The Alexander L. Kielland disaster and its aftermath

Norwegian Petroleum Museum

National Archives of Norway

National Archives of Norway

Norwegian Petroleum Museum


The Alexander L. Kielland disaster is the largest industrial accident in Norway to date, and its aftermath has been significant for survivors, next-of-kin and the industry itself. After years of controversy and questioning surrounding the incident, funding was granted for an ongoing documentation project led by the Norwegian Petroleum Museum. The project’s mandate was to help ensure that relatives, survivors, and others affected by the accident feel seen, heard and taken seriously - and that, as much as possible, they can find answers to their questions. This paper presents key documentation compiled by the Petroleum Museum, the National Archives of Norway and the University of Stavanger, as well as its significance for researchers, survivors of the accident, and their relatives.


On March 27th, 1980, the Alexander L. Kielland rig capsized while stationed close to the Edda platform on the Ekofisk oil field, 300 kilometres southwest of Stavanger, Norway. 123 men lost their lives; 89 survived. This devastating accident remains the largest industrial disaster in Norway’s history, leaving an enduring impact on the survivors, their next-of-kin, and the oil industry itself. In 1981, an official Norwegian inquiry concluded that a faulty weld was the primary cause of the accident. Following the event, numerous regulatory changes were implemented to prevent future incidents from occurring on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.

In the decades following the disaster, controversy arose regarding the treatment of survivors and relatives, as well as the reliability of the initial inquiry. The Kielland Network, an organization of survivors and relatives, played a key role in raising these concerns. Renewed interest from the media and researchers at the University of Stavanger brought further attention to the matter. This eventually led the Norwegian Parliament to initiate an investigation by the National Audit Office in 2020. The results of the audit were released in 2021 and concluded that there was no basis for a new inquiry. However, although the authorities had generally done a thorough job clarifying the causes of the accident, the audit found that the original inquiry had certain weaknesses that may have contributed to eroding trust in its conclusions. Furthermore, the issue of liability surrounding the accident was never thoroughly examined, and follow-up with those impacted was inadequate.1

The audit revealed that 88 percent of the bereaved reported a lack of crucial details at the time of the disaster. Some were not directly notified about their relatives’ deaths, and instead learned about it through the media. Additionally, there were no established procedures at this time for critical psychosocial support for those impacted by the incident. Despite medical recommendations for immediate assistance and ongoing care for the bereaved, the Ministry of Social Affairs did not prioritize the allocation of resources to meet these needs. Immediately following the disaster, survivors and bereaved families were presented with a compensation offer from the petroleum companies Phillips Petroleum and Stavanger Drilling. Labour unions encouraged their members to accept the deal, which they considered adequate2. Those who did not participate in this agreement had to go to court.

Figure 1: Sketch of the accident sequence. The accident occurred when one of the rig’s fi ve legs was torn off , causing the rig to tilt at approximately 35 degrees. Within about 20 minutes, the rig capsized. Illustration: Elisabeth M. Tungland
Figure 1: Sketch of the accident sequence. The accident occurred when one of the rig’s fi ve legs was torn off , causing
the rig to tilt at approximately 35 degrees. Within about 20 minutes, the rig capsized. Illustration: Elisabeth M. Tungland

Bereaved who were children in 1980 are now between 40 to 60 years old. Some recount a childhood overshadowed by the loss of a father, the primary provider in the family, leading to a modest upbringing. However, what the majority struggle with today is the lack of answers to lasting questions about their relatives’ fates and the events that took place. Although no new inquiry was initiated by the Norwegian Parliament, funds were granted to support the ongoing search for answers. The Norwegian Petroleum Museum received funding for the three-year “Kielland documentation project,” from 2022-2025. Additionally, the Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS) was granted separate funds to study the effects of the accident and its aftermath. The documentation project and NKVTS have collaborated to organize meetings for survivors and bereaved individuals. While the National Centre focuses on investigating the long-term effects of the disaster on well-being and health, the documentation project provides relatives with information and support to help them manage trauma and navigate their path forward in life. The documentation project’s mandate is as follows:

To collect documentation, obtain and make available knowledge about the Alexander L. Kielland disaster, which can shed light on the matter and serve as a basis for research projects, articles, exhibitions, books, cultural activities, and more.

