the crisis, which determines the discourse employed by the rhetor.

Ultimately, the situation becomes the controlling factor in overall response and creates what Bitzer identifies as a “prescribed” discourse. Bitzer stresses that these situations are objective events that are recurrent throughout history and their study of them in generic terms is objective as well.

While Campbell and Jamieson (1976) accept Bitzer’s (1968) contributions to the generic perspective of rhetorical criticism, they question the idea that comparable situations ever truly exist (p. 15). Instead, Campbell and Jamieson discuss and describe three genres for rhetoric that Conley (1979) suggests “can be used as guides for the construction of rhetorical ‘artifacts’” (p. 47).

Campbell and Jamieson (1976) refer to these features as “elements” or “a constellation of substantive stylistic and situational characteristics” (p. 17). Through analysis, these unique elements help to individualize the genre and through critique these genres are tested. Campbell and Jamieson point out that while it is the recurrence of these elements that make up a genre, these elements can and do appear in other forms of discourse outside of the genre as well. What constitutes a genre, according to Campbell and Jamieson, is that these elements consistently appear together within the discourse.

Campbell and Jamieson (1976) also point out that because elements will occur across genres, in order for rhetoric to be classified as part of a particular genre, the

25 similarities of the rhetoric must outweigh the differences. For instance, an inaugural address and a eulogy may have similar elements within the rhetoric, but there are enough differences for the discourse to be classified in different genres. It is also important to look not only at the elements themselves, but also how they interrelate to create a unique genre (Campbell & Jamieson). This is an essential element to generic criticism and it is exactly for this reason that generic criticism is needed: because all rhetoric is unique, and in some ways, similar.

The historical and cultural environments also play a critical role. All rhetoric is historical in nature and is influenced by the rhetoric that came before (Frye, 1957). Thus, pure forms of rhetoric can hardly be found. All forms influence each other and contain similar elements, and are similarly influenced by the time and place in which they were developed (Frye). Campbell and Jamieson (1976) point out “rhetoric develops in time and through time” (p. 26). Generic criticism goes beyond an individual rhetors or individual acts and looks at how rhetorical acts throughout time have had influence on the act being critiqued. Campbell and Jamieson (1976) argue that rhetoric is historical in nature and that generic criticism actually goes beyond the single event that causes the discourse, and causes us to focus on the “recurrent rhetorical action” (p. 27).

Conley (1979) goes on to point out that ancient rhetoricians also used genres to form rules for discourse utilizing prior speeches that were made and cites the “subject of style” as being a rule that was tied directly to the genre (p. 48). In this respect Conley, like Bitzer (1968), argues that use of genre goes beyond creating a tool for the critic to analyze, and becomes a tool for the rhetor in formulating discourse. Thus, the situation

26

plays an important role in determining the genre. Given that situations and the rhetoric

employed based on those situations reoccur throughout history shows that both the

situation and subsequent rhetoric can be compared and critiqued (Miller, 1984).

Consigny (1974) argues that while the situation is important to the response, it is

not the only element that the rhetor must take into account when formulating discourse.

Consigny agrees, in part, with Bitzer (1968) that the situation is an important element of

genre and stresses that the “rhetorical situation. . .involves particularities of persons,

actions, and agencies in a certain place and time; and the rhetor cannot ignore these

constraints if he is to function effectively” (p. 178). Miller (1984) takes this point a step

further and argues that genre study must be focused on the action it is aimed at

accomplishing. Thus, Miller maintains that genres are not only characterized by the

rhetoric response to a recurring situation, but that that the genre also assists the rhetor in

determining the action within the situation.

Miller (1984) argues that if we focus simply on the situation, what one is able to learn about the individual rhetor is overpowered by what is learned about the actual culture or historical period. Miller argues that the implied action of the rhetoric is more important in generic classification than the situation is. Miller states that “genre refers to a conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action;

as action it acquires meaning from situation and from the social context in which that

situation arose” (p. 163). Miller points out that there are a variety of features that must be

present in order for a generic classification.

27

With this in mind, it stands to reason that an inaugural address by the current

president would differ from that of President Lincoln. While there are perhaps enough

similarities in the discourse to identify and classify it as a genre, there would surely be

differences within the culture that would impact not only what was said but also how it

was said (Frye, 1957). This is in some ways a central point to this thesis as well. Ware

and Linkugel (1973) identified apologia as separate rhetorical genre and developed the

tools necessary for critique of the genre. Others critics would follow the path that they

blazed and identify how apologia had been used throughout time and what societal

impacts influenced the way it was used (Downey, 1993).

Apologia

Although generic critique had been around for centuries and discussed in numerous papers there was still a large amount of confusion among rhetoricians regarding the best way to classify genres as well as critique them. It was during this time that Ware and Linkugel (1973) published the article They Spoke in Defense of

Themselves, which outlined the need to classify apologia as a separate and distinct genre within the rhetorical discipline. In looking back through a number of speeches and analyzing the elements within those discourse, Ware and Linkugel determined that apologia had enough significant elements to become a new classification for study and critique. In outlining the elements that are consistently used in apologia, Ware and

Linkugel created a guide for others to use in classifying and critiquing “speeches of self defense.”

28

In this seminal article, Ware and Linkugel (1973) identify four mechanisms

(elements) of defense that people employ when using apologia. The authors utilized

terms first defined by Abelson (1959) in his theory regarding resolution of belief

dilemma. As part of his theory, Abelson identified the ‘modes of resolution,’ which

Ware and Linkugel determined to be utilized throughout apologia discourse. It was the

use of these elements, or what they identify as mechanisms, that Ware and Linkugel

allowed for identification and genre classification of apologia. Those mechanisms are

denial, bolstering, differentiation and transcendence and are defined below.

Denial

Denial is the basic act of the accused disassociating themselves from the action,

participation, or relationship to what the audience deems as negative by saying it is not

true (Benoit, 1995; Benoit & Lindsey, 1987; Ware & Linkugel, 1973). Sometimes the

accused uses denial of intent as a way to sway an audience’s opinion (Ware & Linkugel).

Often the public will react differently if they believe that while the action happened and

the person is sorry, there was never any intent or knowledge to purposely harm the

public. This tactic is often used by CEOs when responding to an organizational crisis

such as tainted product. The denial is not about the actual act, but about denying that

they knowingly harmed the public, created a tainted product, etc. (Benoit & Lindsey).

Bolstering

Bolstering is identified as a situation in which the accused attempts to align themselves with something viewed as positive (or that they think is viewed positively) by their audience (Benoit, 1995; Benoit & Lindsey, 1987; Ware & Linkugel, 1973). The

29 rhetor uses a bait and switch type of move to get the audience to think of them in relation to a positive action rather than the negative one they are being accused of. Much like the magician uses a slight of hand maneuver in a card trick to get the audience to look away from what is really happening off to the side, bolstering is used to get the audience to stop thinking of the accused in association with the negative action and think if them in a more positive light. Gold (1978) points out politicians often employ this tactic by having a well-respected member of the community testify about the person or be photographed together in an effort to have more credibility with their audience.

Differentiation

Differentiation is when the accused uses a strategy that separates “some fact, sentiment, object, or relationship from some larger context” (Ware & Linkugel, 1973, p. 278). The accused uses this to create a new context, different than the original context, in order to separate themselves from the audience’s negative attitudes toward the original context. Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick speech provides us an example of this. Kennedy differentiates himself from the person who caused the death of someone else by talking about his own experience of almost drowning and his heroic attempts to rescue his passenger (Ware & Linkugel). This is employed to create a new context for the audience to view him in – not as a criminal, but as a victim and a hero. This act can be somewhat symbolic as well (Gold, 1978).

Transcendence

Transcendence “joins some fact, sentiment, object, or relationship with some larger context” (Ware & Linkugel, 1973, p. 280). Benoit (1995) explains that

30 transcendence puts the action into a broader framework and psychologically changes the circumstances involved. The context of the action is changed in the eyes of the audience and effectively the use of transcendence changes the circumstances of the overall situation the accused finds himself or herself in. Ware and Linkugel (1973) discuss transcendence in relation to a speech by Eugene v. Debs in defense of charges against him for “insubordination, mutiny, disloyalty and refusal of duty within the military” in which he makes his case about freedom of speech (p. 280). Using his First Amendment right of free speech as a defense, he makes the accusations against him accusations against the Constitution and makes his actions seem more positive to the public.

Postures

Most often, two of these types of apologia are used in conjunction in order to be most effective in persuading an audience (Benoit, 1995; Benoit & Lindsey, 1987; Ware

& Linkugel, 1973). Ware and Linkugel identify the use of either denial or bolstering in conjunction with either transcendence or differentiation “to develop four apologetic postures or stances of self defense” (Benoit, p. 13). These postures are in part the constellations of elements discussed by Campbell and Jamieson (1976) in determining that a genre in fact exists. Ware and Linkugel identified the following postures after analyzing numerous self-defense speeches:

• Absolutive: Denial and Differentiation

• Vindicative: Denial and Transcendence

• Explanative: Bolstering and Differentiation

• Justificative: Bolstering and Transcendence (pp. 282-283)

31

These postures have been studied in countless speeches of self-defense and have proved to be reliable among apologia critics (Benoit; Benoit & Lindsey; Ware & Linkugel).

Downey (1993) conducted a meta-analysis of rhetoric from the Classical Period

(1200 BC–1 BC) through the Contemporary Period (1960–1990) and found that apologia was used throughout history and that the postures could be found going back to Aristotle.

Although societal influences impact how the rhetor employed the postures of apologia, it was none the less used as a means of self-defense as first identified by Ware and

Linkugel (1973).

Benoit (1995) utilizes the mechanisms and postures identified by Ware and

Linkugel (1973) and determined how corporations and organizations, not just individuals, employ apologia in an effort to have an effect on an audience. The analysis of recurring acts documented over time, from speeches by Nixon (Wilson, 1976) to Tylenol’s response to poisoned pills (Benoit & Lindsey, 1987), reinforces the idea presented earlier by Campbell and Jamieson (1976). Organizational use of apologia in response to a crisis is such a situation in which artifacts can by compared and analyzed. The nature of the crisis may be different, but a company or person’s need to react to that crisis publicly does not.

Image Restoration

William Benoit (1995) used Ware and Linkugel’s apologic tools to develop his own theory of image restoration (in relation to the public’s perception), which cites apologia as a stepping-stone or even an “important advancement” in his theory. He determined that apologia was one of the main components employed in order to restore

32

one’s image. Like Ware and Linkugel (1973) had used Abelson’s (1959) theory as a first

step toward their own theory of apologia, Benoit used Ware and Linkugel’s theory as a

launching pad for his own. Benoit believed that apologia alone did not go far enough in

determining why certain postures were used over others or what other postures might be

used when defending oneself or ones actions. All apologia is “self defense” speech

(Ware & Linkugel), but Benoit points out that while Ware and Linkugel identify the

postures often used in such speech, they do not point out when its best to use one over

another or which might be the best response to a specific situation.

Therefore, Benoit (1995) developed a theory of image restoration and identified

five strategies that are used in response to such situations. All communication is goal

oriented and the purpose of discourse is to facilitate those goals (Benoit). The goal of

self defense rhetoric goes beyond simply defending oneself and actually has the goal of repairing ones image (Benoit). Thus, maintaining a positive (or good) image is important to both people and organizations alike. This idea goes back to Aristotle when he describes the idea of ethos; that credibility is one of the pillars of rhetoric, and, because of this, people often defend this credibility (or image). Therefore, according to Benoit

“when our reputation is threatened, we feel compelled to offer explanations, defenses, justifications, rationalizations, apologies or excuses for our behavior” (p. 70).

How we defend or rationalize that behavior often depends on what the behavior or

situation dictates in a response. For these reasons, Benoit (1995) outlined five categories

for image restoration, which are “denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness,

33

corrective action, and mortification” (p. 74). Benoit points out that in defending ones

image there are several options, all of which fall within one of the following categories.

Denial

Like Ware and Linkugel (1973) point out in apologia discourse, denial is a common response in defending oneself. The rhetor can deny their involvement in the act or deny that they act occurred at all (Benoit, 1995). Although there are some logical ramifications of denying a known event happened, denying involvement is most often used. An example of this was Tylenol’s response to the poisoned pills that caused the deaths of its consumers (Benoit & Lindsey, 1987). Tylenol was able to deny involvement in the incident because it was proven to be the cause of a third party not related to the company or any of its plants (Benoit & Lindsey).

Benoit (1995) states “whether the accused denies that the offensive act actually occurred or denies that that he or she performed it, either option, if accepted, should absolve the actor of culpability” (p. 75). The accused can also shift the blame and or ask for more evidence of involvement (like in a criminal investigation) under the denial strategy (Benoit).

Evading Responsibility

If the accused is not able to deny involvement in the situation, then he or she may be able to reduce negative implications by reducing their perceived (by the audience) responsibility for the situation (Benoit, 1995). Another tactic under this category is the strategy of “pleading lack of information or control over important factors” (Benoit, p. 76). The accused attempts to convince the public that they should not be held

34 responsible due to this lack of information regarding the situation. The third strategy in this category is for the accused to make excuses based on factors that were out of their control (Benoit). How can we hold someone accountable for things that they cannot reasonably be responsible for? The fourth strategy is for the accused to suggest some sort of justification for the action done (Benoit). In this instance the accused works to convince the audience that he or she is not fully responsible because the action was done with good intent, and the accused did not intentionally cause the negative reaction.

Reducing Offensiveness

Strategies employed in this category are aimed at reducing the audience’s “ill feelings” regarding the situation (Benoit, 1995, p. 77). The accused may also work to change the audience’s attitude toward the offensive event or action itself (Benoit).

Bolstering, as defined by Ware and Linkugel (1973), can be used to ease any negative attitudes toward the accused by increasing the audience’s positive feelings toward the rhetor (Benoit). Benoit also discusses the possible use of differentiation (Ware &

Linkugel) in which the accused attempts to minimize the situation by comparing it more offensive situations or actions, thus making this situation less offensive by comparison.

The accused may also use transcendence (Ware & Linkugel) where the discourse is aimed at changing the context of the situation, either by broadening the context as a whole or by suggesting “a different frame of reference” (Benoit, p. 78). Compensation is also a strategy used under this model of image restoration (Benoit). With compensation, the accused offers some sort of valued goods or services and or monetary reimbursements in an effort to reduce the offensives of the act or situation. None of these strategies

35

denies that the accused committed or had involvement in the situation, but they all work

to decrease the responsibility of the accused.

Corrective Action

In this strategy, the accused “vows to correct the problem” (Benoit, 1995, p. 79).

Benoit explains that this can take two forms. “Restoring the situation to the state of

affairs before the objectionable action and/or promising to ‘mend one’s ways’ and make

changes to prevent the recurrence of the undesirable act” (Benoit, p. 79). Benoit points

out that this strategy is different than compensation in that it goes to address the actual

action itself rather than providing monetary compensation that is aimed at offsetting or

“counterbalancing” rather than actually correcting (p. 79).

Tylenol also utilized this strategy along with denial in response to the poisoned pills and subsequent deaths (Benoit & Lindsey, 1987). Tylenol introduced a safety seal as part of its packaging in an effort to “assure consumer that no one could tamper with their Tylenol capsules” (Benoit & Lindsey, p. 141). Although the company was not

responsible for the situation, they developed a corrective action to help “prevent the

recurrence” as discussed by Benoit (1995, p. 79).

Mortification

In this strategy, the accused may admit responsibility for the action and ask for

forgiveness (Benoit, 1995). If the audience believes that the apology is sincere then they

may be willing to forgive the act. Benoit states that “it may be wise to couple this

strategy with plans to correct (or prevent recurrence of) the problem, but these strategies

36

can be occur independently” (p. 79). Admitting guilt and expressing regret are important

components of the mortification strategy.

As discussed, the accused has five options in restoring their image (Benoit, 1995).

Apologia (Ware & Linkugel, 1973) plays a large part in some of these options, but as

Benoit discuses, there are other options available to the accused as well. These strategies

can be operational in discourse and may be difficult to identify (Benoit). The accused is

not likely to come out and say exactly what they are trying to do or which strategy they

are employing. The critic must identify which strategy is being used by analyzing the

discourse and its intended affect on the audience and its perceptions of the accused.

The audience and its perceptions are an important component of this theory as

well (Benoit, 1995). Benoit (1997) defines “image” as the “perception of a person or

group” (p. 251) held by the audience. There is the potential for multiple audiences that

are affected by the situation causing multiple responses from the accused (Benoit, 1995).

Through these strategies, the accused attempts to restore or repair its image to all possible

audiences.

British Petroleum Organizational History

A wealthy mining mogul, William D’Arcy, started the company that would

become British Petroleum (BP) when he began mining for oil in Persia (now Iran) in

1901 (Tharoor, 2010). Although there were years of fruitless drilling in the area, D’Arcy

hit liquid gold in 1908 and within the year started the Anglo-Persian Oil Company

(British Petroleum [BP], n.d.). By 1914, the company was nearly bankrupt. While there was plenty of oil being produced, there was no one to sell it to (BP). That all changed

37 when, at the urging of William Churchill, the British government became the Company’s largest shareholder in 1915 (Tharoor). Churchill saw the company as “a bottomless source of fuel for Britain’s modernizing fleet” (Tharoor, para. 2). Britain went into

World War I with an endless supply of oil from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (BP).

BP was actually the name of a German company that developed the name as a way to market its product to the country’s residents (BP, n.d.). The British government seized BP and the company’s assets during the war and sold them to the Anglo-Persian

Oil Company giving them a built-in distribution system within the United Kingdom (BP).

The company enjoyed profits throughout the 1920s and 30s with the popularization of the automobile (Tharoor, 2010). In 1935, the leadership in Persia changed the name of the country to Iran and as such the Anglo-Persian Oil Company changed its name to the

Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (or AIOC; Tharoor).

