Ethical Issues Surrounding The BP Oil Spill In Gulf Of Mexico

Overview of the BP oil spill tragedy

Perhaps the most horrific tragedy in the world which history has in its record until today in 2018 is the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Tragedy of April 2010 (ALEXANDER, 2013). The aftermath of it has been so devastating that its ill effects are being experienced even today. It was not only a big blow to the economic prospects of the BP Company, but also a great damage to the biodiversity and humankind at large (Beever & Hess, 2016). There were many ethical issues involved in the tragedy, and that shall be the subject of this essay. It emanates from the standpoint that it could have been avoided had the necessary precautions and indications of an imminent catastrophe been given due consideration. The following sections shall thus be discussing those ethical issues in order to analyse the situation.

For drilling out crude oil from the ocean bed located in the Gulf of Mexico, the British Petroleum (BP) Company was given the responsibility. The company had built a concrete core around the oil well that lied in the depth of the ocean to secure it for usage in future times. However, things went contrary to the expectations when the level of natural gas and oil started rising up the core due to the formation of a fracture in the drilling facility. As the gas expanded upwards, it exerted immense pressure. When it had reached its peak, an explosion occurred at the platform of the facility above the sea level. It had killed 11 workers immediately on the 20^th of April 2010, and an additional 17 workers were severely injured (Brennan, 2013). Due to the explosion, the concrete core ruptured, thereby creating a huge cavity for the outflow of oil into the ocean water. Along with it, immense amount of mud had also been discharged into the water, which had accumulated as a result of the drilling process that had been undertaken to reach down to the oil reserve, penetrating the ocean bed (Clark, 2015). The number of human casualties might seem less on the surface, the tragedy however have had very far reaching effects. The coasts of Louisiana, Alabama, Florida and Mississippi were the worst affected of all the states that are situated on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico (Clary et al., 2013). Those states were located in close proximity to the tragedy, naturally the oil spill affected them the most. For almost a year, the beaches of those states had witnessed the deposition of dead aquatic animals (Greiner et al., 2013). Tourism suffered heavily as the waves brought in huge amounts of crude oil to the shores (Issacharoff & Rave, 2013). The local fishermen, who were dependent on fishing for their livelihood, faced a deep crisis as their economic ventures came to a temporary halt. It was a huge loss to a biodiversity of the region as well (Lindo-Atichati et al., 2016). The Ridley’s Turtles, an endangered species, which is found only in the Gulf of Mexico, was severely affected. Its population came down by leaps and bounds when it found no suitable seashore to lay its eggs (O’connor, 2013). The dead bodies of fishes, seals and birds became a common sight. The layer of oil that had settled on to the surface of the ocean had inhibited oxygen supply to the aquatic animals who died out of respiration blockage. The birds who came to prey upon the creatures of the ocean got themselves bathed in the oil, which made their wings heavy and they were rendered flightless unto death (Shepard et al., 2013).

Stakeholders impacted by the BP oil spill

Having mentioned of the aftermath, now the discussion shall focus on the ethical issues involved in the entire tragedy. Forensic investigations had concluded that the tragedy could have been averted, had the BP Company been careful enough. The BP Company had a history of misconduct and negligent behaviour. Prior to the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Tragedy, a tragedy on similar lines had already taken place in the Caspian Sea, and the BP Company was involved there too in the year 2008 (Shukla & Karki, 2016). They should have taken adequate precautions in order to avoid the tragedy in 2010. BP was the major company that was held responsible, but the role played by a Swiss company, Transocean has to be mentioned as well (Shultz et al., 2015). The BP Company had been leased out the oil rig to carry out the task of extracting oil from the ocean bed by Transocean after continuous seven years of extraction from the site. Both the companies had excellent track record, both in terms of safety and performance output. On top of that, the task of creating the deepest oil drilling facility at the Gulf of Mexico had made the BP Company quite overconfident (Taleghani & Tyagi, 2017). As already mentioned that intense pressure exertion by the oil and natural gas had been the immediate cause behind the explosion. It could have been avoided had the pressure test been conducted properly. The crew members had also overlooked the leakage that had occurred deep down at the well. However, there was no arrangement for any gas alarm, which could have alerted the personnel. The facility had a separator valve that separated the mud from the oil and the gas. The separator had been clogged by the mud, and there was no channel through which it could be vented out (Teich & Pemberton, 2015). This was the prime reason behind the pressure exerted by the gas and oil escalating up, which resulted in the blast. Had that clogging been detected earlier and the cleaning process been conducted, the accident could have been avoided. The cement that was used to seal up the oil well was also not effective. It contained traces of nitrogen in it, which made matters worse. The Halliburton Cement Company had to bear its share of blame for that issue. These are precisely the causes, which had conspired to let the tragedy to happen. The verdict of the trial had declared three agencies responsible for the accident. The British Petroleum Company, who was majorly responsible since the tragedy had occurred when the oil rig was being maintained by it. The Transocean was responsible substantially but much less than BP since the erstwhile managing company too had overlooked the problems and could have taken precautionary steps to counter the strengthening of the faults. Finally, the agency who was responsible the least, the Halliburton Cement Company, because it had not provided the correct grade and material required (Vasilijevic et al., 2015). It was not only a huge loss for the companies, especially BP, but also a great revelation that negligent behaviour would lead to no good. Ever since then the company had undertaken precautionary steps. BP had also compensated the aggrieved families who, were negatively affected by the tragedy. It had not only been an eye-opener to the BP, but also served as a matter of concern to off-shore drilling companies in other parts of the world as well. The BP however acted very responsibly to make up for the loss it had caused. It had, as an organization taken the active initiative to shield the wildlife against the oil spill by spraying water canons to prevent the birds from preying upon the fishes (Vickner 2016). They had taken adequate steps to clean up the layer of oil from the water body. The volunteers too had done their part by extending their helping hand in the cleaning process. They had also indulged in campaigns to increase mass awareness. This goes as far as the decisions taken on ethical grounds and on the basis of other concerns, both by the companies that were responsible, as well as by the general public. The matter could have been handled in a better way. The existing literature does not mention of the need to revamp the technological aspect with regard to the oil drilling facility. It had been functioning for seven years, naturally, there must have been some issues which could have been repaired, but no importance was given to it. Secondly, the BP Company should not have been given the lease to carry out operations as it had already been responsible for a tragedy prior to the Mexico Oil Spill. And finally, the BP Company should have accepted the responsibility after inspecting upon the potentiality of damages in the oil rig. Had it been careful right then, the tragedy could have been averted. These are certain contrasting viewpoints which could serve as alternative ways of looking into the matter.