To contribute to ensuring that the relatives, survivors, and other individuals affected by the Alexander L. Kielland disaster feel acknowledged, heard, and taken seriously – and that they receive answers to their questions to the extent possible3

The documentation project was undertaken by the Norwegian Petroleum Museum in close collaboration with the Kielland Network. Following the start of the project in 2022, the University of Stavanger and National Archives of Norway also became important contributors. In our paper, we aim to present documentation in available archives relating to the Kielland disaster, their contents, and what can and cannot be found in them. In addition, we present some of the work done utilizing these archives – in research, and in making them accessible to the general public. The documentation project is now entering its final year, and its main deliveries are and will continue to be published at

Figure 2: Alexander L. Kielland (right) before the disaster. The rig was contracted by Stavanger-based company A. Gowart-Olsen & Co in 1973. It was a semi-submersible Pentagon drilling rig with five legs, specifically designed for demanding weather conditions. The rig was built at the CFEM shipyard in France and completed in June 1976. Due to a lack of drilling assignments, it was converted into an accommodation rig and was solely used for lodging throughout its lifespan. Photo: ConocoPhillips / Norwegian Petroleum Museum (NOMF-02663.652)
Figure 2: Alexander L. Kielland (right) before the disaster. The rig was contracted by Stavanger-based company A.
Gowart-Olsen & Co in 1973. It was a semi-submersible Pentagon drilling rig with five legs, specifically designed for
demanding weather conditions. The rig was built at the CFEM shipyard in France and completed in June 1976. Due
to a lack of drilling assignments, it was converted into an accommodation rig and was solely used for lodging
throughout its lifespan. Photo: ConocoPhillips / Norwegian Petroleum Museum (NOMF-02663.652)

Back to top

Understanding the Kielland archives

Archives are an important source of answers to many of the questions surrounding the disaster. The National Archives of Norway store and manage archival collections relating to the incident, including those of the initial inquiry, operator, rig owner, and police authorities, as well as many others. There is no singular entity that can be called “the Kielland archive.” Rather, the Kielland archives may refer to a collection of archives connected to the disaster, originating from many different records creators. The National Archives has identified between 20 to 30 different records creators connected to the incident, each of which played a unique role before, during or after the accident. Altogether these collections comprise several hundred thousand documents.

The aftermath of the Kielland disaster produced mass quantities of records, as many different public entities and private parties were involved. The Norwegian National Archives has public records from a variety of government agencies and offices. In Norway, these are often referred to as public archives or public records. The public records contain documentation from all levels of government and local authorities in Norway, including the prime minister’s office, several ministries and ministry offices, the official commission of inquiry, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, the police, and the judicial system. The National Archives also has records from a variety of private parties involved in the accident and its aftermath. These archives include companies operating on the Ekofisk oil and gas field, trade unions, the Kielland Foundation, and personal documents of then Prime Minister, Kåre Willoch. These archives are referred to as private archives or private records.

Of the available records connected to the disaster, the public records contain the largest quantity of documentation from the disaster. The number of different records creators does, however, create a challenge for researchers trying to piece together what happened. Locating these archives can also sometimes be an obstacle. In Norway, public records creators are required to transfer their archives to the National Archives after a period of approximately 25 years. Yet this only applies to archives that are no longer actively in use by the records creator. If the archives are still actively in use, they will not be transferred to the National Archives before their use has ended. An additional challenge in obtaining complete documentation is that private archives are not subject to the same regulations as public archives. Private companies and organizations in Norway have no obligation to hand over their archives to the National Archives. Rather, transferring private archives to the National Archives is done voluntarily. To preserve private archives, the National Archives must contact records creators and ask if they are interested in transferring their archives. This can either happen when the records creator is still active, or after the records creator has stopped their activities. If the records creator wishes to transfer their archives, they then sign a contract with the National Archives regulating access to the records, often requiring approval by the records creator before granting access.

