Gulf Oil Spill Case

This article provides an overview of the Gulf oil spill case, also known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It discusses the ethical and moral issues involved, as well as evaluates the decisions taken by stakeholders. The article highlights the negligence and lack of regulations that led to the disaster, and the consequences faced by the company. It also examines the efforts made to contain the spill and the long-term impact on the environment.

Running head: GULF OIL SPILL CASE
Gulf Oil Spill Case
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1GULF OIL SPILL CASE
Introduction
The Gulf oil spill which is famously known as the deep water horizon oil spill or the
BP oil spill is one of the biggest industrial massacres in the US history. It injured 17 and
killed 11 workers, and destroyed the surrounding marine life along with capsizing the deep
water horizon oil rig ("Deepwater Horizon – BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill | US EPA", 2018).
The explosion of the oil rig released around 130-206 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf
of Mexico gulf coast and Louisiana. 20% of the filled oil settled down into the ocean bed,
which destroyed the marine life of the ocean badly along with spreading water and air
pollution largely (Heflin & Wallace, 2017). In this paper the author strives to outline an
overview of the situation that has taken place back in the year 2010. The paper strives to
discuss the ethical and moral issues that are involved in this case. In this paper the author
draws a contrast by reviewing the decisions, which were taken by the stakeholders at the time
of the incident along with the suitable solution which could have been adopted instead.
The explosion
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is known as the biggest Marine oil spill in the petroleum
industry’s history as well as in the history of the US. It leaked about 132-206 million gallons
of crude oil on the April 20, 2010. The oil rig was said to be shut and sealed after 5 months
from the accident; however, it was reported in 2012 that the oil rig was leaking oil again. The
leaking of the oil for such a long duration of time leads to severe adverse effect on the flora
and fauna of the marine ecosystem, affecting the trade and commerce and tourism industry of
the neighbouring countries. The government recruited oil cleaning staff who worked
tirelessly for days after days over years for a stretch of the 55 miles of Louisiana coastline. It
was presumed that the methane gas that has high pressure expanded and breaded across the
rig that affected the ignition and explosion, subsequently engulfing the entire oil rig. 11

2GULF OIL SPILL CASE
workers were declared dead after the US coast guard failed to find out their corpses after a
search operation carried out for 3 days. 17 workers were rushed to the emergency room for
severe injury and burnt issues (Bishop, 2017). The leak continued for around 87 days nonstop
which resulted to a spell of 1000 to 5000 barrels of crude oil everyday as estimated by the
company, which amounted to 132-206 million gallons of oil in total. On the other hand, the
Flow Rate Technical Group estimated and confirmed that around 62,000 barrels of oil leaked
everyday initially which resulted to 4.9 million barrels in total (Grattan, 2017). It was
reported that 68000 square miles of the ocean around the area of Gulf coast, Gulf of Mexico
and Louisiana were damaged. The areas and its adjoining ocean bed still have the evidence of
tar ball traces. Several issues were also reported from the Alabama and Florida beaches in
2013 (Ramseur & Hagerty, 2013). BP and Transocean, the companies and the US
government took several measures to diminish the adverse effect of the destruction, like using
of containment booms and dispersant, offshore filtration and combustion, disseminating oil
eating microbes on the ocean bed, restrictive access of the citizens and tourists along the
affected coast line, thorough cleaning procedure along the affected shores.
Ethical issues
Numerous issues both in terms of technical and ethical had cropped up that led to the
largest marine mishap of the history of petroleum industry. It was held that the entire system
of the oil rig lacked both external and internal regulations. BP, the company’s decision and
policy to lower down the cost of mining for an exorbitant profit was risky and extremely
negligent. The company did not pay attention to the poor cemented walls of the oil well that
is just another additional factor behind the explosion. In addition to this, the company was
held liable for not updating and installing and updated internal infrastructure, which also
added to the reason behind the explosion as the gas pipelines cell inside the oil well that
subsequently blew up the area. Such negligence of the company is seen as a serious ethical

