BP: The Problem with the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico

This essay discusses the biggest industrial disaster, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, its ethical issues, consequences, and decisions taken. It covers the accidental explosion, ethical issues, and consequences, review of the decisions taken, and the aftermath of the disaster. The paper strives to review the decisions that were taken at that point in time and the most appropriate remedy that could have been taken, hence drawing a contrast.

Running head: BP: THE PROBLEM WITH THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
BP: The Problem with the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1THE PROBLEM WITH THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................2
About the Explosion...................................................................................................................2
Ethical issues and Consequences:..............................................................................................3
Review of the decisions taken....................................................................................................4
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................6

2THE PROBLEM WITH THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
Introduction:
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill, better known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the
BP oil spill is the biggest industrial disaster that not only killed 11 workers, injured 17 and
jeopardized marine life, but also capsized the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. The accidental
explosion led to the release of 134 to 206 million gallons of oil into the Gulf Coast, Gulf of
Mexico and Louisiana. Even though the 20% of the oil have settled down into the ocean
floor, it has damaged the marine ecosystem badly, spreading air and water pollution to a great
extent (Heflin & Wallace, 2017). This ethical essay aims to draw an overview of the situation
that had occurred back in 2010 and discuss the ethical issues intertwined with the matter. The
paper strives to review the decisions that were taken at that point in time and the most
appropriate remedy that could have been taken, hence drawing a contrast.
About the Explosion
The BP oil spill or the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is regarded as the largest marine oil
spill in the history of petroleum industry, leaking around 134 to 206 million gallons of crude
oil. The accident occurred on April 20, 2010 and the rig was finally announced to be sealed in
September 2010, yet in early 2012 it was reported that the oil well was found to be leaking
again (Heflin & Wallace, 2017). This months-long oil leak led to extensive adverse effects
on the marine and wildlife ecosystem along with fishing and tourism industry. Oil cleaning
crew worked hard for four days every week throughout 2013 on a stretch of 55 miles of
Louisiana coastline (Bishop, 2017). It is anticipated that high-pressure methane gas
expanded, spread into the drilling riser and moved into the drilling rig; igniting, exploding
and engulfing the entire platform. 11 workers went missing and their corpses were not found
despite the three-day search operation carried out by U.S. coast guard. While 17 workers

3THE PROBLEM WITH THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
were sent to the emergency for burnt and injury issues (Bishop, 2017). The oil rig reportedly
sank on April 22, 2010. While the oil leaked for 87 odd days at a stretch, spilling 1000 to
5000 barrels of oil per day (laid down by BP) amounting to 134 to 206 million gallons in
totality (Bishop, 2017). While the Flow Rate Technical Group calculated and stated it to be
62,000 barrels per day initially, estimating to 4.9 million barrels total (Grattan, 2017).
Satellite image reported with evidence stating that 68,000 square miles of the ocean was
directly impacted by the spill. Later, coastlines of Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and
Alabama showed thick trace of oil. Over 4,600,000 pounds of oil deposits and materials was
cleared from Louisiana coast in 2013, yet traces of tar balls were still spotted and reported
from Florida and Alabama beaches (Ramseur & Hagerty, 2013). BP and the US government
adopted certain measures to reduce the ill effects of the explosion, like use of containment
booms and corexit dispersant, combustion and offshore filtration, collection, spreading oil-
eating microbes, access restriction and lastly cleaning up the shores.
Ethical issues and Consequences:
Several problematic factors led to the biggest marine disaster of all time. It lacked
both internal and external regulations. BP’s decision on cost cutting policy to increase
production, its risk taking steps, negligence to fix poor cemented walls of the well added to
the cause. Additionally, BP was also blamed for not upgrading a dated internal infrastructure,
which aided in the falling of gas pipelines into the oil well, eventually blowing up the site.
Such gross negligence is covered under severe ethical issue on the part of the company. BP
and Transocean indulged in blame game and opted for maintaining secrecy from the media;
hence making its employees sign confidentiality clauses. The company even came out with
commercial ads on television and print media stating its innocence, spending a huge amount.
It was argued that the company should have spent the money on a better rectification of the

4THE PROBLEM WITH THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
situation. Several internal documents of BP’s operation was leaked and it was evident that
the engineers of the company were in doubt about casing the pipe that BP used which
eventually collapsed on high pressure. A severe lack of transparency in the operational
activities of the company has led to a shattered brand image. It is evident that this disaster
violated the fundamental rights of many. It vandalized lives of human and oceanic flora and
fauna, destroyed business, restricted people from enjoying their summer holidays on the
seashore, took away job opportunities and several other. It was opined by the appointed
commission that this explosion was not inevitable; it was just an example of negligence and
mismanagement as the company ignored or overlooked warning and precautionary signs. It
was hold by some other, that the engineers should be held responsible to the utmost as it was
their decision to check and maintain the condition of the methane pipelines and oil wells. It is
an engineer’s duty to safeguard the safety and security of the company and its assets, the
public at large and the environment. In this case, shifting of the burden of blame has clearly
been found from the initiation. However, the major ethical issue that attracted the disaster is
clearly the production and profit maximization motive of the company without enhancing its
internal capacity and upgrading its outdated infrastructure.
Review of the decisions taken
Several investigative commission has been appointed to find out the cause of the
explosion. Numerous reasons were cited too, like defective cemented walls of the well, cost-
cutting compromise of BP and inefficient safety system of the rig. Numerous inquiries and
investigation tried to zero out the reason behind the explosion and the ginormous amount of
oil spill. Activists have kept BP and the government’s effort to mend the consequences of the
disaster under thorough scrutiny. Containment booms were installed over an area of
4,200,000 feet to keep the oil within a boundary so that it does not spread further.