In 1939, Britain entered World War II and gasoline became a rationed item causing the growth of BP and other gasoline companies operating within the United

Kingdom to stall (Tharoor, 2010). Anglo-Iranian, like many of the other oil companies, lost a lot during the war, but was able to rebuild afterward and invested in refineries throughout Europe in the late 1940s (BP, n.d.). Unfortunately, this building stability was shattered in 1951 when the new democratic leadership in Iran convinced the nation’s

Parliament to nationalize the oil operations within the country (Tharoor). AIOC’s refineries in Iran shut down and employees lost their jobs. Governments throughout the world began to boycott Iranian oil in retaliation causing the country’s economy to crumble causing the Prime Minister resign (BP). In the wake of the fallout, the new

38 government allowed a consortium of oil companies to run the oil operations within Iran, with AIOC’s portion being 40% (BP).

In 1954, AIOC changed its name to the BP Company (BP, n.d.). The late 1950s and 60s led to the exploration for oil in other countries, and in 1969 found one of the largest reservoirs in North America on its acreage in Alaska (BP). The political climate in the 1970s led to the rationing of gasoline throughout the world and sky-high prices for fuel (BP). This caused a lot of changes within BP because the company had relied so heavily on the oil it refined from its stake in Iran and the Middle East. By the early

1980s, BP’s supply of oil that came from the Middle East shrank from 80% to a minimal

10% (BP).

The company had a number of other refineries, but the most lucrative sites in

Alaska and in Scotland provided logistical problems in storing and shipping the oil it was able to mine (BP, n.d.). These logistical issues gave way to new feats in engineering and transportation for the oil industry including production platforms that could work in the rough seas off Scotland and the world’s largest underwater pipeline ever constructed at the time (BP). The Trans-Atlantic pipeline that BP would build in Alaska was the largest civil engineering project ever in North America and was designed to limit negative environmental impacts (BP).

In 1987, BP purchased Standard Oil and began a new national business called BP

America (BP, n.d.). Later that year, the British government sold its remaining shares of

BP, making the company a fully privatized entity (BP). In the 1990s, a number of other organizations joined BP, including AMCO and ARCO (BP). With these new

39

partnerships and long-term projects throughout the world, the new millennium looked promising for the company financially, but it also brought about new concerns with environmental protection (BP).

In reaction to these concerns, BP got involved in the Clean Cities campaign in

Europe and launched an emissions trading program and expanded its solar power operations (BP, n.d.). In 2000, BP launched a new global brand, which it branded as BP and a new advertising slogan of “Beyond Petroleum” (BP). Under this new branding, BP expanded its operations throughout the world and also continued its work against climate change working to create a new unit within the company called BP Alternative Energy

(BP). The company had come a long way since it first started nearly a century before, changing the landscape of global energy the world over.

BP’s History of Oil Spills and Environmental Damages

While BP enjoyed great success over the years, it also had its share of problems when it came to environmental issues and worker safety. Before being known for the world’s worst oil spill ever, BP was plagued with a number of smaller spills and safety issues that caused the deaths of rig workers (Mouawad, 2010). Although not highly publicized, BP had a hand in the clean up efforts of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989 (Mauer, 2010). At the time, BP was the largest shareholder in the oil consortium that was responsible for the response and clean up plan, or lack there of, for the Exxon

Valdez oil spill (Schwartz, 2010).

In 2005, BP’s refinery in Texas City, Texas blew up as a result of safety issues not addressed by the company (Deneen, 2010). Fifteen workers were killed in the

40

refinery explosion and approximately 200 others were injured as a result of the blast

(Deneen; Mouawad, 2010). In March 2006, a badly maintained pipeline in Alaska

ruptured causing 200,000 gallons of crude oil to spill out over Alaska’s North Slope

(Mouawad). Although the company continued to tout it’s commitment to the

environment, its record told a different story. Later in August of that same year, a spill of

approximately 1000 gallons of crude oil was discovered in another Alaskan pipeline

(Mauer, 2010).

As a result of these highly publicized stories, BP brought in a new CEO to help

weather the storm and foster in a new era with a commitment to safety. Tony Howard

joined BP as its CEO in 2007 and settled a number of lawsuits that were a result of the

Texas refinery explosion (Mouawad, 2010). Howard also pledged to increase their safety

standards and improve its risk management (BP, n.d.). Despite this pledge, the company

continued to lag other oil companies in safety, and federal officials reported that many

problems still impacted the operations in Texas and Alaska (Mouawad). Even after the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the government was investigating issues with another BP

offshore drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico called the Atlantis for safety violations

(Mouawad).

The Deepwater Horizon Catastrophe

Despite a number of safety violations and publicized environmental damages,

none would compare to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which occurred in April 2010.

On the evening of April 20, 2010, a natural gas leak caused an explosion on the

Deepwater Horizon oil rig that was operating in the Gulf of Mexico on the Macondo

41 exploration for BP (Skoloff & Wardell, 2010). Eleven crew members died as a result of the explosion and a number of others were injured (Kaufman, 2010). On April 22, the oil rig that had been drilling a well thousands of feet underwater sank as a result of the explosion two days before leaving a sheen of oil spreading in the Gulf where the rig once stood (Kaufman).

The Deepwater Horizon crew was unable to shut off the flow from the well before it sank and the well continued to spew crud oil into the Gulf of Mexico until July 15,

2010 (Gold, Chazan, & Casselman, 2010). It would take BP until mid September to completely seal the leak (Kaufman, 2010). In that time, more than 170 million gallons of oil leaked from the well into the Gulf of Mexico making it the world’s largest oil spill

(Campbell & Krauss, 2010).

The following is a timeline of the significant events that took place in the days following the oil rig fire and subsequent well leak provided by the Wall Street Journal on its website at (Wall Street Journal Research, 2010):

• April 20: The Deepwater Horizon oil rig reports an explosion and fire on the

rig.

• April 22: The Deepwater Horizon oil rig sank as a result of the explosion,

causing oil to leak from the well.

• April 29: Louisiana Governor declares a state of emergency, as the spill is

roughly 16 miles off the Louisiana coast.

• April 30: President Obama halts any new offshore drilling projects.

42

• May 2: BP Chairman Howard defends the company’s safety record. Oil

clean up continues.

• May 3: BP says it will pay for all of the cleanup costs from the spill.

Thousands of miles of federal fishing miles remain closed.

• May 7: BP begins lowering a containment dome in an attempt to cap the well.

BP also begins to drill a relief well.

• May 8: BP’s containment dome fails to work.

• May 9: The edge of the sheen reaches the shore of Louisiana and tar balls

begin to wash up on the shores of Alabama’s Dauphin Island.

• May 16: BP succeeds in inserting a new tube into the broken pipe and siphons

off some of the spilling oil.

• May 19: Louisiana officials announce heavy oil washing up on shore.

• May 26: BP moves forward with an effort to choke off the oil gushing by force

feeding it heavy drilling mud and cement. A little more than one

month after the oil rig explosion and approximately 7 million gallons

of oil have spilled into the Gulf waters.

• May 30: BP stops the “top kill” effort and announces a plan to cap the well

using underwater methods.

• June 3: BP completes a cut to the fractured pipe, giving engineers the ability

to install a cap to stop the spill.

• June 6: A containment cap has been placed over the fractured pipe connected

to the well.

43

• June 17: BP CEO Tony Hayward testifies in front of Congress.

• June 29: Hurricane Alex halts skimming efforts.

• June 30: BP CEO Hayward hands over responsibility for the spill containment

and cleanup to Robert Dudley.

• July 5: Tar balls wash up on the beaches of Texas.

• July 10-12: Underwater robots remove the containment cap in order to install a

new sealing cap.

• July 13: BP tests the new sealing cap that was installed.

• July 15-18: BP closes the valves on the new cap and announces that the oil has

stopped leaking.

• July 27: BP’s board names Bob Dudley as the company’s new chief executive

officer and Tony Hayward steps down.

Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

The impacts of the oil spill were felt far beyond the boarders of the Gulf States of

Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida. While these states were hardest hit, both economically and environmentally, the lasting effects of the oil spill were felt throughout the world. At the height of the spill, approximately 37% of Gulf waters were closed

(Skoloff & Wardell, 2010). Crabbers, fisherman, shrimpers, and oysterman were shutoff from utilizing those waters for their businesses, but even after the waters were deemed safe to fish there was little demand from the public that was skeptical of eating seafood from the area (Skoloff & Wardell). The area’s tourism industry also fell off considerably

44

during the summer months in which the spill and clean up efforts continued (Skoloff &

Wardell).

Although the true environmental devastation from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

will take years to fully understand, the immediate ecological impacts to the fish and

wildlife in the area were seen on television screens and in newspapers throughout the

world. In the first two months of the spill, wildlife officials reported that at least

“491 birds, 227 turtles and 27 mammals, including dolphins” had been found dead along

the U.S. Gulf Coast (Adam, 2010, para. 7). As the oil continued to drift closer to shore and tar balls were found on area beaches, birds and other animals were also affected

(Adam).

There was also a huge media impact throughout the world. Pew Research Center

(2010) stated, “Unlike most catastrophes, which tend to break quickly and subside almost as fast, the spill was a slow-motion disaster that demanded constant vigilance and sustained reporting” (para. 2). The Pew Research Center looked at 2,866 stories about the spill from August 20, 2010 (the date that the rig caught on fire) to July 28, 2010 (the day after Tony Howard stepped down as CEO). Over the 100 days of news coverage studied, the Pew research found that stories on the spill accounted for 22% of all news;

BP emerged as the antagonist in the media, particularly Tony Howard; and public interest exceeded that of mainstream media coverage with between 50 and 60% of those surveyed stating that they followed the story “very closely” in the first 100 days of reporting.

The media scrutiny of BP forced the company to take action and defend itself publicly against attacks. BP immediately began sending out press releases, which it also

45 made available on its website, in response to the situation. In these press releases, BP employed apologia as a means of defense. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill had impacts that were felt beyond the states that bordered the Gulf of Mexico (Adam, 2010). Thus, the sheer magnitude of the incident makes it one in which BP’s response should be studied to bring a better understanding of organizational apologia to this area of research.

46

CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS OF BP’S RESPONSE TO THE DEEPWATER

HORIZON OIL SPILL

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the largest in the world’s history (Campbell &

Krauss, 2010). The environmental, economic and personal impacts of the spill on the surrounding community and the world at large makes BP’s response that much more important (Adam, 2010). On top of this, the media’s continued coverage and scrutiny of

BP and the event itself, makes this crisis one unlike any other studied before (Pew

Research Center, 2010). Looking at how BP responded to the events outlined in the timeline above, what postures of apologia were used, and what strategies of image restoration were employed will have a lasting impact on this area of research and bring about new areas for future research within organizational communication, rhetoric, and corporate image restoration.

The following chapter is an analysis of BP’s response to the Deepwater Horizon

Oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico for four months in 2010. On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig reported an explosion and fire on the oil rig (Skoloff &

Wardell, 2010). Two days later, on April 22, 2010, the oil rig sank in the Gulf of Mexico causing a huge oil spill (Kaufman, 2010). It took BP months to stop the oil spilling from the well and ultimately culminated with the company deciding to change its leadership on

July 27, 2010. An analysis of the apologia used by BP in response to the public audience in reaction to the explosion and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will be done.

BP’s press releases that were released to the media and made available to the public on its

47 website, will be analyzed to determine which postures of apologia, as outlined by Ware and Linkugel (1973), if any, were employed by the company. Benoit’s (1995) strategies of image restoration, will serve as the model used for this analysis.

This research will serve as a case study of how this organization responded to this individual crisis. All of the press releases will be analyzed in chronological order based on the date that they were issued, or made public, by BP in relation to the timeline developed by the Wall Street Journal as part of its online website (www.wsjournal.org).

For the purpose of this study, the dates of the press releases to be studied start on

April 21, 2010, which is one day after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig caught on fire and end on July 27, 2010, which is the day that BP announced that it was changing its leadership. All of the press releases analyzed in this case study are available on BP’s website at www.bp.com.

BP Confirms that Transocean Ltd Issued the Following

Statement Today

On April 21, 2010, BP released the first press release related to the incident in the

Gulf of Mexico (BP, 2010a; Appendix A). The press release was a re-print of the one that was issued by the Transocean Ltd., the company that operated the Deepwater

Horizon drilling rig. BP made it a point to distance itself from the incident by first reprinting the statement that was issued by the company that owned the drilling rig.

Without actually saying that they were not at fault, BP shifted the blame directly onto

Transocean Ltd. and utilized in part, Benoit’s (1995) strategy of evading responsibility.

48

In reprinting the exact statement from Transocean reporting a fire “on its oilrig” BP is

deliberately separating itself from having “control over the incident” (Benoit, p. 76).

Evading responsibility would be an important element within the context of much

of BP’s response to the Deepwater Horizon spill. BP consistently worked to separate

itself from ownership through a number of strategies including evading responsibility as

well as bolstering and even transcendence. In this case, BP doesn’t even take ownership

of the press release in titling it “BP confirms that Transocean Ltd issued the following

statement” (BP, 2010a, para. 1). Here BP is acting as part of the public audience and just

reporting the facts as they know them to be. They are in essence putting the incident

within a different context, one that they have no control over, which leads into evading

responsibility through “lack of control over certain factors” (Benoit, 1995, p. 76).

It is also important to note that at the onset of the incident, the information being

reported was only in relation to the fire on the rig. The information coming from

Transocean Ltd. was in regard to the safety and wellbeing of the oil rig crewmembers

stating that they were working “to care for all rig personnel and search for missing rig

personnel” (BP, 2010a, para. 4). At this point, BP was just reporting the facts of the

incident, which had not yet become an oil spill. This was another tactic in which BP was

attempting to shift blame for the incident in the early hours and days of the incident.

BP Offers Full Support to Transocean After

Drilling Rig Fire

Later on April 21, 2010, BP issued another press release that offered support to

Transocean Ltd. in relation to the fire (BP, 2010b; Appendix B). Again, at this point the

49

rig fire had not yet turned into an oil spill. In this instance, BP used a quote from their

CEO Tony Howard, which read, “Our concern and thoughts are with the rig personnel

and their families. We are also very focused on providing every possible assistance in the

effort to deal with the consequences of the incident” (BP, 2010b, para. 2). In this

instance, BP used a variation of bolstering (Ware & Linkugel, 1973), in that Howard

shifts the focus toward something else, in this case BP’s concerns being with the rig

personnel and their family. This tactic also coincides with Benoit’s (1995) strategy of

reducing offensiveness where the rhetor “attempts to reduce the degree of ill felling

experienced by the audience” (p. 77).

Through these strategies, BP works to alter the context of the event to be in relation to a fire that was the result of an accident on the drill rig owned by Transocean

Ltd. Although BP would later admit to being a legal owner of the drill rig due to their

lease agreement with Transocean Ltd., the company worked to distance itself from its

ownership and place blame solely on the drill rig operator.

Howard also employs Benoit’s (1995) strategy of corrective action. In this

strategy of image restoration, the rhetor is attempting to take a corrective action that gets

to the source of the incident. In this case, Howard has pledged BP’s assistance in “the

effort to deal with the consequences of the incident” (BP, 2010a, para. 2). Even thought

the greater world was not aware of what those consequences might yet be, BP was

already working to let the public know that they were working to correct any of those

consequences in an effort to limit negative feelings toward the company in relation to the

incident itself. This also works to put BP in a more positive light, taking on an effort of

50

cleaning up the mess that would ultimately result from the drill rig sinking into the Gulf,

while shifting blame for the incident all together.

BP Initiates Response to Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

On April 22, 2010, BP issued a press release in response to what had become the

Deepwater Horizon oil spill (BP, 2010c; Appendix C). The main focus of the press

release, as one can gain from its title, was on what BP was doing in response to the spill.

The opening sentence of the press release read, “BP today activated an extensive oil spill

response in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico following the fire and subsequent sinking of the

Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig 130 miles south-east of New Orleans” (BP,

2010c, para. 1). Again, the organization utilized Benoit’s (1995) image restoration strategy of corrective action.

Although the organization was not taking responsibility for the oil spill, they were working to increase their positive image by detailing what they were doing to help improve the situation. BP outlined a number of resources that they were providing to the efforts of the oil spill clean up such as mobilizing “32 spill response vessels,” supplying

“100,000 gallons of dispersants,” and “four aircraft ready to spray dispersant to the spill”

(BP, 2010c, para. 4). By outlining the things that the company was doing in response solidified the corrective action strategy (Benoit, 1995).

This press release also included a statement from BP CEO Tony Howard, which read,

We are determined to do everything in our power to contain this oil spill and

resolve the situation as rapidly, safely and effectively as possible. We have

51

assembled and are now deploying world-class facilities, resources and expertise,

and can call on more if needed. There should be no doubt of our resolve to limit

the escape of oil and protect the marine and coastal environments from its effects.

(BP, 2010c, para. 5)

The first sentence of the statement utilizes both bolstering (Ware & Linkugel,

1973) and transcendence (Ware & Linkugel) as part of an overall strategy to reduce

offensiveness (Benoit, 1995, p. 77). Howard states that BP is doing “everything in its

power to contain the spill and resolve the situation,” in an effort to place the situation into

a context where it can and will be controlled (BP, 2010c, para. 5). Before the public even

knows the true magnitude of the situation, Howard has placed it into one that can be in

essence “handled” in the mind of his audience (the public world).

In that same sentence, Howard is working to strengthen the audience’s positive thoughts and feelings for the organization. Bolstering (Ware & Linkugel, 1973) is also used in the second sentence, when Howard discusses that BP has brought together

“world-class facilities, resources and expertise,” to handle the issue (BP, 2010c, para. 5).

This again works to paint the company in a positive light, given the situation; they have pulled out all of the stops to contain this problem. This statement also works to try and minimize the negative feelings that the audience might have for both BP and the situation. In an effort to make it appear as though the spill isn’t as bad as it may seem,

BP is working to increase positive feelings toward the company, which Benoit (1995) identifies as a method for reducing offensiveness.

52

This statement from Howard also reinforced the corrective action strategy

(Benoit, 1995) being employed by the company. This is the first time that the company called the incident an “oil spill” and addressed the potential environmental impact:

“There should be no doubt of our resolve to limit the escape of oil and protect the marine and coastal environments from its effects” (BP, 2010c, para. 5). Benoit points out that although corrective action can at times be a component of an apology, it can also be done without admitting guilt, as is the case here with BP.

