Analysis of the BP Oil Spill - Essay Example

Analysis of the BP Oil Spill Case The BP oil spill was an oil spill at the BP-operated Macondo facility, at the Gulf of Mexico. The oil spill is considered the largest, in the history of the petroleum industry. The oil spill started on the 20th of April and went on until the 15th of July 2010. Following the explosion of the oil rig, eleven lives were lost, and the environment of the area was largely destabilized. Following investigations, it was exposed that poor risk management was among the major causes of the explosion. This paper will present an analysis of the BP oil spill case, from different perspectives, including transparency, rationality, avoiding extremes, intention, outcomes, natural rights, fairness, and freedom. Transparency From a transparency point of view, the response of BP was insufficient because it did not accord the relevant authorities, the information that would help them counter the problem effectively. The slow nature of the BP Company, in giving response to the spill indicated inadequacies in transparency, which was among the causes that made the spill continue for three months, without being effectively addressed. According to CEG, the BP Company hindered the response offered to the oil spin, which was likely to affect the management of further oil spills (1). According to the CEG, the response to the spill was affected by the restrictions imposed on media access to the site, the delay of the disclosure of information from the company – regarding dispersants, and the overall lack of cooperation by the company and the government agencies responsible (1). Further, the BP Company and respective government agencies were very slow in releasing information to the public, regarding the extent of damage caused, the effects of the spill and the level of transparency offered in the case, by the parties responsible. Lack of transparencies was evident from the reports offered by the BP Company and the company, regarding the volumes spilled on a daily basis. The company and the government reported that the spill was releasing 1,000 barrels a day, but the reports were discredited later after it was estimated by a specialist agency, that the spill was releasing between 11,000 and 25,000 barrels each day (CEG 1). Lack of transparencies was evident from BP’s delays, in providing high-definition video footage, which would facilitate computer analysis. BP wrote, on the 21st of May 2010, most likely after realizing that its lack of transparency was affecting the deployment of corrective measures to address the oil spill. In the account, the company noted that it would offer transparency and openness about the disaster, and its cooperation with organizations to respond to the oil spill. Rationality From a rationality perspective, the BP oil spill exposed a lack of disaster mitigation preparedness and carelessness on the part of the BP Company and the agencies that were supposed to respond to the issue. These agencies include the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the DHS (Department of Homeland Security). The oil spill exposed the careless of the company because – knowing well, the impacts of leaving the spill open – they left it open, for more than three months. From a rational point of view, it is clear that BP, as well as the government, did not engage the resources they required to mitigate the spill, in the short time they could (Walsh 1). Among the reasons cited as causes for the explosion, include that the BP Company had failed to administer effective risk management, including that they did not inspect the facility, prior to the time of the explosion. Therefore, the nature and the extent of the disaster displayed the company’s ineffective risk mitigation and non-preparedness to address disasters (Walsh 1). Avoiding Extremes From a point of view of avoiding extremes, the BP oil spill was evidently a demonstration of disregard for the extreme effects of disaster. This is evident from the fact that, after the explosion of April 20th the company and the government did not show much regard; in leaving the oil spill non-controlled (Juhasz). As a result, the spill went uncontrolled for more than three months, affecting the ecology of the area negatively. Among the ecological features affected in an extreme manner, and which a timely solution to the spill would have saved, include estuaries, beaches, wetlands, aquatic animal life and the vegetation cover in the area. Other extreme effects of leaving the oil well open included that the area was polluted with fishing and tourism activities affected, and human problems consequently experienced (Juhasz). From this point of view, the oil spill showed the carelessness of the company and the company, who did not act fast, to avoid the extreme effects discussed earlier. Intention From an analysis of the intention aspect of the parties involved in the BP oil spill, the BP oil spill shows a case of negative intentions for the people, the environment, the fishing and the tourism industries of the area, and the future impacts of the oil spill (Juhasz). This is evident from the fact that the spill went unabated for three months before it was sealed on the 15th of July. From all indications, the intentions of the BP Company do not seem those aimed at protecting the people, the environment or the ecological balance of the region (Juhasz). From this point of view, it could be argued that the company and the government were least intentional in resolving the issue, in the shortest time. Therefore, from all indications, from an intentions perspective, the BP was not interested in anything more than its business, and the government did not demonstrate the intention to address disasters like the spill (Juhasz). Outcomes From an outcomes point of view, the BP oil spill served as an awakening for the world because it was by far, the largest by the oil volume spilt, throughout the history of the oil industry. The outcomes of the poor risk management practices of the company had led to the death of eleven people, as well as the compromising of the ecological