Deepwater Deceptions: How BP's Ghostwriting Gambits Obscure Truth and Stall Justice

<h1>Abstract</h1>
<p>On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil rig, owned by the BP company, exploded. The disaster killed 11 people on the platform and sent 134 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, leading to the worst American offshore spill in history, the effects of which are still being felt today on ecosystems and human health (1). At the time, the close relationship between the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the arm of the US Department of the Interior responsible for regulating the oil industry, and BP was described as a case of regulatory capture due to the overreliance on industry data and expertise, the failure of regulatory oversight, and because the MMS did not enforce its own recommendations and ignored repeated series of accidents (2). The DWH disaster has led to numerous lawsuits concerning the impact of the spill and the subsequent release of chemical substances, such as dispersants, which also impacted ecosystems and the health of workers and volunteers who participated in the cleaning efforts (3). </p>

<p>According to different estimates, the company has incurred more than US$60 billion in total expenditure since 2010 in criminal and civil penalties, natural resource damages, economic claims and cleanup costs (4). Additionally, at the demand of the Obama Administration, BP committed $500 million in May 2010 to establish the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI), aimed at funding scientific research associated with the spill for a ten years period (5). According to GoMRI’s website (https://gulfresearchinitiative.org/about-gomri/scientific-integrity/), in order to ensure scientific integrity, all GoMRI researchers had to conduct independent and objective research with no influence from BP, and results were to published in peer reviewed scientific journals with no requirement for BP approval. While BP had important strategic interests in the scientific literature to be produced regarding the impacts of DWH due to potential lawsuits against the company, it was not possible until now to determine if the company was directly involved in producing or in influencing relevant scientific literature.</p>

<p>In 2024, the Downs Law Group, representing thousands of affected individuals along the Gulf Coast, disclosed internal BP documents leaked in litigation, referred to as “The BP Papers”(6).The BP Papers detail how BP hired contractors, such as Exponent Engineering and Scientific Consulting [Exponent], to generate sampling data and publish scientific literature to strategically defend BP against potential litigations. The law firm Arnold & Porter LLP represented BP. According to a leaked contract dated May 20 2010 (BP Papers document 47-4), Exponent entered into a consultancy agreement with BP and Arnold and Porter LLC “as an integral part of [Arnold & Porter’s] advice and defense preparation” (7). Exponent was hired “to provide services for the purpose of facilitating Arnold & Porter’s representation of BP” and “to provide information, prepare studies or reports, participate in meetings, review materials” (7). The studies and reports to be prepared were not independent scientific research but rather proprietary work for BP. Under the terms of their contract, Exponent’s consultants agreed to avoid "any activities that are adverse to the interests of BP Exploration or Arnold & Porter's representation" regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, even post-termination of their consultancy (7).</p>

According to the BP Papers, Exponent played a central role in organizing a publication plan to create dozens of strategic papers favourable to BP to be published in scientific journals or be presented at scientific conferences. The use of publication plans by corporations, as well as the use of ghost-writers to produce favourable “scientific” literature, are tactics that have been observed in different industries such as the pharmaceutical, oil and gas, chemical, and tobacco industries to promote products, manufacture doubt and lobby governments (8–15). However, very few cases exist in the literature which detail the content of specific publication plans considering that, by definition, these attempts to influence scientific knowledge in ways that serve corporate interests are done behind-the-scenes (16–22). The detailed publication plan found in the released documents of the BP Papers allows not only for the identification of conflicted papers published in scientific journals, but also for better understanding to be achieved regarding the internal workings of such publication plans. This article systematically analyzes the BP publication plan to identify published scientific articles that appear to be part of the plan, creating a window into what appears to be a systematic campaign to influence scientific thought in order to limit BP’s litigation liability.</p>

<h1>File Description</h1>
<p>In March 2025, the authors examined nine internal BP documents publicly disclosed by The Downs Law Group. Our research was focused on tracking the outcomes of BP's publications in academic journals. Therefore, we conducted a detailed analysis specifically on the internal document titled "BP Scientific Literature Publication Tracker," which was a list of research intended for eventual publication in peer-reviewed academic journals that it appears was intended to undergo BP’s legal review, editorial approval, and subsequent advancement for publication.</p>

<p>Our approach aimed to quantify the number of BP's planned publications related to the "Deepwater Horizon" oil spill that were ultimately published, the publication years, the journals in which they appeared, the consistency of authorship as indicated in the internal documents with the final published articles, and whether the published articles disclosed BP’s involvement.</p>

<p>To assess the publication status of articles listed in The Scientific Literature Publication Tracker (23), we conducted a systematic search using both Google Scholar and the Carleton University Library database. Initially, we entered the proposed article titles from the internal document into these databases to determine whether articles with identical titles had already been published. Articles with matching titles were retained for further analysis.</p>

<p>Subsequently, we searched using the names of researchers and institutions associated with each proposed article, as indicated in the internal document, to identify publications that may have the same or slightly modified titles authored by the same individuals. In cases where titles differed slightly but were authored by the same relevant individuals, we included these articles as well. Duplicate entries of the same article found within the internal document were consolidated, retaining only one record. Articles published exclusively in magazines, conference proceedings, or as academic posters were excluded from our analysis.</p>

<p>One author conducted a comprehensive review of the publication statuses, while the other independently performed the search and verification process. Both authors then collaboratively reviewed the abstracts and keywords of the retrieved articles to identify and summarize the main themes covered. Any discrepancies in article inclusion were discussed during an in-person meeting until consensus was reached. A third researcher was asked to verify the final results to increase certainty that all identified papers were included in the BP publication plan.</p>

<p>The results of the publication search were documented using a standardized Excel pivot table format adopted by both authors. For each article, the following information was recorded: final published title, proposed title/topic as listed in the internal document, actual publication date, originally proposed publication date, type of publication, peer-reviewed status (Y/N), journal name, method of publication verification (e.g., matched by title, keywords, content, or author names from the leaked internal document), indication of collaboration with third-party companies or lead author organizations, names of lead authors/managers who collaborated with BP, whether the authors were identified in the leaked document, planned message/theme, key message of the published paper, disclosure of funding (Y/N), funding source details, additional relevant notes, decision on inclusion (Y/N), need for double-checking (Y/N), and reviewer comments.</p>

<p>The authors also cross-referenced the names of the published article authors with one of the nine internal documents titled BP Academics and Third Party Consultants (24). This was done to identify any email correspondence between these authors and BP, with a focus on the nature and content of their communications. The findings from this analysis were recorded separately in a dedicated Excel sheet titled Internal Email Details.</p>