5THE PROBLEM WITH THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
Nonetheless, this idea was criticized pointing out the fact that it could not hold the oil from
spreading and washing the shores. The construction of Barrier Island by the Louisiana Barrier
Island Plan was heavily criticized for the huge expense incurred by it and not giving an
effective result in return. It was also held that the containment booms would threaten and
affect the already affected oceanic fauna. Use of corexit dispersant was another corrective
measure adopted by the company and the government (Graham, 2016). Oil dispersant having
oil degrading attributes was held to be an conductor of carcinogenic agents, hazardous
pathogens and life threating toxic chemicals (Goodbody-Gringley, 2013). Environmentalists
held that spraying of such dispersants does very little to the damage and adds greatly to the
existing toxicity of the oil spill. It was reported that corexit was a skin and eye irritant and
prolonged exposure to it could damage the red blood cells, liver, kidney and may cause
nausea an anesthetic effects. Oil-eating microbes although facilitated oil spill cleanup, yet it
was suggested that the microbes are only consuming parts of the oil. It was later pointed out
that the microbes are only consuming the natural gas and not the oil. Additional risks such as
reduction of subsea oxygen level would occur due to the increased microbial activity,
threating the marine animals (King, 2015). A temporary restrictive zone was declared in and
around the explosion site to facilitate the remedial work of the coast guards and other
authorities. Civilian and other commercial flights were restricted from flying over the area.
This affected the right of open press and media to cover the progressive changes made by the
liable authorities. The disastrous incident fouled over 1300 miles of coastline, encrusting
seabirds and destroying sea creature and marine wildlife, leading to a hefty financial loss for
the fishing and tourism industry (Ritchie et al., 2014). Some research study was carried out in
2014 on the sediment sample collected from a scattered shipwreck spot 93 miles away from
the original explosion site. It was found that even after 4 years of the incident, there was

6THE PROBLEM WITH THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
visible trace of oil residue on the soil sample (Gyo Lee, Garza‐Gomez & Lee, 2018). It was
also learnt that biodiversity was stunted at the places closest to the main site (Kwok, 2017).
Conclusion
The unethical disastrous act resulting from the gross negligence of the company
amounted to infringement of human rights, loss of lives, destruction of environment, loss of
goodwill of the company and the stakeholders. BP was held liable to pay a compensation of
4.5 billion US dollar, which is the highest amount held as a compensational amount by the
USA government ever before. Even though the company took full responsibility of the
situation and worked to amend the foul situation, yet it is clear to be not enough as even
today the aftermath of the disaster still lies on and beneath the water surface. Although the
company paid heavy compensation to the families of the deceased and injuries and paid a
huge amount of compensation as well, but it was stated by every researcher that it was not
something that could not have been avoided. Clear negligence and profit making motive
paved the way for the distress endangering and jeopardizing so many aspect.

7THE PROBLEM WITH THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
References:
Bishop, R. C., Boyle, K. J., Carson, R. T., Chapman, D., Hanemann, W. M., Kanninen, B., ...
& Paterson, R. (2017). Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: The BP oil
spill. Science, 356(6335), 253-254.
Goodbody-Gringley, G., Wetzel, D. L., Gillon, D., Pulster, E., Miller, A., & Ritchie, K. B.
(2013). Toxicity of Deepwater Horizon source oil and the chemical dispersant,
Corexit® 9500, to coral larvae. PloS one, 8(1), e45574.
Graham, L., Hale, C., Maung-Douglass, E., Sempier, S., Swann, L., & Wilson, M. (2016).
Chemical dispersants and their role in oil spill response. Oil Spill Science
http://masgc. org/oilscience/oil-spill-science-dispersant-bkgrnd. pdf.
Grattan, L. M., Brumback, B., Roberts, S. M., Buckingham-Howes, S., Toben, A. C., &
Morris, G. (2017). “Bouncing back” after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Disaster
Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 26(2), 122-133.
Gyo Lee, Y., Garza‐Gomez, X., & Lee, R. M. (2018). Ultimate Costs of the Disaster: Seven
Years After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Journal of Corporate Accounting &
Finance, 29(1), 69-79.
Heflin, F., & Wallace, D. (2017). The BP oil spill: shareholder wealth effects and
environmental disclosures. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 44(3-4), 337-
374.

8THE PROBLEM WITH THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
King, G. M., Kostka, J. E., Hazen, T. C., & Sobecky, P. A. (2015). Microbial responses to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill: from coastal wetlands to the deep sea. Annual review of
marine science, 7, 377-401.
Kwok, R. K., Engel, L. S., Miller, A. K., Blair, A., Curry, M. D., & Jackson, W. B. (2017).
The GuLF STUDY: a prospective study of persons involved in the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill response and clean-up. Environmental health perspectives, 125(4),
570.
Kwok, R. K., Engel, L. S., Miller, A. K., Blair, A., Curry, M. D., & Jackson, W. B. (2017).
The GuLF STUDY: a prospective study of persons involved in the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill response and clean-up. Environmental health perspectives, 125(4),
570.
Ramseur, J. L., & Hagerty, C. L. (2013). Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Recent activities and
ongoing developments. Congressional Research Service. January, 31, 2013.
Ritchie, B. W., Crotts, J. C., Zehrer, A., & Volsky, G. T. (2014). Understanding the effects of
a tourism crisis: The impact of the BP oil spill on regional lodging demand. Journal
of Travel Research, 53(1), 12-25.