BP Offers Sympathy to the Families of Those Lost in the

U.S. Oil Rig Fire

On April 24, 2010, The Coast Guard called off the search for the 11 missing crewmembers of the Transocean Ltd. Deepwater Horizon drill rig. In response to this news, BP issued a statement offering its “deepest sympathy and condolences” to the families of those that lost their lives as a result of the incident on the drill rig (BP, 2010d, para. 1; Appendix D). In doing so, BP again utilizes transcendence (Ware & Linkugel,

1973) and changes the context of the incident drawing the public’s attention away from the large amount of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, and toward the lives that were tragically lost as a result of the fire and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drill rig. BP’s CEO Tony Howard also expressed his gratitude to everyone that worked on offshore drill rig and that “no words can express the sorrow and pain when such a tragic incident happens” (BP, 2010d, para. 2). Howard humanizes the company and himself in this statement and again calls this a “tragic incident,” in an effort to evade

53 responsibility (Benoit, 1995, p. 76). Labeling the event this way makes it seem as though it was no one’s fault, but a simple yet, tragic accident.

Howard again employs Benoit’s (1995) corrective action strategy stating, “BP will be working closely with Transocean and the authorities to find out exactly what happened so lessons can be learnt to prevent something like this from happening anywhere again” (BP, 2010d, para. 4). Without admitting any fault in the incident, BP is letting the public know that they are doing everything they can to find the cause and learn from it in an effort to prevent it from happening in the future. Although the public would later learn that a number of safety violations were to blame for the fire, and ultimately the spill, at this point BP was hiding behind the public’s ignorance about the issue and in turn looking positive within the overall context of the situation.

BP Forges Ahead with Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response

The following day, on April 25, 2010, BP issued a press release outlining their continued commitment to the oil spill response and everything that they were doing to ensure that the spill was contained (BP, 2010e; Appendix E). This was the first time that

BP asserted any type of ownership or indirect involvement in the incident. Although not a direct statement of guilt, BP did state that they were the lease operator of the

Mississippi Cannon Block 252 (also known as the MC252), which was also the well that was being drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig when it caught on fire and sank. This was the well that was seeping oil into the Gulf of Mexico, and BP was responsible for the well itself as the “lease operator.”

54

BP outlined what they were doing in an effort to contain the oil spill, which

included work at both the surface and underwater. Detailed explanations were given for the efforts that were being deployed to fix the problem including drilling a relief well to funnel the oil out of the well, while also cutting off the current pipeline by injecting a specialized fluid to stop the flow of oil from the well. Through these statements, BP was taking ownership of the well, but not the accident that led to the spill. They were utilizing Benoit’s (1995) corrective action strategy to show that they were working to

correct the problem, even if they themselves were not admitting responsibility for the

cause.

Furthermore, BP estimated that in the two days since they had launched a cleanup

effort they had collected “more than 1,000 barrels of an oil-water mix” through a skimming process (BP, 2010e, para. 5). Howard also stated in the release, “Given the current conditions and the massive size of our response, we are confident in our ability to tackle the spill offshore” (BP, 2010e, para. 7). First and foremost, this statement by

Howard and the mention of the amount of oil already contained both work to reduce offensiveness (Benoit, 1995). Both attempt to show the public that the spill isn’t that bad.

Considering how much of the oil was already captured and the confidence that Howard had that the spill would be contained offshore, both aimed at making the public feel as though the spill was under control and reducing the negativity associated with the situation.

Second, Howard’s statement also utilizes bolstering (Ware & Linkugel, 1973), which Benoit (1995) also identifies as a method of reducing offensiveness. Here,

55

Howard is attempting to get the public to see the company in a positive rather than a

negative way by highlighting everything that the company is doing to contain the spill--

even going into much more detail than had been included in any of the prior releases. BP

even included a quote from the CEO of the Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC),

which was brought in among other government agencies and area organizations to

coordinate the spill response, which commended BP on its efforts. Again, this is a tactic

aimed at bolstering (Ware & Linkugel) the public’s positive feelings toward the

company.

BP Pledges Full Support for Deepwater Horizon Probes

On April 28, 2010, the U.S. government announced that it had launched an investigation into the fire and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

BP issued a press release announcing its support and cooperation with the investigation the same day (BP, 2010f; Appendix F). In the opening sentence of the release, BP continues to work to distance itself from ownership of the drilling rig, while also stating its full cooperation with the investigation into the cause of the incident. In this release, like those issued prior to this date, BP continues to name Transocean as the owner of the

Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which is a function of differentiation (Ware & Linkugel,

1973). Benoit (1995) identifies this as a means of reducing the offensiveness of the act, and in this case BP was attempting to make Transocean the responsible party for the act in the public’s eye. Although BP acknowledged that they were the lease owner of the well, they simply had contracted this oil rig to drill the well and extract the oil. In doing

56 so, BP is in essence pointing the finger at Transocean as being the guilty party (or at least the most at fault) and separating themselves from Transocean’s bad acts.

The release also contains a quote from Tony Howard, which highlights the other tragedy of the event, the eleven dead crewmembers of the Deepwater Horizon. Once the oil spill was discovered, unfortunately, most of the public’s attention turned to the immediate threat of the spill and forgot about the eleven people who lost their lives.

Although it made the event more tragic, it was an attempt to put the entire event in a broader context than just an oil spill. Utilizing transcendence (Ware & Linkugel, 1973),

BP was trying to reduce the offensiveness in a way, by working to remind the public that this was a tragic accident that caused the loss of lives.

Lastly, Howard utilized corrective action (Benoit, 1995) in highlighting their participation in the investigations to find the cause of the incident and ensuring

“measures are taken to see that it never happens again” (BP, 2010f, para. 2). BP also highlights that in addition to their full cooperation with these agencies conducting investigations, they have also launched their “own investigation into the incident” through a team working out of Texas in an effort to learn more about how to prevent this type of thing from happening again (BP, para. 4). By reporting on its own investigation,

BP is employing bolstering (Ware & Linkugel, 1973) an attempting to get the public to view the company more positively in light of the situation. BP is working to make the public aware of all that they are doing to find the cause of the accident in an effort to institute preventative measures. All of this is being done to facilitate a more positive image in the public lens.

57

BP Steps Up Shoreline Protection Plans on U.S. Gulf Coast

On April 29, 2010, Louisiana’s governor Bobby Jindal declared a state of

emergency as the oil leaking from the MC252 well continued (Favole, Dreazen, &

Williamson, 2010) leading President Obama to halt all offshore drilling on April 30,

2010 (Casselman, Power, & Campoy, 2010). In response, BP sent out a press release

reaffirming their efforts to protect the coastal shoreline (BP, 2010g; Appendix G). BP

stated that it would be expanding its efforts to prevent the oil from reaching the shoreline

utilizing Benoit’s (1995) strategy of corrective action. Although the oil had not yet

reached the shore, BP announced a corrective action (Benoit) to appease the public and

have the company appear more positive in the light of the situation.

Tony Howard issued a statement as part of the release touting all that BP was

doing to ensure that the oil leaking from the well was contained to limit the

environmental impact and “fighting the spill on all fronts.” Howard goes on to say:

In the past few days I have seen the full extent of BP’s global resources and

capability being brought to bear on this problem, and welcome the offers of

further assistance we have had from government agencies, oil companies and

members of the public to defend the shoreline and fight the spill. We are

determined to succeed. (BP, 2010g, para. 6)

Here, Howard is utilizing transcendence (Benoit, 1995; Ware & Linkugel, 1973) in an

effort to put the situation in a larger context in which BP is part of the solution, working

together with the government agencies and private business to “fight the spill ” (BP,

2010g, para. 6).

58

At this point, BP also started to include the amount of money ($6 million per day)

it was spending on the “effort to contain the spill” (BP, 2010g, para. 16). This is an

example of Benoit’s (1995) compensation strategy, in which the rhetor attempts to reduce

negative feelings by monetarily compensating those impacted. Although this is not a

direct payment, it fits into this category because the money is going pay for the clean up

efforts, which were a direct result of the oil spill. BP would continue to give updates of

this nature in an effort to reduce the offensiveness of the situation (Benoit) and improve

the way the public views the company in relation to the oil spill.

Hayward Applauds President’s Statement

On May 2, 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported on BP CEO Tony Howard defending the company’s safety record and blaming the leak on the malfunctioning of equipment on the drill rig that should have prevented the spill (Wall Street Journal

Research, 2010). That same day, President Obama visited Gulf-area fishermen and Coast

Guard personnel to get a better sense of how the oil was moving toward the shore and how it was impacting the area wildlife and issued a statement to the public on what he had learned as part of that trip (WhiteHouse.gov, n.d.). In response, BP issued a statement of its own (BP, 2010h; Appendix H).

BP issued a statement from Tony Howard, which read:

The U.S. government leadership here has been excellent since day one. I agree

with the President that the top priority right now is to stop the leak and mitigate

the damage. I reiterated my commitment to the White House today that BP will

do anything and everything we can to stop the leak, attack the spill off shore, and

59

protect the shorelines of the Gulf Coast. We appreciate the tireless efforts of the

many federal, state and local responders and the volunteers, men and women who

have worked tirelessly since the date of the accident to mitigate the damage. Our

teams are working hand in hand and we look forward to hearing more

recommendations for action from the President’s visit today. (BP, 2010h, para. 1)

This statement employed two of Benoit’s (1995) strategies. The first, was bolstering (Ware & Linkugel, 1973), where BP was working to align itself with President

Obama in an effort to reduce offensiveness (Benoit) and reduce the public’s negative feelings toward them. Ware and Linkugel discuss this as a common use of the bolstering.

In an effort to increase positive feelings toward themselves, the rhetor will work to align themselves with someone that is seen as positive to the public that they are working to influence with their apologia. BP was working to make the public feel more positively toward them by making it seem as though they were on the same team as President

Obama, going as far as to use the word “team” and that they were working “hand and hand” (BP, 2010h, para. 1).

BP also utilizes corrective action (Benoit, 1995) here in making it their top priority to stop the leak and mitigate the damage, as well as its work to protect the shoreline. Again the company is working to ensure the public that it is working to make sure that the spill has as little impact on all aspects of the coast as possible. Given that, at this point in the incident, the oil has now come onshore and is impacting area businesses,

BP is working to let the public know everything they are doing to correct the issue.

60

Although they were not admitting guilt, they were working to mitigate the impact the incident was having on the area communities, as well as the environment.

Update on the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 5

On May 5, 2010, one day after BP started work on a secondary pipeline in an effort to remove the oil from the well and decrease flow from the spill, the company released an update on its efforts (BP, 2010i; Appendix I). While BP announced that it had stopped the flow from one of the three existing leak points on the well, more importantly, the company announced that it had given four grants, each to one of the four states most severely impacted by the spill. Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi were each given $25 million to administer as part of its Area Contingency plan and

“intended to enable local businesses to support clean-up and recovery efforts” (BP, 2010i, para. 3). Here BP utilizes compensation (Benoit, 1995) as a means of reducing offensiveness (Benoit).

In an effort to offset the negative feelings from the Gulf Coast residents directly,

BP was monetarily compensating for the incident. Although not going directly to residents, it was going to help offset the cost of cleanup for each of the coastal states. In publicizing this monetary compensation, BP was also attempting to offset the general public’s negative feelings toward the company as well. Although this was not a direct reimbursement, the money was going to pay some of the businesses and others that were helping BP in their corrective action (Benoit, 1995). In this case, BP was able to highlight their compensation (Benoit) and their corrective action (Benoit) at the same time.

61

Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 7

On May 7, 2010, BP began to lower a containment structure to cap the well

(Dade, 2010). BP issued a press release detailing the deployment of the containment dome and what efforts the company was using to contain the oil on the surface as well

(BP, 2010j; Appendix J). BP also discussed the work that started on the first relief well, which would talk three months to complete. This is another instance of corrective action

(Benoit, 1995). While BP is quick to discuss what it is doing to contain the spill, they also discuss that measures being taken, like the containment dome may not work stating it won’t be “possible to assess the effectiveness of the solution” (BP, 2010j, para. 4) until it is in place. BP also discusses the fact that the calmness of the water plays a part in how much oil they are being able to skim off the top of the sea.

In both of these instances BP is evading responsibility (Benoit, 1995) by pointing out things that are out of their control. Benoit states “the actor attempts to suggest lack of information, volition, or ability means that he or she should not be held fully responsible”

(p. 76). BP employs corrective action (Benoit) to make them look better to their audience, but also uses the evading responsibility strategy (Benoit) to prevent them from being blamed if any of the corrective action fails due to “lack of information” or environmental factors (such as weather).

Later in the release, BP emphasizes the number of barrels of oil-water mix they have recovered, the number of vessels being used to recover the oil, and the length of the boom deployed to help keep the oil from reaching the shore. All of these are part of BP’s corrective action strategy (Benoit, 1995). Although the company is still not admitting

62

that they have any fault in the oil spill, they continue to highlight all that they are doing in

response to the spill.

Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 10

On May 8, 2010, the containment dome that BP thought would cap the oil spill failed to work and forced the company to consider other options to stop the leak (Paletta

& Johnson, 2010). On May 9, 2010, the oil sheen reached Louisiana’s shoreline and tar balls began to wash up on Alabama shores as well (Baskin, 2010). In response, BP issued a press release on May 10, 2010, (BP, 2010k; Appendix K) that addressed these

issues using Benoit’s (1995) strategies of corrective action, evading responsibility, and

reducing offensiveness to mitigate the public’s negative feeling toward the company in an

effort to restore its image.

First, BP explains that the containment dome failed due to a “build up of hydrates

prevent[ing] a successful placement of the dome over the spill area” (BP, 2010k, para. 3).

They also explain that a smaller dome is being readied to place over the leak and is being

built to limit the formation of hydrates that prevented the first one from working, as well

as its attempt at a “top kill” option to stop the flow of oil from the well. All three of these

statements are part of BP’s corrective action strategy (Benoit, 1995). BP wants to ensure

the public that they continue to do “everything it can. . .to find a solution to stem the flow

of oil” (BP, 2010k, para. 7).

Second, BP utilizes a variation of compensation, a method of reducing

offensiveness (Benoit, 1995). BP continues to update the public on how much they are

spending on the response effort: “to date of the response amounts to about $350 million,

63

including the cost of spill response, containment, relief well drilling, commitments to the

Gulf Coast States, settlements and federal costs” (BP, 2010k, para. 12). Again, although

this money is not going directly to those impacted by the spill, the money is going to help

reduce the impact overall. Benoit explains that monetary compensation “functions as a

bribe” (p. 78). The goal of this strategy is to help “reduce the negative feelings arising

from the wrongful act” (p. 78).

Update on Gulf Spill Response – May 17

On May 16, 2010, BP was successful in its attempt to insert a tube into the broken pipe and siphon off some of the spewing oil (Chazan, 2010a). The next day, BP issued a press release (BP, 2010l; Appendix L) updating the public and the media on the response efforts. This was the first of BP’s efforts to succeed and the company buried the success in a press release about overall efforts rather than promoting it. In doing so, the company lumps the success onto the number of other things they are doing in response to the spill, all of which fall into the corrective action strategy (Benoit, 1995). These continued efforts included the development of other containment options (outside of the tube inserted the prior day), including the “top kill” operation, as well as the second relief well that company also began drilling on May 16, 2010.

In this release, BP also uses bolstering (Ware & Linkugel, 1973) which is part of

Benoit’s (1995) strategy of reducing offensiveness to restore ones image. In this instance, BP discusses its partnership with government agencies and industry experts in developing and implementing the response efforts in the Gulf. In doing so, BP is attempting to align themselves with other positive entities to, in turn, make the public

64 view them more positively. BP is making the distinction that they are not making these decisions themselves, they are working with the government and “experts” to develop and carry out these plans to stop the oil leak.

BP also briefly discusses compensation, which is one of Benoit’s (1995) methods used to reduce offensiveness. In this instance, BP states that 15,000 claims had been filed and that approximately 2,600 had “already been paid” (BP, 2010l, para. 11). With this strategy, BP is compensating those directly impacted with money. The money goes to directly reduce the offensiveness of the act to those directly impacted by the act, while making it known to the public helps to reduce the offensiveness of the act to those not directly effected. This is an effort to improve the company’s overall image (Benoit) during these early weeks of the oil spill.

BP Launches Live Webcam of Riser Flow

On May 19, 2010 Louisiana officials announced heavy oil was washing up on shore (Ball, Power, & Hughes, 2010), nearly one month after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig caught fire in the Gulf of Mexico, leading to public outcry that not enough was being done by BP (Ball et al.). On May 21, 2010, BP issued a press release (BP, 2010m;

Appendix M) announcing that the public could view the oil flow spewing out of the

MSC252 well online through its website at www.bp.com. In the process of providing this information in the public, the company also employed bolstering (Ware & Linkugel,

1973), minimization (Benoit, 1995) and transcendence (Ware & Linkugel).

While much of what BP reports in its release (BP, 2010m) is purely statistical information, the company strategically weaves in what Benoit (1995) identifies as

65

methods of reducing offensiveness. First, BP uses bolstering (Ware & Linkugel, 1973) in

discussing everything that they are doing to assist the government, the Coast Guard and

area experts in gathering information, including the fact that the company had been

providing access to the webcam footage to these entities for more than two weeks so that

accurate oil flow measurements could be taken. In doing so, BP is highlighting all of the

positive aspects possible in an effort to increase the public’s positive image of the

company.

BP also works to discuss the oil spill in a larger context, one that goes beyond

their fault, which Ware and Linkugel (1973) define as transcendence. In an effort to

offset the publicity of the oil spewing from the well, BP paints a picture of this larger

effort they are a part of, while brushing over (rather not mentioning) the fact that they

were a part of the cause. And lastly, while BP is showing the world the amount of oil

that was flowing out into the Gulf, they also work to minimize (Benoit, 1995) the impact

that will have on the company’s image. In this instance they work to convince the pubic

that the amount of oil spewing from the well is not as large as it likely appears on the

website. By stating that the accident causing the spill also caused the pipe to be

“distorted,” which limited the opening and thus the amount of oil coming out to by

“approximately 50 percent.” Each of these methods work to reduce the overall offensiveness of the act and go toward repairing the company’s image (Benoit).

Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response – May 26

On May 26, 2010, BP started the “top kill” operation, which involved “injecting the well with drilling fluids that are heavy enough to counteract the pressure of oil and

66 gas surging upward” (Gonzales & Chazan, 2010, para. 2). BP sent out a press release

(BP, 2010n; Appendix N) announcing the beginning of this new effort to stop the oil spilling into the Gulf. More than one month after the Deepwater Horizon spill efforts began and BP continues with its template releases (see Appendix G–L) in order to update the public and the media on any and all efforts. This release (BP, 2010n) is much the same and continues in the tradition of corrective action (Benoit, 1995) working to ensure the public of everything that the company is doing to stop the spilling oil.

In addition to the announcement of the “top kill” operation, BP also discusses the testing being done in the “failed BOP” (blow out preventer), as well as the “lower marine riser package” (LMRP) cap, and the drilling of relief wells, along with the possibility of putting a new BOP or valve on top of the failed BOP. Each of these is part of the overall corrective action strategy (Benoit, 1995, p. 79) aimed at restoring the image of the company.

BP Sets Out Enhancements to LMRP Containment

Strategy to Keep Oil Out of Gulf

On May 30, 2010, BP stopped the “top kill” operation and to move forward with the lower marine riser package (LMRP; Wall Street Journal Research, 2010). On

May 31, 2010, BP issued a press release (BP, 2010o; Appendix O) detailing the new strategy along with as statement from CEO Tony Howard in response to the “top kill” operation being abandoned for this new strategy. This strategy also utilizes corrective action (Benoit, 1995) in discussing what BP was doing to stop the oil spilling into the

Gulf, which included the LMRP containment cap, as well as “providing a more

67 permanent system by directing oil and gas to a new free-standing riser” (BP, 2010o, para. 4). These corrective actions (Benoit) are an effort by BP to reduce the negative feelings that the public had developed for the company since the oil spill began more than a month earlier (Ball et al., 2010).

The statement by Howard (BP, 2010o) utilized both transcendence and bolstering

(Ware & Linkugel, 1973), which Benoit (1995) classifies as a strategy to reduce offensiveness of the act. Howard states, “BP’s priority is to keep as much oil as we can from causing additional harm to the Gulf, the shoreline and the people in the region” (BP,

2010o, para. 5 ). Here, Howard has not admitted to any wrongdoing in the situation, but has admitted to the oil spill causing harm to the area. In stating that it’s the company’s first priority to protect the both the people and the shoreline impacted by the spill,

Howard is attempting to bolster (Ware & Linkugel) the company’s image and mitigate the public’s growing negativity.

The second part of Howard’s statement states, “Our teams have been working closely with the Federal government for operation, and I have discussed this plan personally with Admiral Allen. I hope we will see progress with these containment procedures in the coming days” (BP, 2010o, para. 5). This is in essence bolstering (Ware

& Linkugel, 1973) as well, aligning himself with the Federal government to improve positive feelings toward the company by portraying BP and the Federal government as being on the same side, going after the same goals, and protecting the people in the Gulf region. Howard also works to put the oil spill into a larger context beyond just the spill, but an entire containment effort that was underway at the time. This is what Ware and

68

Linkugel describe as transcendence and part of Benoit’s (1995) strategy of reducing offensiveness.

The press release goes on to state “The strategy and specific containment plans have been extensively reviewed by BP’s scientific and engineering team together with the team of government scientists. . .including leading researchers from the Department of

Energy’s National labs” (BP, 2010o, para. 6). This is also a tactic by BP to bolster (Ware

& Linkugel, 1973) what the company is doing, letting the public know that they are consulting experts from within their company and from outside agencies in an effort to create a positive association between experts and the company, thus increasing the public’s positive feelings toward BP (Benoit, 1995).

Chairman and CEO Give Assurance that BP will Meet its

Obligations in Gulf of Mexico

On June 3, 2010, BP made the second cut in the pipe needed to install the underwater cap to stop the spill (Daker & Wisnefski, 2010). The same day, BP’s credit rating was downgraded and the U.S. government billed the company $69 million (Daker

& Wisnefski). In response, BP issued a press release on June 4, 2010 (BP, 2010p;

Appendix P) assuring the public, and more importantly, Gulf residents that they would meet all of their obligations in relation to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. At this point the spill had entered it’s seventh week of spewing oil into the Gulf with no successful containment option in sight (Daker & Wisnefski).

The first part of the release stated that Chairman Svanberg and CEO Howard

“told shareholders today that the company’s response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is

69 their top priority, along with rebuilding trust and confidence in BP and ensuring that such an accident never happens again” (BP, 2010p, para. 1). Those at the top of the company understand that their credibility has been damaged as a result of the situation and that measures must be taken to restore its image (Benoit, 1995). In this instance BP, is pledging that the corrective action (Benoit) that they are taking will go toward preventing it from happening again in an effort to restore its public image.

Svanberg goes on to reassure the public of the company’s commitment to alleviate the damage done from the oil spill and states, “all resources available to the company should be applied to meeting BP’s responsibilities in addressing these events”

(BP, 2010p, para. 2). In this case BP utilizes compensation (Benoit, 1995) in an effort to improve its image and offset the public’s negative feelings toward the company.

Although compensation can be seen as, and is described as a bribe by Benoit, this case is arguably in fact retribution for crimes committed. Also, because the money goes to reimburse both direct victims and the government, it cannot be construed as a bribe, but rather a monetary way for the accused to alleviate guilt.

Svanberg goes on to state, “In conjunction with the U.S. authorities, a massive response has been mobilised which is focused on immediately containing and stopping the flow of oil” (BP, 2010p, para. 3). This statement focuses both on corrective action

(Benoit, 1995) which goes toward letting the public know everything that the company is doing to stop the flow of oil spewing from the well in an effort to make them look better to the public audience, as well as transcendence (Ware & Linkugel, 1973) which went to put the oil spill into a larger context to be viewed by the public as something more than

70 the spill itself. By putting itself in the middle of, or the party that orchestrated the,

“massive response” BP is attempting to get the public to view the incident from a more positive perspective.

Svanberg goes on to state, “We will also meet our obligations both as a responsible company and also the necessary steps to rebuilding the trust in BP as a long term member of the business communities in the U.S. and around the world” BP, 2010p, para. 7). Again, the company does not admit guilt in the situation, but sill pledges to meet its obligations (generally considered a legal term), which is in fact compensation

(Benoit, 1995) for the negative impacts that resulted from the spill. This is also can be seen as corrective action (Benoit). It can also be interpreted as bolstering (Ware &

Linkugel, 1973) in referring to themselves as “a responsible company” in an effort to be seen more positively by the public.

BP went on to discuss the fact that it had already spent “over $1 billion in gross direct costs, clean up and relief wells” (BP, 2010p, para. 6). This again is a monetary compensation for the negative impacts of the act, which is a method that Benoit (1995) defines as a strategy of evading responsibility to restore its image. BP also goes on to predict that there would be much more costs associated with the clean up efforts and BP would live up to its “obligations” to ensure those debts were met. This is a continuation of the compensation method discussed by Benoit, as a strategy toward reducing offensiveness in restoring the company’s image.

BP’s CEO Howard added to the overall sentiment in stating “It should not have happened and we are bound and determined to learn every lesson to try and ensure it

71

never happens again. . .we will halt this spill and put right the damage that has been

done” (BP, 2010p, para. 8). Again, the company employs corrective action (Benoit,

1995) in an effort to improve its image in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil

spill. Howard goes on to say, “I remain personally committed to making this right” (BP,

2010p, para. 12). Although the company does not admit to any wrongdoing or fault,

Howard does come forward to take on some personal responsibility and what Ware and

Linkugel (1973) defines as differentiation. In this instance, Howard is attempting to take

responsibility in an effort to take responsibility away from the company. This is part of

Benoit’s strategy to reduce offensiveness.

Update on Gulf of Mexico Spill – June 7

On June 6, 2010, BP announced that it had collected 10,500 barrels of oil from the containment cap placed on June 3, while The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S.

Geological Survey estimated that the well was leaking between 12,000 and 19,000 barrels of oil a day (Levitz, Long, & Gonzalez, 2010). On June 7, 2010, BP issued another one of its standard press release updates on the release efforts (BP, 2010q; Appendix Q). In addition to the amount of oil collected through the cap placement, BP discussed the additional enhancements to the cap that was placed on June 3, as well as the fact that all information on the volume of oil captured and gas flared each day was available online at www.bp.com. These are all corrective action methods, which as discussed above, is part of BP’s effort to reduce negative feelings toward the company (Benoit, 1995).

BP also goes on to discuss its continued efforts to collect oil on the surface of the water, which included an effort of more than 2,600 vessels that recovered a total of

72

380,000 barrels of “oily liquid” (BP, 2010q, para. 11). BP also discusses the number of claims that have been paid (more than 18,000) in the amount of $48 million (BP, 2010q).

Both are instances of corrective action (Benoit, 1995). In an effort to restore its image,

BP again uses corrective action (Benoit) and tries to make them look better in the public’s eye because of the work they are doing on the spill that they in fact caused.

BP also discusses the amount of money that it has spent on the response efforts, which includes the cost of “spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to the

Gulf states, claims paid and federal costs” (BP, 2010q, para. 14). At this point in the response effort, BP estimates its costs to be $1,250 million (BP, 2010q). This is part of

Benoit’s (1995) image restoration strategy to reduce offensiveness through compensation.

In announcing how much they have spent in compensation (Benoit) in response to the spill efforts as well as the impacted parties, BP is attempting to invoke positive feelings from the public (Benoit) in relation to the corporation and their response to the act.

BP Emphasizes that Disagreement with Other Parties Will

Not Diminish its Promise to Clean Up the Spill and Pay

Legitimate Claims

On June 17, 2010, BP CEO Tony Howard testified before the United States

Congress regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil rig fire and subsequent spill (Phillips &

Power, 2010). On June 18, 2010, BP issued a press release (BP, 2010s; Appendix R) restating its pledge to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf and pay “legitimate” claims resulting from the spill as well. BP also assured the public that “even though another party already is disputing its responsibility for costs associated with the Deepwater

73

Horizon incident and the resulting spill” it will not impact BP’s response (BP, 2010s,

para. 1). In this instance, BP uses differentiation (Ware & Linkugel, 1973) as a method

of reducing offensiveness (Benoit, 1995) to restore its image in the public. Here, BP

attempts to make the company look better by making the actions of other involved parties

look worse. BP hopes that this will make the act look “less offensive” in relation to the

non-action taken by others (Benoit).

The Wall Street Journal reported that a BP minority partner, Anadarko Petroleum

Corporation, came out against the company accusing them of “gross negligence or willful misconduct” in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Casselman, 2010). BP came out against the accusations made by Deepwater well ownership the same day stating that they

strongly disagree with these allegations and will not allow the allegations to

diminish its commitment to the Gulf Coast region. . .other parties besides BP may

be responsible. . .and we expect those parties to live up to their obligations. (BP,

2010s, para. 3)

Here BP is attempting to damage the credibility of the accusers, in this case Anadarko, to

offset the allegations that they brought against BP. Benoit (1995) describes this as one of

the methods utilized as part of the strategy to reduce offensiveness. Benoit states “if the

credibility of the source of the accusations can be reduced, the damage to one’s image

from those accusers can be diminished” (p. 78).

Up until this point BP could not engage in this type of image restoration (Benoit,

1995) because its accusers hade been the federal government, industry experts, and the

general public. In this instance, Anadarko provided BP with another entity it could throw

74 under the bus as it were, to not only share some of the blame but also aid BP in making them look better in the eyes of the public.

BP Reiterates Media Access Policy

On June 30, 2010, BP announced that it had created the Gulf Coast Restoration

Organization and that it had appointed Robert Dudley as the president and chief executive of the organization, making him the new public face of BP’s Gulf response efforts (Herron, 2010). On July 1, 2010, BP issued a press release (BP, 2010t;

Appendix S) reiterating that media has complete access to anyone involved in BP’s response efforts. BP also published a statement that it had released to all personnel, which stated:

‘I want to thank everyone for their tremendous commitment to lead and support

the response and cleanup efforts,’ said Doug Suttles, COO of BP. ‘I really cannot

say this enough: BP wants all individuals to feel free to share their thoughts and

experiences with journalists, if they so choose. BP has not and will not prevent

anyone from sharing his or her own experiences, opinions, or views.’ (BP, 2010t,

para. 3)

In this statement, BP employs what Benoit discusses as corrective action in response to these media accusations, making sure that public knows exactly what it expects from its personnel.

Here BP publicly denies any wrongdoing in this particular matter, which is the first form of apologia outlined by Ware and Linkugel (1973). Benoit (1995) also outlines denial as the first line of defense for someone accused of wrongdoing in an effort to

75 restore his or her image. Benoit states that when accused of an action or incident “one strategy for dealing with attacks, then, is to simply deny the undesirable act” (p. 75).

Here, BP is able to reinforce it’s denial by also providing the public with access to the materials that were provided to their personnel outlining their media guidelines (BP,

2010t).

Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill – July 5

On July 5, 2010, officials in Texas announced that tar balls from the Deepwater

Horizon oil spill had washed up on their state beaches (Zimmerman, 2010). On that same day, BP sent out a press release (BP, 2010s; Appendix T) outlining the developments in the company’s response to the oil spill. First, BP outlined the success it had with the

LMRP containment cap that was installed on June 3, 2010, which in its first month of deployment had collected approximately 17,022 barrels of oil. In addition the second system had collected an additional 8,176 barrels of oil, totaling approximately

25,198 barrels (BP, 2010s). Finally, BP had collected a total of 585,400 barrels since the response effort began (BP, 2010s).

BP goes on to discuss the additional measures that it is taking to improve the containment operation, which included a floating riser that would make it easier to collect oil in rough weather (BP, 2010s). Additional efforts included the continued drilling of relief wells along with the surface water oil disbursement and skimming operations, as well as the yards of boom being deployed to help keep the oil off shore (BP, 2010s).

All of the above mentioned tactics are part of BP’s continued corrective action

(Benoit, 1995) strategy to improve its image. Benoit points out that this strategy is used

76 most often when the rhetor has come to regret an action and in an effort to improve the public image vowing to remedy the problem.

BP also continued its use of compensation (Benoit, 1995) to reduce offensiveness of the act. In this release (BP, 2010s), BP announced that it had paid nearly $147 million in claims submitted and $3.2 billion in response efforts. In continuing to update the public on the massive amounts of money it was spending on both the response effort and in resident claims, BP works to improve its image through the monetary reparation and helps reduce the perceived severity of the injury or act (Benoit).

Capping Stack Installed on MC252 Well

On July 10, 2010 through July 12, 2010, BP deployed robots to remove the containment cap in order to install a new sealing cap (Daker & Sweet, 2010). BP announced that the completed capping stack had been installed on the “Deep Water

Horizon LMRP” and the sealing cap was complete (BP, 2010t; Appendix U). Again BP utilizes corrective action (Benoit, 1995) to inform the public of what they were doing to contain the oil from spilling out of the well. BP also announced that it would begin testing the new containment cap the following day on July 13, 2010 and continue for a couple of days in order to determine how successful it was in stopping the leak (BP,

2010t). This is also part of BP’s corrective action (Benoit).

As a method of reducing offensiveness, Benoit (1995) points out that as an audience, we all understand that people make mistakes and we can be forgiving in certain circumstances. When we see that the person or company is working to correct that mistake it helps us to feel better about the situation as well as the person and in some

77 cases the company (Benoit). BP must continually assure the public that they are doing everything possible to correct the problem because the public held the company responsible for the oil leak that was impacting those far beyond the Gulf region at this point (Phillips & Power, 2010).

Update on Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill – July 19

From July 15, 2010 through July 18, 2010, BP closes the valves on the new cap and runs tests on its ability to contain the oil leak as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

BP issued a press release on July 19, 2010, (BP, 2010u; Appendix V) detailing the testing and results of the containment cap. In discussing its testing, BP first makes sure to let the public know that they are working cooperatively with the federal government including

“the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of

Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu” (BP, 2010u, para. 2). Ware and Linkugel

(1973) describe this as bolstering. BP attempts to align themselves with government officials and experts in an effort to increase the company’s credibility and overall positive image with the public audience (Ware & Linkugel). Benoit (1995) identifies this a method of reducing offensiveness.

Again, BP also utilizes corrective action (Benoit, 1995) in detailing what the company was doing to make amends for the act. BP states that the cap is estimated to capture approximately 20,000 to 25,000 barrels of oil per day, and goes on to state “plans continue for additional containment capacity and flexibility that are expected to ultimately increase recoverable oil volumes to 60,000 to 80,000” barrels of oil per day

78

(BP, 2010, para. 6). BP also provided information on the amount of oil that had been collected to date at approximately 826,800 barrels of oil (BP, 2010s). BP also outlined the fact that the relief wells that were started in May would likely not be done until sometime in August, as well as the fact that oil disbursement and collection efforts on the water’s surface continued to yield positive results (BP, 2010u).

BP also detailed its current compensation numbers to reduce offensiveness in an effort to more positively impact its image (Benoit, 1995). In the release (BP, 2010u), BP announced that it had paid nearly $207 million in claims submitted and $3.95 billion in response efforts. BP also included information about the package of measures,

“including the creation of a $20 billion fund to satisfy certain obligations arising from the oil and gas spill” (BP, 2010u, para. 17), another attempt to showcase its monetary compensation (Benoit) to offset the public’s negative feelings.

BP CEO Tony Howard to Step Down and be Succeeded by

Robert Dudley

On July 27, 2010, BP announced that CEO Tony Howard would be stepping down and succeeded by Robert Duffy (BP, 2010v; Appendix W). The Wall Street

Journal reported that BP was

Seeking to put the Deepwater Horizon disaster behind it, BP PLC announced a

$32 billion pre-tax charge to pay for the massive Gulf oil spill, detailed plans to

sell $30 billion in assets, replaced its gaffe-prone chief executive and promised to

become a ‘different company’ more focused on safety. (Chazan, 2010b, para. 1)

79

BP took an opportunity to reform the company’s image in the eyes of the public, although the long term impact of those efforts remain to be seen.

BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg stated, “The tragedy of the Macondo well explosion and subsequent environmental damage has been a watershed incident” (BP,

2010v, para. 3). In this instance, BP employs transcendence (Ware & Linkugel, 1973), which attempts to put the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in a larger context. In this case, it’s not only a tragedy, but also a dividing or breaking point for the company, which is significant at this point in overall incident because BP is also breaking ties with the old leadership.

Dudley states that although he will now be based out of London he reassures the people that he was working with in the Gulf that this “change of roles” would not impact his “commitment to remediation and restitution” (BP, 2010v, para. 8). Here, Dudley utilizes corrective action (Benoit, 1995) as well as compensation (Benoit) each independent image restoration strategies. While Dudley focuses his statement on those most impacted, the Gulf coast residents, he’s also stating it to the greater public at large in an effort to create a more positive image in light of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

And finally, Howard takes the brunt of the fault for the oil spill in his statement which said, “The Gulf of Mexico explosion was a terrible tragedy for which – as the man in charge of BP when it happens – I will always feel a deep responsibility, regardless of where blame is ultimately found to lie” (BP, 2010v, para. 10). Here Howard utilizes differentiation (Ware & Linkugel, 1973) in an effort to separate the responsibility from the corporation to himself so that he can take that responsibility with him when he leaves

80 the company. Benoit (1995) classifies this as method within the image restoration strategy that aims at reducing offensiveness.

Through the analysis of the press releases BP released throughout the many months of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, it is clear that the company utilized each of the postures Ware and Linkugel (1973) identify within the apologia genre. Although, the company tends to use bolstering more than any of the others and uses denial only once, transcendence and differentiation are used as well and not always in conjunction with either bolstering and denial as outlined by Ware and Linkugel. As Benoit (1995) pointed out in his research, Ware and Linkugel’s postures do not go far enough in accounting for how individuals or organizations will respond when accused of wrongdoing. In addition to the postures of apologia (Ware & Linkugel), BP also utilizes other strategies Benoit identifies as part of image restoration.

A further discussion of this analysis will be conducted in the next chapter of this thesis as well as conclusions drawn and implications for future research.

81

CHAPTER 4

APOLOGIA FOR THE NEXT CENTURY

As discussed in the literature review, there has been much research in the genre of apologia as it relates to a single actor. In contrast, there has been much less research has been done on how it relates to use by organizations, which was in part the reason for this case study. The analysis of apologia employed by BP during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill found a number of interesting conclusions. First, BP used denial, one of the four main “modes” of apologia (Ware & Linkugel, 1973), only once (BP, 2010s) in all of the artifacts analyzed and never in terms of denying involvement with the incident itself, but

in denying its media policy. With this finding, it’s important to discuss the fact that there

may be instances, for both individuals and organizations, when denial is simply not an

option. Second, given that denial (Ware & Linkugel) was not used, two of the main

postures outlined by the authors, absolutive and vindicative, were never used and thus

these postures may need to be modified in order to provide the most appropriate tools for

organizations to employ apologia. Third, while BP employed apologia throughout its

response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, it often employed many of Benoit’s (1995)

methods of image restoration confirming Benoit’s assertions that other methods are

sometimes needed to restore a company’s image.

After discussing the findings of this research, this chapter will also discuss the

limitations of this study. Although this research did have some key findings in the

organizational use of apologia (Ware & Linkugel, 1973) in this case study, additional

research will need to be conducted looking at artifacts produced by other organizations in

82

crisis. In addition, because this research focuses only on certain press releases within a

specific timeframe a broader study may have yielded different results. Further, a more

comprehensive study of additional and/or different artifacts, such as speeches, interviews

or press conferences, may also have provided different findings as well. Following the

discussion of this study’s limitations, this chapter will also discuss where the future of

this research is headed.

Apologia Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry

Ware and Linkugel (1973) defined the genre of apologia as rhetoric of

self-defense, and identified four modes of apologia, which includes denial, bolstering,

differentiation and transcendence. Ware and Linkugel define denial as the “first factor,”

and one that is “obviously useful” (p. 275). Benoit (1995) also points out that denial is

one of the first options the rhetor has when accused of wrong doing in the process of

restoring ones image. Ware and Linkugel discuss that one does not have to deny one’s

participation per say, but could deny certain facts, or one’s intent to do any harm. It is

important, as Benoit points out, to understand that when denial is used it can create more

issues for the audience as it tries to reconcile their own beliefs; who could have done it if

it was not the rhetor?

In this case, BP chose not to use denial as a means of self-defense in response to accusations that the company was responsible for the oil spill that impacted the industry and environment in the Gulf region. While there may be many possible reasons for this mode of apologia not being used, including that in the wake of the media coverage they could not deny their responsibility in a way that would be believable to the audience.

83

However, the fact that BP failed to deny its responsibility in the incident gives way to the possibility that denial may not have the same functionality for an organization as it does for an individual. And although it is not discussed by either of the authors (Benoit, 1995;

Ware & Linkugel, 1973), if the rhetor uses denial, there is the possibility of being proven a liar if new evidence comes to light.

This being the largest oil spill in the worlds history and the huge amount of media coverage also had an impact on what methods of apologia were available to the organization as well. Considering that it was their oil well and they were de facto owners of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, they had little ability to deny responsibility in the events that led to the rig fire and subsequent leak. Any attempt to utilize denial would have likely caused further damage to the company’s already tarnished credibility.

In making the decision not to use denial, BP also failed to employ two of the four postures of apologia identified by Ware and Linkugel (1973). Thus, for organizational use, apologia should be modified to include a fifth posture that does not include bolstering or denial. There are times when an organizations need to employ a form of apologia that is more reconstructive which includes only the modes of differentiation and transcendence and the new postures for organizational use would be the following:

• Explanative: Bolstering and Differentiation

• Justificative: Bolstering and Transcendence

• Reconstructive: Differentiation and Transcendence

On a number of accounts, BP utilized differentiation and transcendence separately with other methods such as corrective action and reducing offensiveness (Benoit, 1995).

84

On two occasions, BP utilized both differentiation and transcendence together creating a

new posture that works to provide information and change the overall context of a

situation not identified by Ware and Linkugel (1973). The reconstructive posture

includes only transcendence and differentiation and thus provides a newly developed way

to employ apologia. This posture utilizes the two modes that attempt change the context

of the situation in some way (Ware & Linkugel).

There are a number of instances when BP utilizes just transcendence (Ware &

Linkugel, 1973) or just differentiation (Ware & Linkugel) along with strategies of image restoration (Benoit, 1995) such as corrective action (Benoit, p. 79). BP also utilizes the newly identified reconstructive posture in which transcendence and differentiation are employed together (BP, 2010f; BP, 2010v). In the final press release analyzed as part of

this case study, BP used statements from the former CEO (Tony Howard) and the newly

named CEO (Robert Dudley) as part of a transitional moment within the company. In

this instance Howard takes accountability for the situation in his statement, which said,

“The Gulf of Mexico explosion was a terrible tragedy for which – as the man in charge of

BP when it happens – I will always feel a deep responsibility, regardless of where blame is ultimately found to lie” (BP, 2010v, para. 10). Here differentiation (Ware & Linkugel) is used in an effort to separate the responsibility from the corporation to himself so that he can take the responsibility with him when he leaves the company.

In the same press release (BP, 2010v), BP’s Chairman stated, “The tragedy of the

Macondo well explosion and subsequent environmental damage has been a watershed

incident” (para. 3). In this instance, BP employs transcendence (Ware & Linkugel,

85

1973), which attempts to put the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in a larger context. In this

case, it’s not only a tragedy, but also a dividing or breaking point for the company, which

is significant at this point in overall incident because BP is also breaking ties with the old

leadership. In this press release, BP is working to change the overall context – out with the old and in with the new. The company is not attempting to deny anything, nor is it attempting to bolster itself (Ware & Linkugel). This posture is aimed at simply providing

information in a way that is most beneficial to the rhetor.

As Benoit (1995) points out in his book Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies, Ware

and Linkugel’s (1973) apologia does not go far enough in providing the rhetor with

options in not only defending oneself, but also in restoring one’s image. The findings of this case study supports the assertion by Benoit and shows that there are times when apologia does not go far enough in defending an organization. There were many times when BP put out press releases that didn’t use apologia at all; instead BP used other methods defined by Benoit such as image restoration strategies such as corrective action and compensation.

This case study found that there were times when BP needed to put out information to keep the public updated on what was going on in relation to the oil spill and those instances were not ones in which apologia would have been appropriate. In these cases, BP utilized other methods, which Benoit (1995) identified as strategies of image restoration and included evading responsibility and corrective action. As an organization, BP needed to respond to the public but apologia was not useful in every case. Although Ware and Linkugel (1973) identified four modes and four common

86

postures, this case study has shown that they are not always viable options for the rhetor.

Even in cases where the rhetor is accused of wrongdoing, self-defense is not always the

best way to communicate, and there are other options, especially for an organization.

This case study has provided a new view of the use of apologia and how it is

employed, specifically in its use by organizations and corporations. As Benoit (1995)

points out, apologia is not the best or most appropriate way to communicate with an

audience. This case study also confirms what Benoit shows that a corporation at times

needs to communicate with its audience in a way that is not apologia, even in an instance

where the corporation is being blamed or accused of some sort of wrongdoing.

Limitations of this Research

First and foremost, this case study is limited by the fact that it’s a case study. In

analyzing only press releases, there may be other discourse that could have been looked

at, but was not due to the type of artifact it was. Ware and Linkugel (1973) focused only

on speeches, which this case study did not include. If a larger amount of artifacts had

been analyzed, including other methods of discourse such as speeches or interviews,

different results may have been found. Ultimately, the type of artifacts that were used for

this research limited this case study.

It’s also important to note that the artifacts used were chosen to cover a specific period of time within the breadth of the overall incident. The artifacts were chosen based on prearranged criteria, but did not include every press release sent out by the company nor did it include every press release sent out related to the incident itself. Given that there was some criteria used in determining which artifacts would be used, that criteria

87

became a limitation of this research as well. The actual type of artifact chosen, in this

case press releases, also created a limitation in that only certain messages are conveyed

through press releases as they are aimed at a particular audience – the media. Press

releases are often vetted and approved by a number of individuals within an organization,

which creates a limitation as well.

Another important limitation of this research is that it focused only on one

company involved in the incident. Press releases and discourse made public by other

organizations that were involved in the incident were not analyzed as part of this research

and thus limited it in its scope.

Future Research

There are many opportunities for future research in this genre of rhetoric, especially as it relates to organizational use. One area where future research could be done is in comparing BP’s response to the oil rig spill and Exxon’s response to the

Valdez oil spill in 1989. Were there lessons learned from the Exxon spill? Was the response similar? Comparing BP’s response to other company responses to environmental disasters would also be an area of research that could bring further insight to the study of the genre.

Also, because much of the research done in this area has been critical in nature, most has been limited to finding how speakers use apologia and not on determining what, if any, other strategies might be used it is important to determine when apologia may not be the best discourse, but possible a complimentary strategy to something else. As this case study showed, there may be a need for a new posture of apologia, the reconstructive

88

posture, which relies on transcendence and differentiation. This new posture will need to

be included in future research to determine if this new posture has been utilized in other apologia use or if this finding is an anomaly.

Noting Downey’s (1993) research on the use of apologia, looking at the genre over time has shown that while apologia messages have been used since Aristotle, they have been manipulated in different ways based on the time period the accused was in and what the rhetor’s ultimate defense strategy was. Since it’s original inception, the apologia messages used in present day should be reviewed in order to determine the most effective apologia posture to employ based on the scenario. Further research in this area still needs to be done.

89

APPENDIX A

BP CONFIRMS THAT TRANSOCEAN LTD ISSUED THE

FOLLOWING STATEMENT TODAY

Release date: 21 April 2010

BP confirms that Transocean Ltd issued the following statement today:

“Transocean Ltd. Reports Fire on Semisubmersible Drilling Rig Deepwater Horizon”

“Transocean Ltd. (NYSE: RIG; SIX: RIGN) today reported a fire onboard its semisubmersible drilling rig Deepwater Horizon. The incident occurred April 20, 2010 at approximately 10:00 p.m. central time in the United States Gulf of Mexico. The rig was located approximately 41 miles offshore Louisiana on Mississippi Canyon block 252.”

“Transocean’s Emergency and Family Response Teams are working with the U.S. Coast Guard and lease operator BP Exploration & Production, Inc. to care for all rig personnel and search for missing rig personnel. A substantial majority of the 126 member crew is safe but some crew members remain unaccounted for at this time. Injured personnel are receiving medical treatment as necessary. The names and hometowns of injured persons are being withheld until family members can be notified.”

“For more information about Transocean, please visit our website at www.deepwater.com. Among the documents posted on our web site is the Transocean Ltd. Proxy Statement and 2009 Annual Report.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010a, April 21). BP confirms that Transocean Ltd issued the following statement today. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061443

90

APPENDIX B

BP OFFERS FULL SUPPORT TO TRANSOCEAN AFTER

DRILLING RIG FIRE

Release date: 21 April 2010

BP today offered its full support to drilling contractor Transocean Ltd. and its employees after fire caused Transocean’s semisubmersible drilling rig Deepwater Horizon to be evacuated overnight, saying it stood ready to assist in any way in responding to the incident.

Group Chief Executive Tony Hayward said: “Our concern and thoughts are with the rig personnel and their families. We are also very focused on providing every possible assistance in the effort to deal with the consequences of the incident.”

BP, which operates the license on which Transocean’s rig was drilling an exploration well, said it was working closely with Transocean and the U.S. Coast Guard, which is leading the emergency response, and had been offering its help--including logistical support.

Transocean reported the fire earlier today on the rig, located approximately 41 miles offshore Louisiana on Mississippi Canyon block 252, saying that a “substantial majority” of the 126 personnel on board were safe, but some crew members remained unaccounted for. A number of personnel were reported to be injured.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010b, April 21). BP offers full support to Transocean after drilling rig fire. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061458

91

APPENDIX C

BP INITIATES RESPONSE TO GULF OF MEXICO OIL

SPILL

Release date: 22 April 2010

BP today activated an extensive oil spill response in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico following the fire and subsequent sinking of the Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig 130 miles south-east of New Orleans.

BP is assisting Transocean in an assessment of the well and subsea blow out preventer with remotely operated vehicles.

BP has also initiated a plan for the drilling of a relief well, if required. A nearby drilling rig will be used to drill the well. The rig is available to begin activity immediately.

BP has mobilized a flotilla of vessels and resources that includes: • significant mechanical recovery capacity; • 32 spill response vessels including a large storage barge; • skimming capacity of more than 171,000 barrels per day, with more available if needed; • offshore storage capacity of 122,000 barrels and additional 175,000 barrels available and on standby; • supplies of more than 100,000 gallons of dispersants and four aircraft ready to spray dispersant to the spill, and the pre-approval of the U.S. Coast Guard to use them; • 500,000 feet of boom increasing to 1,000,000 feet of boom by day’s end; • pre-planned forecasting of 48-hour spill trajectory which indicates spilled oil will remain well offshore during that period; • pre-planned staging of resources for protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

“We are determined to do everything in our power to contain this oil spill and resolve the situation as rapidly, safely and effectively as possible,” said Group Chief Executive Tony Hayward. “We have assembled and are now deploying world-class facilities, resources and expertise, and can call on more if needed. There should be no doubt of our resolve to limit the escape of oil and protect the marine and coastal environments from its effects.”

As part of its planning and approval requirement prior to offshore activity, the area was evaluated for use of dispersants and the plans approved by the U.S. Coast Guard which has now given the go-ahead for their use.

92

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010c, April 22). BP initiates response to Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061490

93

APPENDIX D

BP OFFERS SYMPATHY TO THE FAMILIES OF THOSE

LOST IN THE U.S. OIL RIG FIRE

Release date: 24 April 2010

BP today offered its deepest sympathy and condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of those who have been lost following the fire on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico this week.

Group Chief Executive Tony Hayward said: “We owe a lot to everyone who works on offshore facilities around the world and no words can express the sorrow and pain when such a tragic incident happens.

“On behalf of all of us at BP, my deepest sympathies go out to the families and friends who have suffered such a terrible loss. Our thoughts also go out to their colleagues, especially those who are recovering from their injuries,” he said.

He added: “BP will be working closely with Transocean and the authorities to find out exactly what happened so lessons can be learnt to prevent something like this from happening anywhere again.”

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010d, April 24). BP offers sympathy to the families of those lost in the U.S. oil rig fire. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061514

94

APPENDIX E

BP FORGES AHEAD WITH GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL

RESPONSE

Release date: 25 April 2010

BP, as lease operator of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (MC252), continues to forge ahead with a comprehensive oil well intervention and spill response plan following the April 22 sinking of the Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig 130 miles south-east of New Orleans.

“We are attacking this spill on two fronts – at the wellhead and on the surface offshore,” said BP Group Chief Executive Tony Hayward, who has travelled to Texas and Louisiana this week to meet with response personnel. “The team on the ground and those at sea have the Group’s full resources behind them.”

BP continues to assist Transocean’s work below the surface on the subsea equipment, using remotely operated vehicles to monitor the Macondo/MC252 exploration well, and is planning and mobilizing to activate the blow-out preventer.

BP is preparing to drill relief wells to permanently secure the well. The drilling rig Development Driller III is moving into position to drill a second well to intercept the Macondo well and inject a specialized heavy fluid to securely prevent flow of oil or gas and allow work to be carried out to permanently seal the well.

As of Saturday, April 24, the oil spill response team had recovered more than 1,000 barrels of an oil-water mix of which the vast majority is water. The material has been collected by skimming vessels and vessels towing containment boom. Dispersants have also been applied to the spill. Equipment available for the effort includes: 100,000 gallons of dispersant are ready to be deployed, which is a third of the world’s dispersant commodity; BP is in contact with manufacturers to procure additional supply as necessary.

32 spill response vessels (skimmers, tugs, barges, recovery vessels). 5 aircraft (helicopters and fixed wing including a large payload capacity C-130 (Hercules) for dispersant deployment).