balance in the gulf area (Hertsgaard). Following the disaster, the animal and plant life in the area was destabilized and in other cases killed, due to the destruction of wildlife and marine habitats in the area. Other effects of the disaster include that the fishing and the tourism activities of the region were completely destabilized during and after the oil spill. Therefore, from an outcome point of view, the BP oil spill was a global awakening for BP among other oil companies, as well as governments, whose preparedness was largely questionable (Hertsgaard). Natural rights From a natural rights point of view, the causes and the effects of the BP oil spill was largely a violation of the natural rights of the employees that were trapped in the facility. The natural rights of the casualties of the accident, which were violated, include that the BP Company should have exercised effective risk assessment and mitigation procedures, which would reduce the probability of the accident (Hertsgaard). Further, the inaction of the company as well as the government agencies responsible for the situation compromised the natural rights of the residents of the region, as well as the beneficiaries of the gulf environs, some of whom were affected by the resultant health complications (Zuckert 72). From the same perspective, it is implied that the company and the government agencies responsible for such cases were supposed to react towards the situation in the shortest time possible (Zuckert 72). Following their lack of immediate response, the ecological balance of the region, animal and plant life was compromised, which violated the implied natural rights to be accorded to them. Fairness From a fairness point of view, the company and the respective government agencies were unfair to the people and the ecology of the gulf region. Firstly, the BP Company was grossly unfair, by letting the casualties of the accident work under non-favourable conditions. From different accounts, the causes of the accident include that the BP Company failed to respond to the risky levels of the facility and as a result, triggered the accident (Zolkos and Bradford 1). Further, during the development of the facility, the company failed to exercise all the necessary risk mitigation required, including that they did not analyse the supplies used for the construction, including the defective cement supplied to the company. After the accident, the company and the government acted unfairly to the residents of the gulf region as well as the beneficiaries of the ecology. Freedom From a freedom point of view, the company had the freedom to act, respond and think as they preferred, but their freedom was not supposed to compromise the freedom of the employees working at the facility as well as the residents of the region. For example, the residents that benefited from fishing and the tourist activities of the region were entitled to the rights of living in non-polluted environs. Therefore, considering the fact that the company, respective government agencies, and the residents held freedoms with regard to the case – it is imperative that the freedom of responsible parties was not supposed to compromise the welfare of others. Conclusion The BP oil spill at the Macondo facility led to the death of eleven workers and major ecological impacts. From a transparency point of view, the BP Company as well as the government did not exercise expected transparency levels. From a rationality perspective, the company and responsible government agencies demonstrated major carelessness towards the accident. From an avoiding extremes point view, the BP company did not do all it could have done, in its capacity to avoid the extreme effects of the case. From an intention perspective, the company as well as responsible government agencies did not demonstrate the intention to address the issue in a fast manner. From an outcomes point of view, the accident demonstrated the adverse negative effects of oil spills, and portrayed the non-preparedness of the company to address such situations. From a natural rights point of view, the BP Company violated the rights of the residents and the beneficiaries of the gulf region. From a fairness point of view, the company was unfair to the residents and the ecology of the region because it took too long to respond. From a freedom point of view, the BP Company exercised its freedom, to act at its own speed, but in the process compromised the welfare of the ecology. Works Cited BP. BP Reiterates Oil Spill Response Transparency. BP. Plc, 21 May 2010. Web. 09 May 2013. http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062348 CEG. Lack of Transparency Afflicts Oil Spill Response. Center for Effective Governance, 15 June. 2010. Web. 09 May 2013 http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/11072 Hertsgaard, Mark. The worst part about BP’s oil-spill cover-up: It worked. Grist, 22 April 2013. Web. 09 May 2013. http://grist.org/business-technology/what-bp-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-the-2010- gulf-of-mexico-spill/ Juhasz, Antonia. Investigation: Two Years after the BP Spill, a Hidden Health Crisis Festers. The Nation, 18 April 2012. Web. 09 May 2013. http://www.thenation.com/article/167461/investigation-two-years-after-bp-spill-hidden- health-crisis-festers# NOAA. 2010-2011 Cetacean Unusual Mortality Events in Northern Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Fisheries, 2011. Web. 09 May 2013. www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/cetacean_gulfofmexico2010.htm Walsh, Bryan. With Oil Spill (and Blame) Spreading, Obama Will Visit Gulf. Time, 1 May 2010. Web. 09 May 2013. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1986323,00.html Zolkos, Rodd, and Bradford, Michael. BP disaster caused by series of risk management failures, according to federal investigation of Gulf spill. Business Insurance, 18 Sep 2011. Web. 09 May 2013. http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20110918/NEWS06/309189982 Zuckert, Michael. Natural Rights and the New Republicanism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. Read More