The documentation project aims to make as much material as possible publicly available. At present, the available Kielland archives comprise approximately 200,000 pages. In part through the project’s efforts, the available material has been digitized and made searchable in the Digital Archives4, the National Archives of Norway’s digital publishing platform. This is a huge step in improving accessibility for all interested parties, whether researchers, journalists, survivors, or relatives. These archives do, however, contain large amounts of sensitive, personal data related to the deceased, survivors, and relatives. This poses a series of challenges for accessibility, both in terms of ethical issues and GDPR regulations. Some of the bereaved would like as much information as possible about their deceased relatives to be publicly available. Other relatives, however, may want the opposite. People also have the right to be forgotten and not have their information disclosed. These opposing views on accessibility of the archives makes publishing records a complex matter. Most of the material is available to the public, but records containing personal information are restricted to those who have been granted access. This includes researchers with relevant projects, as well as survivors and relatives who request access to records containing information about themselves or close relatives. This is regulated in Norwegian law.

Figure 3: After the capsizing. The rig was towed ashore upside down. Only the buoyancy elements on the columns were visible. Stavanger Drilling II AS & Co owned this rig as a limited partnership with several stakeholders. The ‘Alexander L. Kielland’ rig was stationed on the Ekofisk field operated by Phillips Petroleum Company. Photo: Sven Tø n n e s s e n / No r we g i a n Pet ro l e u m Mu s e u m (NOMF-02641.02_04).
Figure 3: After the capsizing. The rig was towed ashore upside down. Only the buoyancy elements on the columns
were visible. Stavanger Drilling II AS & Co owned this rig as a limited partnership with several stakeholders. The
‘Alexander L. Kielland’ rig was stationed on the Ekofisk field operated by Phillips Petroleum Company. Photo: Sven
Tønnessen/Norwegian Petroleum Museum (NOMF-02641.02_04).

Key public archives

The Official Commission of Inquiry for the Alexander Kielland accident is the most significant public archive in the Kielland Archives. The commission was created with the purpose of investigating the cause of the accident. The archive from the commission contains witness examinations, technical reports and documentation, reports from experts, correspondence with other government agencies, the police, and companies. The archive comprises the entirety of the documentation that the Commission used to draw its conclusions.

The Stavanger Police Chamber was in charge of the criminal investigation of the accident, with the help of The National Criminal Investigation Service (Kripos). The police investigated whether anyone could be held criminally responsible for the disaster and were also responsible for identifying the deceased. Following the accident, several lawsuits were filed. The first of these lawsuits was limitation proceedings held by Stavanger City Court. This was the first local court case and the first step in the judicial process following the disaster. The archive from Stavanger City Court contains witness statements, expert reports, medical statements, technical documentation, etc. During the trial, allegations and claims were put forward that were later investigated by the police.

The archives from several ministries are also important in understanding the accident. Operations on the Norwegian continental shelf were regulated and controlled by various ministries and agencies at the time of the accident. The Norwegian Maritime Directorate was responsible for the control and approval of the Kielland rig during its construction, as well as inspections and control of the rig in use. The records from the Maritime Directorate concerning the Kielland accident contain documents from inspections and approvals during the construction of the Kielland-rig, as well as correspondence and reports during the investigation of the accident. The Maritime department of the Ministry of Commerce was responsible for overseeing the diving on the wreck of the rig, salvage and turning of the capsized rig. The records from the Ministry of Commerce concerning the Kielland accident primarily contain correspondence and reports on salvage and turning of the rig.

The Prime Minister’s Office and the Norwegian government were highly involved in the aftermath of the disaster. The meetings and discussions in the Norwegian government are documented in the archives of the Prime Minister’s Office. The Norwegian Embassy in London was responsible for making contact and pass on information from Norwegian authorities to the British bereaved after the disaster and forwarding correspondence from the British bereaved to Norwegian authorities. The archive from the embassy contains this correspondence.