In Houma, La. where the field operations response is being coordinated, almost 500 personnel on- and offshore have already been deployed to coordinate the oil spill response. BP’s team of operational and technical experts are working in coordination with several agencies, organizations and companies including United States Coast Guard, Minerals Management Service, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality,

95

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries, and Marine Spill Response Corporation. More teams have been mobilized in Houston and New Orleans to support the effort.

According to Steve Benz, President and CEO of the Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC), “At BP’s request we are mounting the single, largest response effort in MSRC’s 20-year history. The many years of working together with BP on drills and exercises has proved invaluable to us as we move forward on this response effort.” “Given the current conditions and the massive size of our response, we are confident in our ability to tackle this spill offshore,” Hayward added.

Along with the response teams in action, additional resources, both people and equipment, continue to arrive for staging throughout the Gulf states in preparation for deployment should they be needed.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010e, April 25). BP forges ahead with Gulf of Mexico oil spill response. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061518

96

APPENDIX F

BP PLEDGES FULL SUPPORT FOR DEEPWATER

HORIZON PROBES

Release date: 28 April 2010

BP today announced its support for and cooperation with U.S. government investigations arising from the sinking of the Transocean drilling rig Deepwater Horizon in Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (MC252) in the Gulf of Mexico.

“Losing 11 of our industry colleagues is a tragedy for the offshore community,” said BP Group Chief Executive Tony Hayward. “As an industry, we must participate fully in these investigations and not rest until the causes of this tragedy are known and measures are taken to see that it never happens again.”

The Department of the Interior and Department of Homeland Security announced a joint enquiry into the explosion and sinking of the Transocean Deepwater Horizon on April 22. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources have also announced investigations.

Last week BP launched its own investigation into the incident and has an investigation team at work in Houston, Texas.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010f, April 28). BP pledges full support for Deepwater Horizon probes. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061626

97

APPENDIX G

BP STEPS UP SHORELINE PROTECTION PLANS ON U.S.

GULF COAST

Release date: 30 April 2010

BP announced today it has launched the next phase of its effort to contain and clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, with a significant expansion of onshore preparations in case spilled oil should reach the coast.

The company is today ramping up preparations for a major protection and cleaning effort on the shorelines of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. to supplement its Houma, Louisiana incident command post, which oversees the offshore containment effort and onshore response in Louisiana, BP is now establishing a similar onshore incident command post in Mobile, Alabama to oversee the onshore response in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

Work will continue to complete installing marine protection booms along the coast. As well as 180,000 feet of boom already in the water, an additional 300,000 feet is staged or in the process of being deployed, with more on the way.

BP is mobilizing its full resources to fight the oil spill, which follows the sinking of the Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Mississippi Canyon 252 block. This includes efforts to stem the flow of oil into the water from the sub-sea well, to contain the spill offshore and to protect the Gulf coast.

“We are doing absolutely everything in our power to eliminate the source of the leak and contain the environmental impact of the spill. We are determined to fight this spill on all fronts, in the deep waters of the Gulf, in the shallow waters and, should it be necessary, on the shore,” said BP Group Chief Executive Tony Hayward.

“In the past few days I have seen the full extent of BP’s global resources and capability being brought to bear on this problem, and welcome the offers of further assistance we have had from government agencies, oil companies and members of the public to defend the shoreline and fight this spill. We are determined to succeed.”

The massive offshore operation that has been running for a week has been addressing the spill on the surface offshore, both by skimming and collecting oil and by applying dispersants. There is concern, however, that weather and current patterns will shift and move the sheen closer to shore or onshore in the coming days.

98

The new onshore activity is focused on five locations in the potentially affected states: Venice, Louisiana; Pascagoula and Biloxi, Mississippi; Mobile, Alabama; and Pensacola, Florida. Staging posts are in place stocked with people and material, including about 100,000 feet of boom, to protect the shoreline in each area.

Each of the states has oil spill response plans already in place and trained community groups and volunteers will also be available to aid the response to the oil spill and deploy resources.

Parallel to these, BP is today setting up offices in each of these communities manned by company staff to provide information on what is happening, what is being done and any developments. These will connect with local government officials, community and other groups to provide information on developments.

To harness the many offers of help BP has received, these offices will also collect names of any people wanting to assist with the response, and will co-ordinate identification of activities with which untrained personnel may be able to assist.

These efforts are in addition to the ongoing work with Transocean, MMS, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the other organizations within the Unified Command to do everything possible to stop the flow of oil on the sea bed.

Efforts to stem the flow of oil from the well, currently estimated at up to 5,000 barrels a day, are continuing with six remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs) continuing to attempt to activate the blow out preventer (BOP) on the sea bed.

By this weekend the Transocean Development Driller III is scheduled to spud a relief well intended to secure the existing well. Drilling of this well is expected to take two to three months.

Work is also continuing to produce a subsea collection system capable of operating in deep water to funnel leaking oil to the surface for treatment. This is expected to be ready for deployment in the next few weeks.

Preliminary estimates indicate that current efforts to contain the spill and secure the well are costing the MC252 owners about $6 million per day. This figure is expected to rise as activity increases. It is too early to quantify other potential costs and liabilities associated with the incident.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010g, April 30). BP steps up shoreline protection plans on U.S. Gulf Coast. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061565

99

APPENDIX H

HAYWARD APPLAUDS PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT

Release date: 02 May 2010

“The U.S. government leadership here has been excellent since day one. I agree with the President that the top priority right now is to stop the leak and mitigate the damage. I reiterated my commitment to the White House today that BP will do anything and everything we can to stop the leak, attack the spill off shore, and protect the shorelines of the Gulf Coast. We appreciate the tireless efforts of the many federal, state and local responders and the volunteers, men and women who have worked tirelessly since the date of the accident to mitigate the damage. Our teams are working hand in hand and we look forward to hearing more recommendations for action from the President’s visit today.”

-Tony Hayward, from Houma Louisiana

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010h, May 2). Hayward applauds president’s statement. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061751

100

APPENDIX I

UPDATE ON THE GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL

RESPONSE – MAY 5

Release date: 05 May 2010

BP today announced that it has stopped the flow of oil from one of the three existing leak points on the damaged MC252 oil well and riser in the Gulf of Mexico. While this is not expected to affect the overall rate of flow from the well, it is expected to reduce the complexity of the situation being dealt with on the seabed.

Separately, BP announced that it has made $25 million block grants to each of the states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida to help accelerate the implementation of Area Contingency Plans (ACPs). These approved plans address the removal of a worst case spill and are designed to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat to sensitive areas.

The grants BP has made to the four states do not affect BP’s MC252 response or existing claims process, but are supplemental to them and are intended to enable local businesses to support clean-up and recovery efforts. Each state will administer its U.S. $25 million grant.

“We are continuing to do all we can to stop the flow of oil from the well and also attack and capture the spilled oil offshore,” said Tony Hayward, BP Group Chief Executive. “However, it is also vital that we work together with government and potentially impacted communities to protect the shoreline from any impact of the spill. We hope these grants will support the effective deployment of pre-prepared response plans in each state.”

At the MC252 well, using remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), a valve has been installed on the end of a broken drill pipe, one of the three points from which oil was leaking. The ROVs first cut the end of the pipe to leave a clean end and the valve, weighing over half a ton, was placed in position on the seabed. Overnight the ROVs completed securely joining the valve to the broken drill pipe and then closed it, shutting off the flow from that pipe. The ROVs will continue to closely monitor the well and remaining flow points to look for any changes.

In parallel, BP continues to make plans for the loading and movement of a first containment dome from dock at Port Fourchon, Louisiana out to the well site. It is planned to lower the dome over one of the leak sites on the seabed and then connect it by pipe to a specialist vessel at the surface. This system is designed to help capture the oil at the seabed and collect it securely for processing. The dome is currently expected to be lowered to the well site seabed in around three days’ time allowing the process of testing

101

and commissioning to begin. Only once this is complete will the effectiveness of the system be demonstrated.

BP’s initial onshore response efforts focused on Louisiana, and have rapidly expanded with equipment and people staged and ready in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. BP has positioned rapid response teams in Mobile, Alabama and Houma, Louisiana, to enable quick response and cleaning of areas where oil may come ashore. These 12-person teams will assess initial impacts, and then call in a larger contingent of trained responders and volunteers to clean the affected area. BP is also setting up a Rapid Response Team for Chandeleur Island.

In addition, BP has been hosting town hall meetings in Gulf Coast communities for those who wish to volunteer on a cleanup crew or to volunteer their vessels for marine work. More than 2,000 volunteers have been signed up and trained by BP.

BP has a supply of boom and other resources on hand to cover the next seven to ten days of planned response activity, and has put in place a supply chain that should enable it to deliver additional supplies as needs arise. There are now nine staging areas across the Gulf Coast--four in Louisiana and three in Mississippi, and one each in Alabama and Florida.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010i, May 5). Update on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill response – May 5. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061856

102

APPENDIX J

UPDATE ON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL RESPONSE –

MAY 7

Release date: 07 May 2010

BP today provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Subsea Source Control and Containment

Work continues to attempt to bring the MC252 oil well under control, to stop the flow of oil and to contain the oil subsea.

BP continues to use remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to monitor the subsea situation.

The containment dome arrived on location yesterday, from Port Fourchon, Louisiana, ready to be deployed. Once lowered to the sea bed, the next steps will be to connect the 40x24x14 feet steel dome, which weighs almost 100 tons, to a vessel on the surface. Once this operation is complete it will be possible to assess the effectiveness of the solution.

Work on the first relief well, which began on Sunday May 2, continues. It is expected to take some three months to complete.

Surface Spill Response and Containment

Work continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea. More than 260 vessels are being used, including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels.

18 flights over the spill were carried out during the day and operations to skim oil from the surface of the water also continued as seas became calmer.

To date the oil spill response team has recovered about 30,000 barrels of oil-water mix.

The total length of deployed boom is now over 700,000 feet as part of the efforts to stop oil reaching the coast. Some one million feet is available and more than 300,000 feet is on order.

Suitable weather conditions allowed controlled burning of surface oil to be carried out.

103

A BP-led effort to address shoreline clean up continues. More than 4,000 people have been trained, out of about 30,000 volunteers, to deal with oil as it comes onshore.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010j, May 7). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill response – May 7. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061907

104

APPENDIX K

UPDATE ON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL RESPONSE –

MAY 10

Release date: 10 May 2010

BP today provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf of Mexico.

Subsea Source Control and Containment

Subsea efforts continue to focus on two fronts: first, reducing the flow of oil spilled by physical containment and second, further work on stopping the flow using a “top kill” option.

The containment dome that was deployed last week has been parked away from the spill area on the sea bed. Efforts to place it over the main leak point were suspended at the weekend as a build up of hydrates prevented a successful placement of the dome over the spill area.

A second, smaller containment dome is being readied to lower over the main leak point. The small dome will be connected by drill pipe and riser lines to a drill ship on the surface to collect and treat oil. It is designed to mitigate the formation of large hydrate volumes. This operation has never been done before in 5,000 feet of water.

In addition, further work on the blow out preventer has positioned us to attempt a “top kill” option aimed at stopping the flow of oil from the well. This option will be pursued in parallel with the smaller containment dome over the next two weeks.

All of the techniques being attempted or evaluated to contain the flow of oil on the seabed involve significant uncertainties because they have not been tested in these conditions before.

BP continues to do everything it can, in conjunction with governmental authorities and other industry experts, to find a solution to stem the flow of oil on the seabed.

Work on the first relief well, which began on Sunday May 2, continues. It is expected to take some three months to complete.

105

Surface Spill Response and Containment

Work continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea. More than 275 vessels are being used, including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels.

The volume of dispersant applied to the spill on the surface amounts to over 315,000 gallons since the spill response began. Intensive operations to skim oil from the surface of the water also continued. Some 90,000 barrels of oily liquid has now been recovered.

The total length of deployed boom is now more than 1 million feet as part of the efforts to stop oil reaching the coast.

The cost to date of the response amounts to about $350 million, including the cost of spill response, containment, relief well drilling, commitments to the Gulf Coast States, settlements and federal costs.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010k, May 10). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill response – May 10. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061942

106

APPENDIX L

UPDATE ON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL RESPONSE –

MAY 17

Release date: 17 May 2010

BP today provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf of Mexico.

Subsea Source Control and Containment

Subsea efforts continue to focus on progressing options to stop the flow of oil from the well through interventions via the blow out preventer (BOP), and to collect the flow of oil from the leak points. These efforts are being carried out in conjunction with governmental authorities and other industry experts.

The riser insertion tube tool (RITT) containment system was put into place in the end of the leaking riser on May 16. Operations began during the day to allow oil and gas to flow through the tool up to the drillship Discoverer Enterprise on the surface 5,000 feet above. Produced oil is being stored on the drillship while produced gas is being flared. It is expected that it will take some time to increase the flow through the system and maximize the proportion of oil and gas flowing through the broken riser that will be captured and transported to the drillship.

The RITT is a fabricated from 4-inch diameter pipe, fashioned to allow one end to be inserted into the broken riser pipe that is the source of the main oil flow from the MC252 well, and the other to be connected to a drill pipe and riser from the Discoverer Enterprise. The RITT allows the injection of methanol to mitigate against the formation of gas hydrates.

This remains a new technology and both its continued operation and its effectiveness in capturing the oil and gas remains uncertain. Other containment options continue to be progressed.

BP also continues to develop options to shut off the flow of oil from the well through interventions via the well’s failed BOP.

Plans continue to be developed for a so called “top kill” operation where heavy drilling fluids are injected into the well to stem the flow of oil and gas, followed by cement to seal the well. Options have also been developed to potentially combine this with so-called “junk shot”, the injection under pressure of a variety of materials into the BOP to seal off

107

upward flow. Plans for deployment of these options are being progressed with the possibility of deployment in the next week or so.

Work on the first relief well, which began on May 2, continues. The DDII drilling rig began drilling the second relief well on May 16. Each of these wells is estimated to take some three months to complete from the commencement of drilling.

Surface Spill Response and Containment

Work continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea. Over 650 vessels are involved in the response effort, including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels.

Intensive operations to skim oil from the surface of the water have now recovered, in total, some 151,000 barrels (6.3 million gallons) of oily liquid. The total length of boom deployed as part of efforts to prevent oil reaching the coast is now almost 1.7 million feet, including over 400,000 feet of sorbent boom.

In total over 19,000 personnel from BP, other companies and government agencies are currently involved in the response to this incident. So far 15,000 claims have been filed and 2,600 have already been paid. BP has also received almost 60,000 calls into its help lines.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010l, May 17). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill response – May 17. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062147

108

APPENDIX M

BP LAUNCHES LIVE WEBCAM OF RISER FLOW

Release date: 21 May 2010

Today BP launched a live webcam of the riser flow. The webcam can be viewed at www.bp.com.

BP has been providing a live feed to government entities over the last two weeks – including the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Coast Guard, Minerals Management Service (MMS) through the Unified Area Command center in Louisiana – as well as to BP and industry scientists and engineers involved in the effort to stop the spill.

BP continues its work to collect oil by the riser insertion tube tool (RITT) containment system. Once on the drillship Discoverer Enterprise, the oil is then being stored and gas is being flared. The RITT remains a new technology and both its continued operation and its effectiveness in capturing the oil and gas remain uncertain.

BP has, and will continue, to support the government’s work to determine the rate of flow from the well. Since the Deepwater Horizon accident, the flow rate estimate has been established by the Unified Command. Throughout the process, BP has made it a priority to quickly and consistently provide the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Coast Guard with requested information for the joint command structure to make as accurate an assessment as possible of the rate of flow.

The rate of flow from the riser is determined in a number of ways and by a number of variables. For instance, while the original riser was 19.5 inches in diameter prior to the Deepwater Horizon accident, damage sustained during the accident distorted the diameter at the end of the pipe by about 30 per cent. In addition, a drill pipe currently trapped inside the riser has reduced the flow area by an additional 10 per cent. Thus, some third party estimates of flow, which assume a 19.5 inch diameter, are inaccurate. As well, there is natural gas in the riser. Data on the hydrocarbons recovered to date suggests that the proportion of gas in the plume exiting the riser is, on average, approximately 50 percent.

To provide further specificity on the flow rate, the U.S. government has created a Flow Rate Technical Team (FRTT) to develop a more precise estimate. The FRTT includes the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, MMS, Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Geological Survey. The FRTT is mandated to produce a report by close of business on Saturday, May 22.

To support this, BP is in the process of providing FRTT with all requested information, including diagrams and schematics showing release points, amounts of oil and gas

109 currently being collected on the Discoverer Enterprise, and subsea video of the oil release point.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010m, May 21). BP launches live webcam of riser flow. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062328

110

APPENDIX N

UPDATE ON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL RESPONSE –

MAY 26

Release date: 26 May 2010

BP today provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf of Mexico.

Subsea efforts continue to focus on progressing options to stop the flow of oil from the well through interventions via the blow out preventer (BOP), and to collect the flow of oil from the leak points. These efforts are being carried out in conjunction with industry experts and governmental authorities.

A series of diagnostic tests are currently underway on the Deepwater Horizon’s failed BOP to improve understanding of the status and configuration of the BOP and determine whether a ‘top kill’ procedure can be successfully executed. These tests involve pumping drilling fluids into the BOP to measure pressures and validate flow paths. When complete, a decision will be made on the execution of the top kill procedure itself.

This top kill procedure has not been carried out offshore at 5,000 feet water depth before, and its success cannot be assured. It is expected that the entire procedure could take up to two days, and it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the operation to prove successful or otherwise. Should it be necessary, plans and equipment are in place to combine the top kill process with the injection under pressure of bridging material into the BOP to prevent or limit upward flow through the BOP.

BP will continue to provide a live video feed from the seabed through the diagnostic testing and top kill, if undertaken. Throughout the diagnostic process and top kill procedure very significant changes in the appearance of the flows at the seabed will be expected. These will not provide a reliable indicator of the overall progress, or success or failure, of the top kill operation as a whole.

Should the top kill not succeed in fully stopping the flow of oil and gas from the well, BP would then intend to move forward to deployment of the LMRP cap containment system.

