BPs Macondo Blow-out, Gulf of Mexico - Coursework Example

BP’s Macondo Blow-out, Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon oil spill, commonly referred to as the BP oil spill or the Macondo blow out, is an oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico for approximate period of three months in the year 2010; the well cap was blown out to allow oil seepage into the sea. It is regarded the as the greatest marine oil spill and environmental disaster in the petroleum sector history. This work is about the general analysis of the Mocondo oil spill in terms of the existing set up of the well and that entails the water depth, the type of rigs used, and any other unusual parameters that were associated with the well. The work also tends to portray the major owners of the project and their respective percentage ownership. It also tends to explain the causes of the accident as well as how such causes could have been prevented. Each accident comes with some costs and this work indicates the environmental clean up costs incurred after the blow out and how the amount was raised. The following discourse seeks to explain the balance between engineering development projects and environmental conservation. Sustainable development is the balance where constructive and economic developments uses the natural resources are without depriving the future generations from having their equal environmental share (Bryner and Duffy 147). The accident of deepwater horizon explosion caused spillage of oil gusher at the sea floor. The explosion killed 11 platform workers and injured other 17 people, polluted the sea water damaging marine and wildlife habitat among other damages. According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy management, regulation, and enforcement, the major cause of the accident was the incompetency of the rig crew when they failed to stop the operations in the deep water despite encountering several hazards and warnings. The Bp is blamed for not considering the negative impacts or consequences of settling on cheap and time saving drilling techniques or the use of defective cement in the construction works in Deepwater Horizons. Inadequate supervision and accountability in the deep water Horizon is also a factor that could have led to the blow up. Generally, the investigators summarized that lack of compressive risks and their mitigations analysis increased the chances of the accident. However, it is not easy to point specific negligence that caused the blow out but it is obvious that complete vigilance and awareness by the BP, Transocean, as well as Halliburton workers at critical operation stages would have reduced chances of occurrence of the blow out (Barroughs 57). The BP admitted its incompetence as major cause of the blow out and parted with about $ 20 billion as compensations to the victims of the accident. However, this was not the actual amount compensation fee since complains were reported week after week by different victims. Several steps were taken to stop the seepage of oil from the well to the sea water. Remotely operated underwater vehicles were the first attempt. They were meant to seal the blow out preventer valves situated on the well head. This did not work. The second approach was the placing of roughly 280,000 lb pressured containment dome over the leak as leaking oil were piped to a storage vessel at the water surface. This method was not viable since it was meant for small leakages. It failed when the leaking gas encountered cold temperatures from the cold ocean water to form solid methane hydrate solids that blocked the pipes. Heavy drilling fluids were pumped into the blow out to stop the flow of oil just before the permanent sealing with cement. However, this never worked as well. The sealing of the blow out became a success when a riser insertion tube was positioned into the wider pipe with a burst. A stopper resembling a washer diverted the flow into an insertion tube that directed the oil into a storage vessel at board. However, this was a few days relief since after sometime some leakages could still be detected and the containment cap was removed then replaced with tight fitting cap. The BP then took rensponsibity to remove the mud as well cement from the duct since they could exert much pressure on the well cap. However, despite all these efforts, oil leakages were still detected and the involved stakeholders took the responsibility of environment cleaning as mitigate measures. This led to the need of environmental protection from further pollution by the leaking oil. The three major strategies for environmental protection included containing leaked oil on the water surface away from sensitive areas to dilute the leaked before dispersing it to lesser sensitive zones and to remove the leaked oil from water. The boom extended about 18 to48 inches and below water surface respectively. However, this approach was not welcome by some US lawmakers lamenting that it was not effective. Some local mitigation efforts like construction of sand stuck to hold the leaked oil was suggested. The permits approving the approach took over two weeks to be released by concerned authority. During this