1. The emergency response of BP was quite poor. The communication between the management and the different employees was weak and a lot of false information and miscalculations were involved. The preventive fuse could have prevented the oil spill of such a large scale, but, faulty mechanism did not allow this. Also, the specialists involved in this project failed to predict the risks and did not set up enough preventive measures. The huge lack of communication at every level led to this disaster.
2. Pre crisis management would surely have prevented this disaster. BP’s negligence was a big factor. From internal documents of the BP Group, it can be seen that the company did not seal the hole, despite getting warnings from experts. Though BP was aware of the risks, an inexpensive method with a greater risk of gas leakage was elected. Up to 16 July 2010, the oil discharge could be stopped by a temporary closure, but, still, due to miscommunication and incorrect analysis by experts, the spill was not stopped. Oil flowed from the hole at 1500 m water depth. Crude oil and natural gas blew out at a pressure of about 900 bar (Hans, 2010).
1. Better communication would have convinced the authorities at BP that the risks were serious and safety measures were not to be neglected. Better analysis and information from experts would have made BP go for better preventive measures instead of the cheap and inadequate ones it opted for. If the communication was good, the initial symptoms of the leakage would have been reported well and the disaster could have been prevented. Wrong analysis could have been prevented too. Thus, better communication would not have let this happen.
2。前危机管理肯定会阻止这场灾难。 BP的疏忽是一个很重要的因素。从BP集团的内部文件中，可以看出，该公司并没有封洞，尽管有警告的专家。虽然BP的风险意识，一种廉价的方法具有更大的危险气体泄漏的当选。 16七月2010，排油可暂时关闭停止，但是，仍然由于沟通不畅和不正确的专家分析，漏油事件并没有停止。石油从1500米水深的孔流出。原油和天然气吹灭了约900巴（汉族，2010年）的压力。