Deployment of this system will involve first removing the damaged riser from the top of the BOP to leave a cleanly-cut pipe at the top of the BOP’s lower marine riser package (LMRP). The LMRP cap, an engineered containment device with a sealing grommet, would then be connected to a riser from the Discoverer Enterprise drillship and then placed over the existing LMRP with the intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well.

111

The LMRP cap is already on site and it is anticipated that this option will be available for deployment by the end of May.

Additional options also continue to be progressed, including the option of lowering a second blow-out preventer, or a valve, on top of the failed Deepwater Horizon BOP.

Work on the drilling of two relief wells, begun on May 2 and May 16, continues. Each of the wells is estimated to take some three months to complete from the commencement of drilling.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010n, May 26). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill response – May 26. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062409

112

APPENDIX O

BP SETS OUT ENHANCEMENTS TO LMRP

CONTAINMENT STRATEGY TO KEEP OIL OUT OF

GULF

Release date: 31 May 2010

BP announced today that, after extensive consultation with National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen and other members of the Federal government, it plans to further enhance the lower marine riser package (“LMRP”) containment system currently scheduled to be deployed this week with further measures that are expected to keep additional oil out of the Gulf of Mexico.

The additional steps announced today will follow placement of the LMRP containment cap, which is expected this week. Preparations for these additional planned enhancements are already underway.

The first planned addition is intended to use the hoses and manifold that were deployed for the ‘top kill’ operation to take oil and gas from the failed Deepwater Horizon blow-out preventer (BOP) through a separate riser to an intervention vessel on the surface, in addition to the LMRP cap system. This system, which currently is expected to be available for deployment in mid-June, is intended to increase the overall efficiency of the containment operation by possibly increasing the amount of oil and gas flow that can be captured from the well.

It is anticipated that the next planned operation will provide a more permanent system by directing oil and gas to a new free-standing riser ending approximately 300 feet below sea level. A flexible hose then will be attached to a containment vessel. This long-term option is designed to permit the system to more effectively disconnect and reconnect the riser to provide the greatest flexibility for operations during a hurricane. Implementation of this enhancement is expected in late June or early July.

“BP’s priority is to keep as much oil as we can from causing additional harm to the Gulf, the shoreline and the people of the region,” said BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward. “This planned multi-step containment strategy is our best option for achieving this as we work hard towards completing the relief wells that will kill this well completely. Our teams have been working closely with the Federal government, and I have discussed this plan personally with Admiral Allen. I hope we will see progress with these containment procedures in the coming days.”

113

The strategy and specific containment plans have been extensively reviewed by BP’s scientific and engineering team together with a team of government scientists assembled by Secretaries Ken Salazar and Stephen Chu, including leading researchers from the Department of Energy’s National Labs and Dr. Marsha McNutt, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey.

The planned containment strategy is described in further detail in a video briefing, available at www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse in the ‘Response in Video‘ section entitled “Kent Wells technical briefing--31 May 2010.”

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010o, May 31). BP sets out enhancements to LMRP containment strategy to keep oil out of Gulf. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062524

114

APPENDIX P

CHAIRMAN AND CEO GIVE ASSURANCE THAT BP

WILL MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS IN GULF OF MEXICO

Release date: 04 June 2010

BP’s Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg and Group Chief Executive Tony Hayward told shareholders today that the company’s response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is their top priority, along with rebuilding trust and confidence in BP and ensuring that such an accident never happens again. Both Svanberg and Hayward expressed their deep regret and sorrow for the tragedy.

Svanberg underscored the company’s commitment to mitigating damage from the oil spill. “The Board of BP has been clear from the outset that all resources available to the company should be applied to meeting BP’s responsibilities in addressing these events,” he said. “The task is by no means complete and we have a long way to go. This is a tough job and Tony and the team continue to work relentlessly. They have all our support.

“In conjunction with the U.S. authorities, a massive response has been mobilised which is focused immediately on containing and stopping the flow of oil. We will also continue to apply all of the necessary resources to the aftermath, both in the clean-up operation and in remediation and payment of legitimate claims. These are our most critical and immediate tasks. We will meet our obligations both as a responsible company and also as a necessary step to rebuilding trust in BP as a long term member of the business communities in the U.S. and around the world. This is in the interest of all our stakeholders.”

Turning to BP’s financial position, Svanberg said: “It remains our aim as always to strike the right balance for shareholders between current returns through the dividend, sustained investment for long term growth and maintaining a prudent gearing level. We will do all we can to protect and grow the value of the company in which you have invested.

“We fully understand the importance of our dividend to our shareholders. Future decisions on the quarterly dividend will be made by the Board, as they always have been, on the basis of the circumstances at the time. All factors will be considered and the decision taken in the long term interests of the shareholders.”

In commenting on the significant financial costs of the incident, the company pointed out that: • BP has already spent over $1 billion in gross direct costs for the response, clean up and relief wells.

115

• Spending at this rate is expected to continue for some time beyond successful completion of work to stop the flow of oil from the damaged well. Any fines and penalties would present additional costs. • The costs of containment, removal and clean up are likely to be largely complete in 2010. • The longer-term costs of environmental remediation, claims and litigation are not predictable at this stage, but they will be sizeable and are likely to be spread over many years.

Hayward assured shareholders that the company was prepared to meet those costs. “We will also meet our obligations to our employees, and to our other stakeholders, including hundreds of thousands of shareholders, and millions more savers in mutual and pension funds, who rely on their investment in BP as part of their financial security and in many cases their retirement income. The financial consequences of this incident will undoubtedly be severe, but BP is a strong company and we have weathered many storms before.”

Hayward said: “Everyone at BP is heartbroken by this event, by the loss of life and by the damage to the environment and to the livelihoods of the people of the Gulf Coast. It should not have happened and we are bound and determined to learn every lesson to try and ensure it never happens again.”

“We will stand by our obligations,” he added. “We will halt this spill and put right the damage that has been done. We will rebuild the confidence of the American people and the world in BP.”

In its March presentation, prior to the Gulf of Mexico incident, BP indicated that its cash inflows and outflows were balanced at an oil price of around $60/barrel. “Under the current trading environment we are generating significant additional cash flow,” Hayward said. “In addition, our gearing is currently below the targeted range, and our asset base is strong and valuable, with more than 18 billion barrels of proved reserves and 63 billion barrels of resources. All of this gives us significant flexibility in dealing with the costs of this incident.”

Hayward announced that BP will create a separate stand-alone organization to manage the long-term response once the spill is over. Managing Director Bob Dudley will lead this new organization reporting directly to the Group Chief Executive.

“This step will ensure that we maintain focus on both the massive response effort and our duties towards our ongoing businesses,” said Hayward. “I remain personally committed to making this right.”

116

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010p, June 4). Chairman and CEO give assurance that BP will meet its obligations in Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062651

117

APPENDIX Q

UPDATE ON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL – JUNE 7

Release date: 07 June 2010

BP today provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf of Mexico.

Subsea Source Control and Containment

The lower marine riser package (LMRP) containment cap, installed on June 3, continues to collect oil and gas flowing from the well and transport them to the Discoverer Enterprise drillship on the surface. On June 5, a total of 10,500 barrels of oil was collected and 22 million standard cubic feet of natural gas was flared. From June 3 through June 5, the volume of oil collected was 16,600 barrels and 32.7 million standard cubic feet of natural gas was flared.

Optimization continues and improvement in oil collection is expected over the next several days. It will be a few days before an assessment can be made as to the success of this containment effort.

This is a complex operation, involving risks and uncertainties, being carried out 5,000 feet under water. The LMRP containment cap never before has been deployed at these depths and conditions, and its efficiency and ability to contain the oil and gas cannot be assured.

The volume of oil captured and gas flared is being updated daily on BP’s website, www.bp.com

Preparations for additional planned enhancements to the LMRP cap containment system continue to progress.

The first planned addition will use the hoses and manifold that were deployed for the “top kill” operation to take oil and gas from the failed Deepwater Horizon blow-out preventer (BOP) through a separate riser to the Q4000 vessel on the surface, in addition to the LMRP cap system. This system is intended to increase the overall efficiency of the containment operation by possibly increasing the amount of oil and gas that can be captured from the well and is currently expected to be available for deployment in mid-June.

The second planned addition is intended to provide a more permanent LMRP containment cap system by directing the oil and gas to a new free-floating riser ending approximately 300 feet below sea level. A flexible hose then will be attached to a

118

containment vessel. This long-term containment option is designed to permit more effective disconnection and reconnection of the riser to provide the greatest flexibility for operations during a hurricane and is expected to be implemented in early July.

In the meantime, work on the first relief well, which started May 2, continues and has currently reached a depth of 12,956 feet. The second relief well, which started May 16, is at 8,576 feet, and testing of the BOP is continuing. Both wells are still estimated to take approximately three months to complete from commencement of drilling.

Surface Spill Response and Containment

Work continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea, to protect the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, and to collect and clean up any oil that has reached shore.

More than 2,600 vessels are now involved in the response effort, including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels. Operations to skim oil from the surface of the water now have recovered, in total, approximately 368,000 barrels (15.5 million gallons) of oily liquid.

The total length of containment boom deployed as part of efforts to prevent oil from reaching the coast is now over 2.2 million feet, and an additional 2.4 million feet of sorbent boom also has been deployed.

To date, approximately 37,000 claims have been submitted and more than 18,000 payments already have been made, totaling approximately $48 million. BP has received more than 152,000 calls into its help lines.

Additional information

The cost of the response to date amounts to approximately $1,250 million, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid, and federal costs. This excludes the $360 million in funds for the Louisiana barrier islands construction project. It is too early to quantify other potential costs and liabilities associated with the incident.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010q, June 7). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill – June 7. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062670

119

APPENDIX R

BP EMPHASIZES THAT DISAGREEMENT WITH OTHER

PARTIES WILL NOT DIMINISH ITS PROMISE TO

CLEAN UP THE SPILL AND PAY LEGITIMATE CLAIMS

Release date: 18 June 2010

Today BP reiterated its pledge to clean up the oil and gas spill in the Gulf of Mexico and to pay all legitimate claims arising from the spill, even though another party already is disputing its responsibility for costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident and the resulting spill.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation has announced it is refusing to accept responsibility for oil spill removal costs and damages, claiming that, under an exception to a joint operating agreement’s cost and liability sharing provisions, BP Exploration & Production Inc. (BPXP) was “grossly negligent” or engaged in “willful misconduct” as operator for Mississippi Canyon, Block 252 (MC252).

BP strongly disagrees with these allegations and will not allow the allegations to diminish its commitment to the Gulf Coast region. “These allegations will neither distract the company’s focus on stopping the leak nor alter our commitment to restore the Gulf coast,” said BP’s chief executive officer Tony Hayward. “Other parties besides BP may be responsible for costs and liabilities arising from the oil spill, and we expect those parties to live up to their obligations. But how the costs and liabilities are eventually allocated between various parties will not affect our unwavering pledge to step forward in the first instance to clean up the spill and pay all legitimate claims in an efficient and fair manner.”

Additional information

BPXP and two other parties, including Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, co-own the leasehold interest in MC252--the origin of the oil and gas spill.

All the co-owners of the leasehold interest previously entered into a written operating agreement under which BPXP would act as “operator” and be responsible for conducting operations in MC252, but that the parties would share the costs of operations, including the cost to clean up any spill resulting from drilling the MC252 exploratory well, according to their respective ownership interests in MC252.

Further, all the co-owners of the leasehold interest filed documents with the U. S. federal government clearly certifying that each would be jointly and severally liable, together

120 with any other responsible parties, for oil spill removal costs and damages in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010s, June 18). BP emphasizes that disagreement with other parties will not diminish its promise to clean up the spill and pay legitimate claims. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062995

121

APPENDIX S

BP REITERATES MEDIA ACCESS POLICY

Release date: 01 July 2010

Everyone involved in the response effort should “feel free to talk” to media about their experiences.

BP today offered additional guidance and clarification to all personnel to ensure that members of the response team – including, but not limited to, all government, BP, and contract personnel – know they are free to talk to the media.

“I want to thank everyone for their tremendous commitment to lead and support the response and cleanup efforts,” said Doug Suttles, COO of BP. “I really cannot say this enough: BP wants all individuals to feel free to share their thoughts and experiences with journalists, if they so choose. BP has not and will not prevent anyone from sharing his or her own experiences, opinions, or views.”

BP has provided guidelines and “media access cards” (samples attached) to be distributed at all levels of operations. The cards include helpful tips and a 1-800 number personnel can call for more information.

View guidelines

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010t, July 1). BP reiterates media access policy. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063384

122

APPENDIX T

UPDATE ON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL – JULY 5

Release date: 05 July 2010

BP today provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf of Mexico.

Subsea Source Control and Containment

Two containment systems continue to collect oil and gas flowing from the Deepwater Horizon’s failed blow-out preventer (BOP) and transport them to vessels on the surface.

The lower marine riser package (LMRP) containment cap, installed on June 3, takes oil and gas to the Discoverer Enterprise where oil is collected and gas flared. The second system, which began operations on June 16, takes oil and gas to the Q4000 vessel on the surface where both oil and gas are flared.

On July 3, a total of approximately 25,198 barrels of oil were collected or flared by the two systems and 57.0 million cubic feet of gas were flared. Specifically, the LMRP containment system connected to the Discoverer Enterprise collected 17,022 barrels of oil, and the Q4000 flared an additional 8,176 barrels of oil. to date, the total volume of oil collected or flared by the containment systems is approximately 585,400 barrels. Information on the volumes of oil and gas that are collected or flared is updated twice daily on BP’s website, www.bp.com.

Preparations continue for the next step in containment operations. Work on the first floating riser containment system planned to be connected to the Helix Producer was delayed by heightened sea states caused by Hurricane Alex as it passed through the Gulf of Mexico. The floating riser system is designed to allow more rapid disconnection and reconnection of the system, reducing the time that collection may be impacted in the case of, for example, inclement weather. It is currently anticipated that this first floating riser system will be available to begin first operations towards the end of the week.

Plans also are being developed for additional containment capacity and flexibility. These projects are currently anticipated to begin operations around mid-late July.

The LMRP containment cap system, the Q4000 system, and the planned additional containment systems have not been deployed at these depths or under these conditions, and their efficiency and ability to contain or flare the oil and gas cannot be assured.

Work on the first relief well, which started May 2, continues. The well reached a depth of 17,725 feet on July 4 and a sixth ‘ranging’ run was completed. The second relief well,

123

which started May 16, has now reached a measured depth of 13,871 feet. Both wells are still estimated to take approximately three months to complete from commencement of drilling.

Surface Spill Response and Containment

Work continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea, to protect the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, and to collect and clean up any oil that has reached shore.

Approximately 44,500 personnel, more than 6,563 vessels and some 113 aircraft are now engaged in the response effort.

Operations to skim oil from the surface of the water were temporarily placed on hold for approximately three days because of the effects of Hurricane Alex. to date, these operations have recovered, in total, approximately 673,497 barrels (23.5 million gallons) of oily liquid. In addition, a total of 275 controlled burns have been carried out to date, removing an estimated 238,000 barrels of oil from the sea’s surface.

The total length of containment boom deployed as part of efforts to prevent oil from reaching the coast is now almost 2.9 million feet (550 miles).

Additional information

To date, almost 95,000 claims have been submitted and more than 47,000 payments have been made, totaling almost $147 million.

The cost of the response to date amounts to approximately $3.12 billion, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid, and federal costs. On June 16, BP announced an agreed package of measures, including the creation of a $20 billion escrow account to satisfy certain obligations arising from the oil and gas spill. It is too early to quantify other potential costs and liabilities associated with the incident.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010s, July 5). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill – July 5. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063432

124

APPENDIX U

CAPPING STACK INSTALLED ON MC252WELL

Release date: 12 July 2010

The three ram capping stack was installed on the Deep Water Horizon LMRP at 7 p.m. CDT. The stack completes the installation of the new sealing cap. Following installation of the capping stack and in line with the procedure approved by the National Incident Commander and Unified Area Command, the well integrity test will begin July 13 on the MC252 well. For the duration of the test, which will be a minimum of 6 hours and could extend up to 48 hours, the three ram capping stack will be closed and all sub-sea containment systems (namely, the Q4000 and Helix Producer) will be temporarily suspended, effectively shutting in the well. It is expected, although cannot be assured, that no oil will be released to the ocean for the duration of the test. This will not however be an indication that flow from the wellbore has been permanently stopped.

Information gathered during the test will be reviewed with the relevant government agencies including the federal science team to determine the way forward. Options include reinstatement of containment as well as extending the test duration beyond 48 hours.

The sealing cap system never before has been deployed at these depths or under these conditions, and its efficiency and ability to contain the oil and gas cannot be assured.

The Helix Producer containment system started operations on July 12. The Q4000 containment system continues to capture oil and gas from the MC252 well and flare the hydrocarbons safely at the surface

Relief well operations continue throughout this period and remain the sole means to permanently seal and isolate the well.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010t, July 12). Capping stack installed on MC252 well. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063637

125

APPENDIX V

UPDATE ON GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL – JULY 19

Release date: 19 July 2010

BP today provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf of Mexico.

Subsea Source Control and Containment

BP continues to work cooperatively with the guidance and approval of the National Incident Commander and the leadership and direction of federal government including the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Federal Science Team, Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard and secretaries Ken Salazar and Steven Chu. At this time, the well integrity test on the MC252 exploratory well continues.

During the test, the three ram capping stack has been closed, shutting in the well. All sub-sea containment systems (namely, the Q4000 and Helix Producer systems) have been temporarily suspended.

The pressure inside the well recently has been measured at approximately 6,792 pounds per square inch and continues to rise slowly. As directed by the National Incident Commander, extensive monitoring activities are being carried out around the well site. Information gathered during the test is being reviewed with the government agencies, including the Federal Science Team, to determine next steps. Depending upon the results of the test and monitoring activities, these steps may include extending the well integrity test or returning to containment options.

Should the test conclude, the Q4000 is expected to resume capturing and flaring oil and gas through the existing system. It has been capturing and flaring an average of 8,000 barrels a day (b/d) of oil in recent weeks. The Helix Producer also is expected to be available to resume capturing oil and flaring gas through the recently installed floating riser system. It has the capacity to capture approximately 20,000 – 25,000 b/d of oil.