time, water was released through the Mississippi river diversions to prevent oily water flowing to the lower coastal region. The project was estimated to cost about $ 360 million. Unfortunately, the approach was still regarded inappropriate despite the huge budget plus long working hours to build the sand barriers. BP realized environmental pollution can be expensive. Other expensive approaches adopted included burning the spill oil, subjecting the split oil to oil breaking bacteria as well oil dilution before discharges to safer zones. However, the later still polluted the sea waters due to traces of disinfectants that are known to interfere with marine lives. BP spent over $14 billion by 2011 for the cleanup exercise (Leonard 11). The company has worked with local residents, company’s share holders, employees and the media to see the clean up budget a success. The background setting of the Deepwater Horizon operations in this work is to point out the abnormal oparameters that could have led to the blow out. The project adopted the dynamically positioned drilling rig that could penetrate 2400 M deep and drill up to about 30,000 feet. When the incident occurred, the drill was penetrating an exploratory well at a depth of 1500 M. BP was the operator and the largest share holder of about 65%. Other share holders were Anadarko petroleum (25%). The actual incident occurred at around 9:45 p.m when the high pressured methane expanded from the well into the drilling riser which exerted that pressure to the drilling rig. This caused ignition and explosion of the drilling rig. Most of the workers escaped the accident scene by life saving boats and airlifted by helicopter to the nearby medical facilities. However, eleven workers are believed to have died and seventeen injured from the accident. The accident signs are believed to have been shown several months before it actually occurred. An oil leak was detected on 22nd April as large oil slick which was seen to spread at the rig site before the accident rig site. This is in contrary with the estimate in the drilling permit recorded to be about 162,000 barrels per day. After 2 days, a coast guard reported well head damaged and leaking. In her report, she stated that the leakage was new and could have been caused by the sinking of sea platform that happened two days before. Several organizations and government agencies did flow estimates to ascertain the accidents risk management negligence by the involved stakeholders. An environmental protection agency put more blame on the BP for denying external scientists from estimating the leaks. The agency alleged that BP feared paying huge environmental polluting fee could such high leakage rates detected. The final estimate fell at 53,000 barrels per day which was still beyond the accepted rates. The head of the well was capped after the incident to stop further leakage into the sea. The oil on the surface water reduced at an unexpected rate and this could have been due to high evaporation rates or even more rapid bacterial oil breaking activities. Strong wind strength could also be associated with such high evaporation rates. It was estimated that about 40% of leaked oil evaporated on to the ocean surface while the rest remained underneath. However, these findings were disputed by many scientists as they believed that much oil was still under the water. Engineering based companies have embraced the improvements in managements of safety and regulatory systems aimed to reduce likelihood of such risks. Environmental specialists must be consulted to undertake environmental assessment studies to predict the likely impacts of a certain project implementation. Both negative and positive environmental impacts are expected with specific project implementation. The environmentalists should then advise on the best mitigates measures to reduce the effects of such effects. Heavy penalties should be imposed on environmental polluters to discourage the developers both in drilling and construction industries from being careless as far as environmental pollution is concerned (Karen and Ricardo 220). Risk assessment companies or individuals should also be involved in projects feasible studies. They should predict the risks associated with a certain project then advice on the best methods of reducing or even completely eradicating chances of such risks. Both the shareholders of deepwater horizons suffered great losses due to negligence of prior environmental and risks analysis. BP paid for the clean up exercises and victims compensations that amounted to be over $14 billion by 2011. Haliburton was involved in several court cases related to the occurrence of the accident. Some of its workers were arrested like the engineer who deleted over 300 text messages on the accident warnings. Works Cited Burroughs, Richard. Coastal Governance. USA: Island Press. , 2010. Bryner, G. and Duffy, J. Integrating Climate, Energy, and Air Pollution Policies. New York: MIT Press. , 2012. Karen, Makuch and Ricardo, Pereira. Environmental and Energy Law. London: John Wiley & Sons.. , 2012. Leonard, Barry. Estimating the Economic Effects of the Deepwater Drilling . USA: Routledge, 2011. Read More