Key private archives

Private archives related to the disaster do not contain as much documentation as the public archives, but they still document important parts of the accident and related events.

Stavanger Drilling AS was the owner of the Alexander Kielland rig. The archive from the company has been preserved by the National Archives and is one of the primary private archives of interest for researchers. The archive contains documentation of the daily operations of the company, including meeting minutes from the board of directors and management, correspondence, reports, contracts, technical documents from the company’s rigs, and more. After the Kielland disaster and the different legal settlements, Stavanger Drilling continued operation of the company for many years. The records from Stavanger Drilling also contain information about other parts of the company. It is also natural for a private company to reassess the operational needs for their archives over time. As with almost every archive, the preserved documents from Stavanger Drilling are probably not complete when it comes to all documents ever created by the company. There are no indications that records have been removed to stop transparency. The company voluntarily handed over their archives to the National Archives when they ceased operation.

Another key private archive is that of the Kielland Foundation, an organization formed by the bereaved. The Kielland Foundation was established shortly after the accident and operated until 1990, advocating for the rights of the bereaved and pushing for a fresh investigation into the incident. In 2016, the organization was re-launched as the Kielland Network, driven by renewed interest in the case sparked by research at UiS, book releases, and extensive media coverage. Currently, the Kielland Network boasts 180 members. The archive is preserved by the National Archives and contains documentation of correspondence with the authorities, the companies involved, and the families and friends of the victims. It also includes meeting minutes and documentation of a newsletter that the Kielland Network sent to its members. The archive documents the organisations’ activities from 1978 to 1990 when they stopped their activities. The Kielland Network has not asked the National Archives to preserve records from the period after 2016.

Phillips Petroleum Company Norway was the operator of the Ekofisk oil and gas field where the Kielland disaster happened. From 2002 to 2005 the Norwegian Petroleum Museum, the Norwegian National Library, the National Archives of Norway and Phillips Petroleum co-operated on an industrial heritage project to document the Ekofisk field. As a part of the industrial heritage project, a part of Phillips Petroleum’s historical archives was preserved by the National Archives. This archive contains information about the Kielland disaster. The archive is still owned by ConocoPhillips Norway and all inquiries for access to the records have to be addressed to ConocoPhillips Norway.

Archives not available at the National Archives

Some archives have not been transferred to the National Archives. These include the archives of the insurance company Norwegian Oil Risk Pool, the French rig constructor Companie Francaise d’Entreprises Metalliques (CFEM), and rig inspection company, Det Norske Veritas. As mentioned, private companies do not have to transfer their archives to the National Archives. The private company, DNV (Det Norske Veritas), had responsibility for the inspection and control of the Kielland rig during its construction and after commissioning the rig. DNV manages their own archives and has not transferred their archives to the National Archives. The project does not know if DNV has preserved their records from the Kielland rig or if they are destroyed. Because private records are transferred voluntarily, the National Archives does not have an overview of all private records creators that were involved. To make a complete list of every record creator that produced records with information about the accident is impossible. The same applies for public records creators, as traces of the Kielland disaster to be found in many public archives. This includes health services and hospitals, municipalities where the persons affected by the accident lived, the schools their children went to, local churches and so on.


Figure 4: Inspection of the rig after it was turned right-side up. Photo: Sven Tønnessen / Norwegian Petroleum Museum (NOMF-02641.27_1).
Figure 4: Inspection of the rig after it was turned right-side up. Photo: Sven Tønnessen / Norwegian Petroleum Museum (NOMF-02641.27_1).

The National Archives is aware of some important records creators that preserve archives but have not yet transferred them for preservation. For example, the Higher Prosecuting Authorities and The Director of Public Prosecutions were involved in the investigation of the disaster. They were also involved in the process of deciding whether to press criminal charges after the accident. The Director of Public Prosecutions has not yet transferred their archives to the National Archives, but the records can be made available upon request by contacting the director’s office.

