For those reeling from the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, justice of the criminal variety (and, some would argue, of any variety) has been a long time coming. But last week, there was evidence that some might eventually be delivered.

Hope came with the April 24 arrest of a former BP engineer accused of deleting more than 200 text messages that allegedly show BP knew oil flows were higher than publicly stated, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice. Kurt Mix, who worked to gauge the flow from the damaged well after it exploded, was indicted by a federal grand jury Wednesday on two counts of obstruction of justice, according to the Associated Press.

Considering the rig blowout and resulting spill killed eleven people, spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, and caused billions of dollars of damage to coastal communities and businesses, the charges—and the charged—seem less than satisfying. No worries though, experts say. Mix is but the first domino in a long line that have yet to fall.

“As a prosecutor, that’s the first thing you look for, a weak link,” University of Maryland law professor Jane Barrett, who prosecuted environmental cases for the Justice Department, told the Christian Science Monitor. “And somebody obstructing an investigation is pretty easy to prove … and the goal would be to use this as a way to negotiate a cooperator deal, where [Mix] would, in exchange for [a reduced sentence], agree to provide information to the government on other aspects of the case.”

If that tactic works, it could have cascading effects on both BP’s image and liability. The company has long painted itself as a team player that stepped up to the plate to right the wrong done by the spill. Mix’s deletions might give the impression it only intended to bunt.

“If people at BP knew and failed to disclose to the government what the flow rate was, that obstructed more than justice,” Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus told the New York Times. “It may have impeded the effort to contain the flow and allowed it to continue longer than it did, increasing the damage.”

That seems to be case. At the time, BP officials were attempting to stanch the flow of oil using an operation called top kill. Mix’s texts, one of which read “Too much flow rate—over 15,000 and too large an orifice,” warned against trying the maneuver, according to the Guardian. The company, however, continued with the plan (which ultimately failed) while telling the public there was a 70 percent chance of success.

In addition to what might be upcoming perjury charges based on BP officials' congressional testimony, the Justice Department is also considering manslaughter charges, according to another Associated Press report. The big question is, will those charges be shouldered by the corporations or by individual managers that called the shots?

Often what happens in technological disasters is that corporations plead guilty to criminal charges and pay a large fine, Barrett told AOL News. But this case, considered to be the largest spill in the history of the oil industry (and it isn’t over yet), might be ripe for making an example by charging individuals. “The challenge is in figuring out if there is some criminal conduct that you can pin on an individual,” Barrett told AOL News. “Did a senior VP of BP tell them, 'I don't care what you do, this rig has got to be done by this date'? Did they know materials they were dumping to disperse the oil were more toxic than they let everybody else know? Somebody made those decisions. That's what the Justice Department is going to have to figure out.”