Plans continue for additional containment capacity and flexibility that are expected to ultimately increase recoverable oil volumes to 60,000-80,000 b/d.

The sealing cap system and many of the other containment systems have never before been deployed at these depths or under these conditions, and their efficiency and ability to contain or flare the oil and gas cannot be assured.

126

To date, the total volume of oil collected or flared by the containment systems is approximately 826,800 barrels. Information on the subsea operational status is updated daily on BP’s website, www.bp.com.

Work on the first relief well, which started May 2, continues. The well reached a depth of 17,864 feet as of July 18th and the next scheduled operation is to carry out a ranging run. The first relief well has approached its last casing end point and, following the casing set, additional ranging runs will be used to guide the drill bit to a MC252 well intercept point. After interception, operations are expected to begin to kill the flow of oil and gas from the reservoir by pumping specialized heavy fluids down the relief well.

The second relief well, which started May 16, is at a measured depth of 15,874 feet and has been temporarily halted so as not to interfere with the ranging runs being performed in the first relief well.

Although uncertainty remains, the first half of August remains the current estimate of the most likely date by which the first relief well will be completed and kill operations performed.

Surface Spill Response as of July 17

Work continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea, to protect the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, and to collect and clean up any oil that has reached shore.

Approximately 43,100 personnel, more than 6,470 vessels and dozens of aircraft are engaged in the response effort.

Operations to skim oil continued over the weekend. These operations have recovered, in total, approximately 807,143 barrels (33.9 million gallons) of oily liquid. In addition, a total of 408 controlled burns have been carried out to date, removing an estimated 261,904 barrels of oil (11 million gallons) from the sea’s surface.

The total length of containment boom deployed as part of efforts to prevent oil from reaching the coast is now almost 3.36 million feet (681.8 miles).

Additional information

To date, almost 116,000 claims have been submitted and more than 67,500 payments have been made, totaling $207 million.

The cost of the response to date amounts to approximately $3.95 billion, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid, and federal costs. On June 16, BP announced an agreed package of

127 measures, including the creation of a $20 billion fund to satisfy certain obligations arising from the oil and gas spill. It is too early to quantify other potential costs and liabilities associated with the incident.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010u, July 19). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill – 19 July. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063829

128

APPENDIX W

BP CEO TONY HOWARD TO STEP DOWN AND BE

SUCCEEDED BY ROBERT DUDLEY

Release date: 27 July 2010

BP today announced that, by mutual agreement with the BP board, Tony Hayward is to step down as group chief executive with effect from October 1, 2010. He will be succeeded as of that date by fellow executive director Robert Dudley.

BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said: “The BP board is deeply saddened to lose a CEO whose success over some three years in driving the performance of the company was so widely and deservedly admired.

“The tragedy of the Macondo well explosion and subsequent environmental damage has been a watershed incident. BP remains a strong business with fine assets, excellent people and a vital role to play in meeting the world’s energy needs. But it will be a different company going forward, requiring fresh leadership supported by robust governance and a very engaged board.

“We are highly fortunate to have a successor of the caliber of Bob Dudley who has spent his working life in the oil industry both in the U.S. and overseas and has proved himself a robust operator in the toughest circumstances,” Svanberg said.

Bob Dudley (54) is a main board director of BP and currently runs the recently-established unit responsible for clean-up operations and compensation programmes in the Gulf of Mexico. He joined BP from Amoco after the merger of the two companies in 1998. He was president and CEO of BP’s Russian joint venture, TNK-BP, until 2008.

“I am honoured to be given the job of rebuilding BP’s strengths and reputation but sad at the circumstances. I have the greatest admiration for Tony, both for the job he has done since he became CEO in 2007 and for his unremitting dedication to dealing with the Gulf of Mexico disaster,” Dudley said.

“I do not underestimate the nature of the task ahead, but the company is financially robust with an enviable portfolio of assets and professional teams that are among the best in the industry. I believe this combination--allied to clear, strategic direction--will put BP on the road to recovery.”

On his appointment, Dudley will be based in London and will hand over his present duties in the U.S. to Lamar McKay, chairman and president of BP America. “In this

129

change of roles, I particularly want the people of the Gulf Coast to know that my commitment to remediation and restitution in the region is not lessened. I gave a promise to make it right and I will keep that promise,” he said.

Hayward will remain on the BP board until November 30, 2010. BP also plans to nominate him as a non-executive director of TNK-BP.

Commenting on the decision to step down, Hayward said: “The Gulf of Mexico explosion was a terrible tragedy for which--as the man in charge of BP when it happened- -I will always feel a deep responsibility, regardless of where blame is ultimately found to lie.

“From day one I decided that I would personally lead BP’s efforts to stem the leak and contain the damage, a logistical operation unprecedented in scale and cost. We have now capped the oil flow and we are doing everything within our power to clean up the spill and to make restitution to everyone with legitimate claims.

“I would like to thank all of the BP people involved in the response and the many thousands of others along the Gulf Coast who have joined us in our efforts.

“I believe the decision I have reached with the board to step down is consistent with the responsibility BP has shown throughout these terrible events. BP will be a changed company as a result of Macondo and it is right that it should embark on its next phase under new leadership,” Hayward said.

“I will be working closely with Bob Dudley over the coming months to ensure a smooth transition. It has been a privilege to serve BP for nearly 30 years and to lead it for the last three. I am sad to leave so many fine colleagues and friends who have helped this great company to achieve so much over the years. I am sorry that achievement has been overshadowed by the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico.”

BP said that under the terms of his contract Hayward would receive a year’s salary in lieu of notice, amounting to £1.045 million.

Source: British Petroleum (BP). (2010v, July 27). BP CEO Tony Howard to step down and be succeeded by Robert Dudley. Retrieved from http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063976

130

REFERENCES

Abelson, R. P. (1959). Modes of resolution of belief dilemmas. Journal of Conflict

Resolution, 3, 343-352.

Adam, D. (2010, May 31). BP oil spill: Death and devastation--and it’s just a start. The

Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/31/bp-oil-spill-death-impact

Althaus, S. L., & Tewksbury, D. (2000). Patterns of Internet and traditional news media

use in a networked community. Political Communication, 17, 21-45.

doi:10.1080/105846000198495

Aristotle. (1954). Rhetoric. (W. R. Roberts & I. Bywater, Trans.). New York, NY:

Random House, Inc. (Original work published 1354).

Ball, J., Power, S., & Hughes, S. (2010, May 20). Dispersants debated, as oil hits land.

The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748703691804575254271124867694.html

Baird, A., & Thonssen, L. (1947). Methodology in the criticism of public address.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 33, 156.

Baskin, B. (2010, May 9). Gulf Coast states seek bolder steps to guard shoreline. The

Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704307804575234643126510092.html

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies. Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press.

131

Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair and discourse and crisis communication. Public

Relations Review, 23, 177-186.

Benoit, W. L., & Lindsey, J. (1987). Argument strategies: Antidote to Tylenol’s poisoned

image. Journal of American Forensic Association, 23, 136-146.

Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, I, 1-14.

Black, E. (1965). Rhetorical criticism: A study in method. Madison, WI: The University

of Wisconsin Press.

British Petroleum (BP). (2010a, April 21). BP confirms that Transocean Ltd issued the

following statement today. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061443

British Petroleum (BP). (2010b, April 21). BP offers full support to Transocean after

drilling rig fire. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061458

British Petroleum (BP). (2010c, April 22). BP initiates response to Gulf of Mexico oil

spill. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061490

British Petroleum (BP). (2010d, April 24). BP offers sympathy to the families of those

lost in the U.S. oil rig fire. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061514

British Petroleum (BP). (2010e, April 25). BP forges ahead with Gulf of Mexico oil spill

response. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061518

132

British Petroleum (BP). (2010f, April 28). BP pledges full support for Deepwater

Horizon probes. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061626

British Petroleum (BP). (2010g, April 30). BP steps up shoreline protection plans on U.S.

Gulf Coast. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061565

British Petroleum (BP). (2010h, May 2). Hayward applauds president’s statement.

Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061751

British Petroleum (BP). (2010i, May 5). Update on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill response –

May 5. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061856

British Petroleum (BP). (2010j, May 7). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill response –

May 7. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061907

British Petroleum (BP). (2010k, May 10). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill response –

May 10. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061942

British Petroleum (BP). (2010l, May 17). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill response –

May 17. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062147

133

British Petroleum (BP). (2010m, May 21). BP launches live webcam of riser flow.

Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062328

British Petroleum (BP). (2010n, May 26). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill response –

May 26. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062409

British Petroleum (BP). (2010o, May 31). BP sets out enhancements to LMRP

containment strategy to keep oil out of Gulf. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062524

British Petroleum (BP). (2010p, June 4). Chairman and CEO give assurance that BP will

meet its obligations in Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062651

British Petroleum (BP). (2010q, June 7). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill – June 7.

Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062670

British Petroleum (BP). (2010s, June 18). BP emphasizes that disagreement with other

parties will not diminish its promise to clean up the spill and pay legitimate

claims. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062995

British Petroleum (BP). (2010t, July 1). BP reiterates media access policy. Retrieved

from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063384

134

British Petroleum (BP). (2010s, July 5). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill – July 5.

Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063432

British Petroleum (BP). (2010t, July 12). Capping stack installed on MC252 well.

Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063637

British Petroleum (BP). (2010u, July 19). Update on Gulf of Mexico oil spill – 19 July.

Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063829

British Petroleum (BP). (2010v, July 27). BP CEO Tony Howard to step down and be

succeeded by Robert Dudley. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7063976

Campbell, K. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (1976). Form and genre in rhetorical criticism: An

introduction. In K. K Campbell, & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), Form and genre:

Shaping rhetorical action (pp. 9-32). Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication

Association.

Campbell, R., & Krauss, C. (2010, 2 August). Gulf spill is the largest of its kind,

scientists say. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03spill.html

Casselman, B., Power, S., & Campoy, A. (2010, April 30). Oil-spill fight bogs down. The

Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748703871904575215714243494620.html

135

Casselman, W. (2010, June 19). Anadarko blames BP for rig disaster. The Wall Street

Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704122904575315244230579982.html

Chazan, G. (2010a, May 17). Spill fight shows progress. The Wall Street Journal.

Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704614204575245810666495600.html

Chazan, G. (2010b, July 27). BP reveals comeback plan. The Wall Street Journal.

Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748703700904575392370217753444.html

Coombs, T. W. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the

selection of the “appropriate” crisis-response strategies. Management

Communication Quarterly, 8, 447-477.

Conley, T. M. (1979). Ancient rhetoric and modern genre criticism. Communication

Quarterly, 27, 47-53.

Consigny, S. (1974). Rhetoric and its situations. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 7, 175-186.

Cox, M. (2011, 1 August). Strong generational differences in mobile device usage. Daily

Channel News. Retrieved from

http://www.echannelline.com/usa/story.cfm?item=27028

Coy, P., Reed, S., Carroll, J., Efstathiou Jr., J., Nichols, H., Polson, J., & Resnick-Ault, J.

(2010). Lessons of the spill. Bloomberg Business Week, 4178, 48-55.

136

Dade, C. (2010, May 7). Containment structure nears seafloor. The Wall Street Journal.

Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/

article/SB10001424052748703338004575229864184350730.html

Daker, S., & Sweet, C. (2010, July 13). BP installs sealing cap on errant well. The Wall

Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704288204575362821280847274.html

Daker, S., & Wisnefski, S. (2010, June 4). Oil pipe cut as BP faces bill, credit hit. The

Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704025304575284264222132380.html

Deneen, S. (2010, June 11). BP before the oil spill: An environmentally friendly

company? Daily Finance. Retrieved from http://www.dailyfinance.com/

2010/06/11/bp-before-the-oil-spill-an-environmentally-friendly-company/

Dimmick, J., Yan, C., & Zhan, L. (2004). Competition between the Internet and

traditional news media: The gratification-opportunities niche dimension. Journal

of Media Economics, 17, 19-33.

Downey, S. D. (1993). The evolution of the rhetorical genre of apologia. Western Journal

of Communication, 57, 42-64.

Edmonds, R. (2010, March 15). State of the news media 2010. Pew Research Center.

Retrieved from http://stateofthemedia.org/2010/

137

Favole, J. A., Dreazen, Y. J., & Williamson, E. (2010, April 30). Oil slick nears coast as

U.S. escalates response. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870430230457521379195827068

2.html

Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Ferguson, K. (2011). Who cleans up? Examining local county governments’ response to

BP oil spill [Thesis]. Retrieved from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/

dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/4950/LibraryThesis.pdf?sequence=1

Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of criticism: Four essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Gold, E. R. (1978). Political apologia: The ritual of self-defense. Communication

Monographs, 45, 306-317.

Gold, R., Chazan, G., & Casselman, B. (2010, April 26). Oil spills into Gulf after rig

disaster. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704627704575204590586862162.html

Gonzales, A., & Chazan, G. (2010, May 27). ‘Top Kill’ Operation under way. The Wall

Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/

article/SB10001424052748704717004575268131759193688.html

Harlow, W. F., Brantley, B. C., & Harlow, R. M. (2011). BP initial image repair

strategies after the Deepwater Horizon spill. Public Relations Review, 37, 80-83.

138

Harrell, J., Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1975). Failure of apology in American

politics: Nixon on Watergate. Speech Monographs, 42, 245-161.

Hearit, K. M. (1999). Newsgroups, activist publics, and corporate apologia: The case of

Intel and its Pentium chip. Public Relations Review, 25, 291-308.

Herron, J. (2010, July 2). Dudley formally takes over BP cleanup. The Wall Street

Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527

48704629804575324390288995982.html

Hoch, M. (2010). New estimate puts Gulf oil leak at 205 million gallons. PBS News

Hour. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/08/new-estimate-puts-oil

leak-at-49 million-barrels.html

Horrigan, J. (2008). Mobile access to data information. Pew Research Center’s Internet

& American Life Project.

Huxman, S. S., & Bruce, D. B. (1995). Toward a dynamic generic framework of

apologia: A case study of Dow Chemical, Vietnam, and the napalm controversy.

Communication Studies, 46, 57-72.

Johnson, S. M. (1998). The Internet changes everything: Revolutionizing public

participation and access to government information through the Internet.

Administrative Law Review, 50, 277-377.

Katula, R. (1975). The apology of Richard M. Nixon. Today’s Speech, 23, 1-6.

Kaufman, L. (2010, April 23). Search ends for missing oil rig workers. The New York

Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/24spill.html?_r=1&hpw&pagewanted

139

Lefever, S., Dal, M., & Matthíasdóttir, Á. (2007). Online data collection in academic

research: Advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology,

38, 574-582.

Levitz, J., Long, M., & Gonzalez, A. (2010, June 7). BP cap collects 10,500 barrels a day.

The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704002104575290113945918450.html

Mauer, R. (2010, May 8). BP has a history of safety failures. Anchorage Daily News.

Retrieved from http://www.adn.com/2010/05/08/v-printer/1269786/

bp-has-a-history-of-safety-faults.html

Miller, C. (1984). Genre as Social Action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.

Mouawad, J. (2010, May 8). For BP, a history of spills and safety lapses. The New York

Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/business/

09bp.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&pagewanted-print

Muralidharan, S., Dillistone, K., & Shin, J. (2011). The Gulf Coast oil spill: Extending

the theory of Image restoration discourse to the realm of social media and beyond

petroleum. Public Relations Review, 37, 226-232.

Paletta, D., & Johnson, F. (2010, May 9). U.S. Considers ‘malfeasence’ in leak. The Wall

Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704858104575232610208583340.html

Pew Research Center. (2010, August 25). How the media covered the Gulf oil spill

disaster. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1707/

media-coverage-analysis-gulf-spill-disaster

140

Phillips, M. M., & Power, S. (2010, June 17). BP chief on hot seat. The Wall Street

Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704289504575312491209833862.html

Purcell, K. (2011, 9 August). Search and email still top the list of most popular online

activities. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved

from http://www.pewInternet .org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/

PIP_Search-and-Email.pdf

Rosen, J. (2010). The Web means the end of forgetting. The New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-

t2.html?pagewanted=all

Rosenberg, H., & Feldman, C. S. (2008). No time to think: The menace of media speed

and the 24-hour news cycle. New York, NY: The Continuum International

Publishing Group Inc.

Rosenfield, L. W. (1968). A case study in speech criticism: The Nixon-Truman analog.

Communications Monograph, 35, 435-450.

Rosenfield, L. W. (1969). George Wallace play’s rosemary’s baby. Quarterly Journal of

Speech, 55, 36-44.

Ryan, H. R. (1982). Kategoria and Apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 256-261.

Schwartz, N. (2010, 25 May). BP played key role in botched Exxon Valdez response. The

Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/

bp-exxon-valdez-response-gulf-oil-spill_n_588335.html

141

Smith, D. N. (1909). Functions of criticism. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Skoloff, B., & Wardell, J. (2010, November 2). BP’s oil spill costs grow, Gulf residents

react. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110200474_pf.html

Straubhaar, J., Larose, S., & Davenport, L. (2011). Media now: Understanding media,

culture, and technology. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wallsworth.

Tharoor, I. (2010, June 2). A brief history of BP. Time Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1993882,00.html#

Vartabedian, R. A. (1985). From checkers to Watergate: Richard Nixon and the art of

contemporary apologia. Speaker and Gavel, 22, 52-61.

Wall Street Journal Research. (2010). Rig disaster [interactive graphic]. The Wall Street

Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704302304575213883555525958.html

Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves. On the

generic criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273-283.

Wichelns, H. A. (1924). The literary criticism of oratory. In A. M. Drummond (Ed.),

Studies in rhetoric and public speaking (pp. 181-216). New York, NY: Russell &

Russell.

WhiteHouse.gov. (n.d.). President Obama speaks on NYC incident and BP Oil spill in

Louisiana [Video File]. Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-speaks-nyc-

incident-and-bp-oil-spill-louisiana

142

Wilson, G. L. (1976). A strategy in explanation: Richard M. Nixon’s August 8, 1974,

resignation address. Communication Quarterly, 24, 14-20.

Zimmerman, A. (2010, July 6). Big skimmer hindered by weather: Oil hits Texas. The

Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748703620604575349282678195988.html