Identification and analysis of ethical issues

In the concluding section, it is to be said that the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Tragedy draws attention towards the serious issue of the role of ethics in conducting business. More often than not the businessmen overlooks the factor of ethics and that leads to serious consequences. A problem might seem very minor at the outset, but that does not necessarily means it can be neglected. The Oil Spill Tragedy at the Gulf of Mexico is a classic example of minor gathering momentum with passage of time to become an invincible agent of destruction.

References

ALEXANDER, R. J. (2013). Shaping and Misrepresenting Public Perceptions of Ecological Catastrophes: The BP Gulf Oil Spill. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 7(1).

Beever, J., & Hess, J. L. (2016). Deepwater Horizon oil spill: An ethics case study in environmental engineering. American Society for Engineering Education.

Brennan, K. (2013). A Stakeholder Analysis of the BP Oil Spill and the Compensation Mechanisms Used to Minimize Damage. University of South Florida.

Clark, M. (2015). Quantification of Stokes Drift as a Mechanism for Surface Oil Advection in the Gulf of Mexico during the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

Clary, R. M., Sumrall, J. L., Rodgers III, J. C., & Wandersee, J. H. (2013). The effects of geographic affiliation on students’ perceptions, awareness, and responses to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61(4), 453-460.

Greiner, A. L., Lagasse, L. P., Neff, R. A., Love, D. C., Chase, R., Sokol, N., & Smith, K. C. (2013). Reassuring or risky: the presentation of seafood safety in the aftermath of the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill. American journal of public health, 103(7), 1198-1206.

Issacharoff, S., & Rave, D. T. (2013). The BP Oil Spill Settlement and the Paradox of Public Litigation. La. L. Rev., 74, 397.

Lindo-Atichati, D., Paris, C. B., Le Hénaff, M., Schedler, M., Juárez, A. V., & Müller, R. (2016). Simulating the effects of droplet size, high-pressure biodegradation, and variable flow rate on the subsea evolution of deep plumes from the Macondo blowout. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 129, 301-310.

O’connor, B. (2013). Impacts of the anomalous Mississippi River discharge and diversions on phytoplankton blooming in northeastern Gulf of Mexico.

Shepard, A. N., Valentine, J. F., D’Elia, C. F., Yoskowitz, D. W., & Dismukes, D. E. (2013). Economic impact of Gulf of Mexico ecosystem goods and services and integration into restoration decision-making. Gulf of Mexico Science, 31(1), 2.

Shukla, A., & Karki, H. (2016). Application of robotics in offshore oil and gas industry—A review Part II. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 508-524.

Shultz, J. M., Walsh, L., Garfin, D. R., Wilson, F. E., & Neria, Y. (2015). The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill: the trauma signature of an ecological disaster. The journal of behavioral health services & research, 42(1), 58-76.

Taleghani, N. D., & Tyagi, M. (2017). Impacts of major offshore oil spill incidents on petroleum industry and regional economy. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 139(2), 022913.

Teich, J. L., & Pemberton, M. R. (2015). Epidemiologic studies of behavioral health following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: limited impact or limited ability to measure?. The journal of behavioral health services & research, 42(1), 77-85.

Vasilijevic, A., Calado, P., Lopez-Castejon, F., Hayes, D., Stilinovic, N., Nad, D., … & Guerrero, A. (2015, May). Heterogeneous robotic system for underwater oil spill survey. In OCEANS 2015-Genova (pp. 1-7). IEEE.

Vickner, S. S. (2016). Seafood Safety and Marketing: The Case of the Deepwater Horizon Tragedy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 98(2), 643-647.