The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate had together with the Norwegian Maritime Directorate responsibility for preparing the safety rules on the Norwegian continental shelf and overseeing that these rules where followed. The archives from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate are kept both by the Norwegian National Archives and by the directorate. This is because the directorate has transferred some of its records to the National Archives, but not all. The National Archives keep the minutes from the directorate’s management meetings from 1973-2001, copies of the directorate’s outgoing correspondence and the oldest case files from 1972-1974. The case files from 1975 to the present are still kept by the directorate.

There are also relevant public archives in France, including those of the construction company CFEM. These archives have been partly investigated by researchers from the University of Stavanger as a part of the documentation project and findings will be published elsewhere. However, the archives are not yet digitised which of course poses a logistical challenge.

Back to top

Accessing the Kielland archives

The National Archives of Norway has worked for many years to make the records from the incident available to the public. Digitization of documents surrounding the disaster started around 2014. These documents have since been made available through the Digital Archives. Because of the large number of records creators and vast total amount of documents, it was necessary to prioritize which archives would be made available first. The National Archives started with Stavanger Drilling AS, followed by the Official Commission of Inquiry. In the last six years, the National Archives has digitized records relating to the accident from most of the ministries, and from the Kielland Foundation. Prior to the start of the Kielland documentation project, there were between 100 and 150 thousand digitized documents publicly available via the Digital Archives. At the start of the documentation project, the Petroleum Museum identified several more archives of particular importance; the National Archives have since digitized these archives, increasing the number of digitally available records to between 200 and 250 thousand digitized documents in 2023.

The next step in the process will be to make as many records as possible available to the public. This includes two primary tasks. The first is to increase online accessibility, by adding the possibility of text search within the documents. The second is the slow and lengthy process of assessing access to the documents. Due to the sensitive nature of much of the documentation, this involves ethical and privacy considerations that must be assessed manually for all documents, one by one. The objective is to make as much of this documentation as possible openly available to the public. Finally, the project is also planning a guide for users on how to navigate and understand this source for the benefit of all interested.

Back to top

Contribution to research

Major disasters like the sinking of the Titanic, the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York, and other major tragic events attract broad interest and attention from the public. Unanswered questions and complex chains of events can provide fertile ground for speculation. It is therefore crucial for researchers to be able to corroborate information with archival material. The understanding of the context in which a document was created is vital for this purpose. In which archive was it found, who was the author, and who was its intended recipient(s)? When archival records are used without these insights or are taken out of context, they can be misinterpreted and potentially increase the risk of speculation rather than providing clarity.

However, we believe that releasing as much material as possible will open the doors to a more constructive dialogue, which over time will provide answers to more questions. After the accident, a publicly appointed inquiry commission was established to investigate the incident. They published their findings in a report5 one year after the accident. The process surrounding the commission’s work in 1980 was not open to the public at that time. Many of the supporting documents were kept confidential, so people did not have access to the complete source material on which the conclusions were based. There were also no public hearings, as was the case, for example, after the Piper Alpha incident in 19886. This may have contributed to the lingering mistrust and unanswered questions surrounding the Kielland incident. Therefore, the effort to make as many of the Kielland documents accessible is a key priority in the documentation project. As an example, by reports, we can see that the investigative commission considered various possible causes of the incident, and the full story involves more than a welding fault in a brace7. The conclusion in one of the reports found two responsible factors: one technical and one human made. First, the D-leg fell off, and the rig shifted into a stable sideways position. The subsequent capsizing, which led to the catastrophe, must have been caused by a rapid and extensive flooding of the deck structure, due to doors and hatches being open. The inquiry reports included analyses of safety procedures, crew training, ballasting, anchor handling, and weather conditions that may have played a role in the accident. At the same time, the National Audit Office also concluded that there were weaknesses in the investigation, and aspects that could have been more thoroughly examined, though not enough to warrant further inquiries.

The National Auditor’s Office clearly stated, “There is no basis for conducting a new inquiry into the Alexander K. Kielland accident.” This does not, however, mean that all questions are answered. The ongoing documentation and archive work may help to find answers to some of the lingering questions. Furthermore, by making information accessible, it leaves the door open for future generations to analyse the material and approach the data in new ways.

