1. On September 14, 2011 a 500-page report was published by the Bureau of Administration, Management and Protection of ocean energy (BOEMRE) and the U.S. Coast Guard. The findings, announced in this report are inconclusive. A total of 35 reasons were found which led to an explosion, fire and oil spill. BP is considered to be partially responsible. It was also found fault that the actions of companies Transocean Ltd. (the owner of the platform) and Halliburton (contractor, conducted the deepwater cementing wells) were partially behind this. The main reason is aspiration of BP to reduce the cost to develop the well. For the sake of reducing the costs, BP neglected safety regulations. The reasons were: lack of information, well construction failure, inadequate cementing, changes in the project. The solution of BP by reducing the cost and duration of the work, led them to neglect the possibility of unforeseen circumstances. These are the reasons that caused the break in the well Macondo. The only person whose name is announced in the report is an engineer of BP, Heyfl Mark, who has decided not to conduct an analysis that determines the quality of cementing, and refused to investigate the anomalies detected as a result of another important analysis (Bamberg, 1994).
1。在2011年9月14日的一个500页的报告是由管理局公布，海洋能源管理和保护（BOEMRE）和美国海岸警卫队。结果，在这份报告中公布的是不确定的。共有35个原因被发现导致爆炸，火灾和溢油。BP是负有部分责任。同时还发现故障，公司Transocean公司的行动（平台的所有者）和哈里伯顿（承包商，进行了深水固井威尔斯）部分的背后。主要原因是BP降低开发成本的良好愿望。为降低成本的缘故，BP忽视安全规定。其原因有：缺乏信息，建井固井失败，不足，在项目的变化。通过降低工作成本和持续时间的BP的解决方案，导致他们忽视意外情况的可能性。这些都是造成Macondo油井的突破的原因。只有人的名字是在报告中宣布的是BP，工程师长途对称通信电缆标记，谁已决定不进行分析，确定了固井质量，并拒绝调查检测的结果，另一个重要的分析的异常（班贝格，1994）。
