My first thoughts after I read both incident chronology’s, to compare and contrast the way Transocean and BP describe the incidents, is that BP or Transocean do not take ownership of the incident nor do either want to not acknowledge wrongdoing of any aspect of event. Transocean points the finger at BP and BP’s chronology seems to minimize their part.

Transocean chronology begins on 4/14/2013, and ends 4/20/2013, while BP’s chronology begins on 10/6/2009, and ends 5/5/2013. The obvious differences in the incident chronologies are the BP incident chronology is longer, but does not have as much finger pointing and is not as interesting as Transocean’s. BP makes up for this in their “Accident Analysis” sections, but their chronology sticks to logs and facts compared to Transocean’s more narrative approach. BP uses bullet points at the beginning of their chronology and a dressed up spreadsheet with short descriptions of each timeline event. Transocean chronology is more descriptive and colorful. They use their incident chronology as a sounding board for all of BP’s shortcomings during the entire project. The use this section to minimize their involvement in the project. They use the chronology express “BP’s direction” and “BP’s poor decisions” during their involvement with them during the project.

The Deepwater Horizon, which was owned and operated by Transocean and had been under contract to BP, proves they were in this together, yet both want to distance themselves from the catastrophe. BP’s Deepwater Horizon Accident Report seems to get want to get others involved in the blame, but they are careful not to day they are not at fault. I observed this is both reports, but you can see this more with BP.

Then discuss why you think these two companies describe these events differently.

Both companies obviously describe the incidents from a