At a personal level, archives can provide answers to questions that help bereaved individuals process traumas and move forward in life.  Without complete and accepted answers, trauma can persist and intensify. Individuals who have experienced traumatic events often describe their memories of these incidents as more fragmented and disjointed than other memories. Therefore, in trauma-focused evidence-based treatments, the emphasis is placed on piecing together information about the event into a more coherent narrative.8 The consequences of missing information in the processing phase may lead to a prolonged grieving process and increased psychological challenges.

In interviews with relatives who lost their loved ones in the Kielland disaster, it is apparent that they are concerned with questions such as who their loved ones were with in their final hours, how they passed away, what they were wearing, or which movie was playing in the rig’s cinema when the incident occurred. Archives may provide the answers to some of these questions now more than 40 years after the event occurred, thanks to documentation such as police interrogations of survivors, and similar sources.

In addition to making existing archival material more accessible, the ongoing documentation project has also collected new testimonies related to the disaster. Any individual with memories or experiences related to this tragic event is offered the opportunity to share their recollections with a researcher. With the contributors’ approval, notes from these collections are then published in the Memory Bank9, a digital collection curated by the University of Stavanger (UiS). The Memory Bank includes notes from interviews conducted in relation to several books and articles about the Kielland disaster, which have been ongoing at UiS since 2015. Additionally, some of those involved in the accident have written and published their own stories here. In the documentation project, we continue to add narratives for anyone willing to contribute. These records are accessible to the public, allowing anyone interested to access them. The books “We Who Lost” and “We Who Rescued and Saved” have gained significant popularity among the audience.

It is worth noting that several individuals who have shared their personal stories in this forum have also been interviewed by the police more than four decades ago. These prior interviews are now part of our archives. A fascinating aspect of this process is the remarkable degree of consistency found between what was reported immediately after the accident, and what is conveyed over 40 years later. We have not conducted a systematic study of this connection, but this is a phenomenon that deserves further exploration and analysis and is the subject of ongoing work10.

Several of the individuals who lost their fathers in the accident have opened up and shared their personal narratives within the Memory Bank. Among these storytellers is Linda, who was merely 4 years old at the time of the incident. The narrative woven into her upbringing recounted a heartbreaking tale: her father, initially saved and discovered on a raft, inexplicably lost it, leaped back into the sea, and vanished. This story shaped the childhood of both Linda and her brother.

In the archives, we can see which boats were involved in the rescue operation, and one of the boats was the Safe Truck. Magne, a member of the crew on this boat, remembered Linda’s father well. He was one of six men they found adrift on a raft after the accident. They were all cold and exhausted. The weather was bad, and there were large waves that made it difficult to transfer from the raft to the boat. One of the men held onto the raft to help his comrades get into the rescue boat. He was wearing only jeans and a white T-shirt. When it was his turn to be rescued, he let go, but the raft drifted away. He then jumped into the sea and tried to swim to the boat, but he disappeared in the waves. Magne remembered this incident very well. He had nightmares about the man they couldn’t save for his entire life after the disaster. This man was Linda’s father. He was a hero who saved his comrades, not a coward who failed when it mattered most. Thanks to the information in the archives, Linda and Magne were able to meet, and one man’s nightmare became a son and daughter’s uplifting story about a heroic father. This is just one example of many stories that demonstrate how archives can contribute to significant changes in people’s lives.

Figure 5: Survivors, bereaved, and seminar participants in front of the memorial “Broken Link” in Stavanger, summer 2023. Photo: Rune Egenes / Norwegian Petroleum Museum (HNOMF-05001.329)
Figure 5: Survivors, bereaved, and seminar participants in front of the memorial “Broken Link” in Stavanger, summer
2023. Photo: Rune Egenes / Norwegian Petroleum Museum (HNOMF-05001.329)

Back to top


The Auditor General’s investigation of the authorities’ handling of the Alexander L. Kielland accident is clear in its conclusions. We believe the efforts made in the Kielland documentation project are valuable, both in terms of historical research and the personal welfare of survivors and bereaved, as well as contributing to restoring trust in the authorities involved. Archives can have therapeutic value by providing answers that can help individuals process tragedy and move forward – especially after disasters, wars, and accidents of this scale.

