1. After the explosion, a faulty mechanism failed the preventive fuse, which was supposed to automatically block the hole and prevent leakage of oil in case of emergency (Meyer, 2008).
2. 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).
2。 2011年9月14日，一份500页的报告被出版局的行政，管理和保护海洋能（BOEMRE）和美国海岸警备队。本报告中宣布的结果，仍未有定论。总共35个原因而导致爆炸，火灾和原油泄漏。 BP被认为是负有部分责任。同时还发现故障，越洋有限公司公司（所有者的平台）和哈里伯顿公司（承包商，进行的深水固井井）的行动，这背后的部分。主要的原因是，BP降低成本，发展良好的愿望。是为了降低成本，BP被忽略的安全法规。理由是：缺乏信息，全面建设小康社会的失败，不足固井，项目的变化。的解决方案BP通过降低成本和持续时间的工作，使他们忽视的可能性不可预见的情况下。这些是在阱的Macondo引起的中断的原因。在报告中宣布的唯一的人，他的名字是工程师，BP，Heyfl马克，他已决定不进行分析，确定固井质量，拒绝调查的另一个重要的分析结果检测到的异常（班贝格，1994）。