3GULF OIL SPILL CASE
and moral issue on its part. The stakeholder companies BP and Transocean blamed each other
for the negligence and incompetence to maintain the oil rig. They decided to be secretive with
their affairs with the newspaper and digital media. The stakeholder companies even reported
to have made their employees sign confidentiality clauses where guided for maintaining
confidentiality. There were advertisement on television and newspapers and magazines about
the company being innocent pertaining to this matter and that they were charged a huge
amount of money as compensation. It was commented that the company should have invested
resources on improving the health of the oil rig rather than spending them on paying
compensation later on. Internal documents of the company were held open in the public that
clearly shows the confusion of the engineers regarding casing the pipelines that actually
collapsed due to the high pressure methane gas. The brand image of the company was
shattered due to the lack of efficient administrative system and transparency in the
operational front. The Fundamental Rights of the victims were severely challenged. It not
only killed and injured humans but also destroyed the extensive Marine biology and wildlife
to a great extent. It was put forwarded by the investigative committees that the explosion was
a sign of negligence and inefficiency of the company to manage the risks and precautionary
signs. On the other hand, some are of the opinion that the engineers and the operational staff
of the oil rig are to be held responsible for the mishap for they failed to perform their duty of
taking care of the infrastructure. However, the most significant moral and ethical issue that
actually led to the disaster was the increased production and higher profit earning intention
of the company without expanding the storing capacity of the rig, in addition to the failure to
upgrade the outdated infrastructure.
Evaluation of the decisions taken
Numerous investigation committees was set up to find out the reason behind the
explosion and several causes boy cited as well like the unrepaired cemented valves of the oil

4GULF OIL SPILL CASE
rig, the cost cutting approach of the company along with the inefficient operational activities
of the oil rig. Activists have scrutinized the company and the government's approach to lower
down the harsh consequences of the explosion. As per the final progress report of the
Deepwater Horizon Study Group, the company and government implemented 10 different
remedial techniques to sort out the disastrous leakage after the explosion. They tried to close
the blowout preventer with a remotely operated vehicle, efforts were made in capturing the
oil spilling by lowering a ‘top hat’ over the rig, while the engineers tried to ‘kill’ the oil well
by pouring heavy mud inside the blowout preventer (Bryant, 2019). However, all of these
efforts were in vain, as there were no effective results achieved. The engineers who stopped
the leak by bolting a sealing cap on the blowout preventer achieved a temporary fix, until
they could pour heavy mud and cement into the well and seal off the leakage paths
immediately.
BP blamed the oil-rig owners, Transocean and Halliburton stating that they failed to
take good care of the blowout preventer adequately. While Halliburton counter argued that,
there were many substantial inaccuracies and omissions in BP’s report and that they had
complied with BP’s specifications. On the other hand, Transocean replied with a rebuttal that
mentioned about BP’s attempt to hide the factors that contributed to the explosion of the
Macondo oil well for its flawed well structure and design. Arguments have been placed about
the inevitability of failure of the Deepwater Horizon due to the deregulation of the oil
industry. Deepwater Horizon study group has branded BP’s laissez faire approach towards
safety as the root cause of the main disaster (Bryant, 2019).
The White House report, however, argues that the entire situation could have been
avoided through better management and communication, conducted by BP (Goldenberg,
2019). As argued by William Reilly, the co-chairman of the investigation that the wrong
decisions by the company and the owner of the oil rig was the main reasons behind the

5GULF OIL SPILL CASE
mismanagement (Goldenberg, 2019). The management failure by BP, Halliburton and
Transocean led to the blowout. The report specifically mentioned BP’s failure to maintain
safety-engineering lapses that ended up being chronic and fatal. This completely destroyed
BP’s brand image and led to its management shuffling (Goldenberg, 2019).
Conclusion
This act of negligence on the part of the company that took away 11 lives and hurt 17
people gives a vivid example of the violation of human rights, environmental destruction,
companies and stakeholders loss of goodwill. The company was made liable to pay 4.5
billion US dollars, the highest compensatory amount awarded by the US government. The
consequences and the after-effect of the disaster was so critical that the companies gesture of
taking the entire responsibility of the explosion and helping the government to clear up the
mess was certainly not enough to mend the bruises. Although the surface has been cleared
and watched several times yet the ocean floor still have traces of oil residue. The heavy
compensation amount that the company paid to the victims not enough to replace them in
their families for d disaster could have been avoided if the companies had played their role
effectively. Profit making intentions and gross negligence are the Arch reasons that brought
in the distress that jeopardized the human lives and nature.

6GULF OIL SPILL CASE
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.
Bryant, B. (2019). Deepwater Horizon and the Gulf oil spill - the key questions answered.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/20/deepwater-
horizon-key-questions-answered
Deepwater Horizon – BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill | US EPA. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/deepwater-horizon-bp-gulf-mexico-oil-spill
Goldenberg, S. (2019). BP oil spill blamed on management and communication failures.
Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/02/bp-oil-spill-
failures
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.
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.
Ramseur, J. L., & Hagerty, C. L. (2013). Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Recent activities and
ongoing developments. Congressional Research Service. January, 31, 2013.