Digitization and improved search functionality have made these archives more accessible, by making more of this information openly available and by enabling access remotely online. Accessibility and transparency have many advantages, but they also bring challenges. For instance, when more than 200,000 documents become available, there is an increased risk of misunderstanding and misusing the material, which in turn can lead to speculations and conspiracy theories. Guidance in using archival records may aid in mitigating these risks. This includes informing and educating users in how documents have been created, the context in which they exist, and how they should be evaluated. The aphorism, “Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence,” is applicable. The unavailability of something doesn’t necessarily mean the information is secret or intended to be kept hidden. Instead, there may be a rational explanation for restricting access, such as privacy regulations.

Nevertheless, there is a need for continued work in making material openly available for sensitive and controversial topics like the Kielland accident. This includes both official documentation found in archives, as well as personal experiences such as those gathered in the Memory Bank. Together, sources such as these can contribute to answering lingering questions, understanding the past, and allowing the bereaved to remember and reminisce about their loved ones. The documentation project’s work has already touched many people on a personal level and shed new light on a highly documented event. Our hope and expectation is that it will bear fruits long after the project ends, and for many years to come.

  • 1. Office of the Auditor General of Norway, The Office of the Auditor General’s investigation of the authorities’ work on the Alexander L. Kielland accident.
  • 2. Knut Skedsmo, Compensation settlement after the “Alexander L. Kielland” accident.
  • 3. This type of rig was developed through a collaboration between the Institut Française du Pétrole and the Schlumberger company Forex Neptune. Norwegian Public Reports, NOU 1981:11.
  • 4. Digital Archives,
  • 5. Norwegian Public Reports, NOU 1981:11.
  • 6. The Hon. Lord Cullen, The Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster.
  • 7. Emil Aall Dahle, “Vurdering av Aleksander L. Kiellands Stabilitet”.
  • 8. Anke Ehlers, David M. Clark, 2000; Ulrik Schnyder et al., 2015.
  • 9. Memory Bank,
  • 10. Tor-Gunnar Tollaksen, personal communication.
Back to top

Anke Ehlers, David M. Clark, “A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder”, Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 38/4, 2000, 319–345. URL: [accessed 7 February 2024]

Emil Aall Dahle, “Vurdering av Aleksander L. Kiellands Stabilitet” in Granskningskommisjonen ved Alexander Kielland-ulykken (National Archives of Norway: RA/S-1165/D/L0019, 1980-1981), 662-700. URL: [accessed 7 February 2024]

The Hon Lord Cullen, The Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster, vol. 1 (London: HMSO, Department of Energy, 1990). URL:… [accessed 7 February 2024]

Knut Skedsmo, Compensation Settlement after the “Alexander L. Kielland” Accident, Stensilserie n°86 (Oslo: University of Oslo, Department of Private Law, 1982). URL: [accessed 7 February 2024]

Marie Smith-Solbakken (ed.), “Alexander L. Kielland: Memory Bank”, University of Stavanger (2023). URL: [accessed 7 February 2024]

Norwegian Public Reports, The “Alexander L. Kielland”-accident, NOU 1981:11 (National Archives of Norway: RA/S-1407/D/Ds/Dsb/L0631, 1976-1981). URL: [accessed 7 February 2024]

Office of the Auditor General of Norway, The Office of the Auditor General’s investigation of the authorities’ work on the Alexander L. Kielland accident, Document 3:6, 2020–2021.

Ulrich Schnyder, Anke Ehlers, Thomas Elbert, Edna B. Foa, Berthold P.R. Gersons, Patricia A. Resick, Francine Shapiro & Marylène Cloitre, “Psychotherapies for PTSD: what do they have in common?”, European Journal of Psychotraumatology, vol. 6, 2015, 1–10.