The BP gulf oil spill - Assignment Example

? and Section # of The BP gulf oil spill occurred in April across the Gulf of Mexico and was perhaps the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry, with the oil flowing for a remarkable three months. The spill occurred when a sea-floor oil gusher uncontrollably released the oil after pressure control systems failed, which was in turn due to an explosion and subsequent fire that had occurred on the drilling rig, which was drilling on the behalf of BP, a global oil and gas company located in London. As a result of the explosion, 4.9 millions barrels of crude oil were released into the surrounding water before the wells were capped in July. The spilt oil caused considerable damage to the wildlife and marine animals. Similarly, on July 6th 2011, it was reported that ExxonMobil had spill around a 1000 barrels of oil into the Yellowstone River on the coast of Montana as an underground pipeline under the river bed ruptured1. While ExxonMobil has taken on the responsibility of cleaning the river and all damage caused, the question arises whether the government has done enough to protect the environment from further such disasters. Surely after the BP oil spill, such a disaster should not have occurred, especially barely a year after the last one. What did the government do in light of the first disaster, and what will they be doing after this one? If these companies are drilling for oil, they are naturally doing it with the consent of the government, who are in turn doing it for the betterment of the citizens. But if they are doing so, do they not have a responsibility to ensure that all risk of the cost of doing so is reduced and minimal? And if it is indeed their responsibility to do so, in the light of the fact that failure to do so has occurred time and again, what is the government doing to prevent further such mistakes. More importantly, why do these mistakes occur, time and again. When investigation was carried out into the causes behind the BP oil spill it was found that had overlooked several factors, that had they been correctly addressed might have prevented the accident2. For the sake of cutting back on costs, BP, Halliburton and Transocean had worked on a lower budget, thereby compromising on quality control. For example. BP had overlooked the strength of the cement being used in the walls of the pipes, as well as incorrectly cementing the walls of the pipes34. Furthermore, the failed result of several pressure tests were also ignored, which had they been properly addressed, might have prevented the ultimate bursting of the well. But while BP was considerably criticized for their faults in preventing the oil spill, the fact was that the US government also missed considerable chances to prevent the attack and then later on further responses in light of the attack5. For one thing, officials initially underestimated the threat of a leak, taking on the word of BP officials when they were asked about it a year earlier6. Once the leak occurred, they underestimated the extent of the leak. They was assumed that oil on the surface of the water was merely that: on the surface. It was not understood that it was spilling from an underground source, and thereby spread not only on the surface but rather throughout the water. As a result of this underestimation, the government disregarded the need for critical action, trusting the word of the company that said would take care of it. Oil critics say that government officials rely on oil companies to manage the oil spills, meaning they do not go into the investigation personally by going on site or into an in-depth investigation, thereby making their response to the spill inadequate. Critics also say that the government should not trust that companies have enough resources to judge in advance whether a risk exists and then once it occurs, whether they have the resources to take care of it. In the light that it doesn't, the government should take care of it, and if money costs are a factor to consider, can charge the company for the services7. Furthermore, if a company is indeed drilling under water, they should be subsidized to a certain government approved standard before they do. The factors that BP overlooked which led to the oil spill, had the government involved itself to investigate and approve each of those factors, perhaps the spill would not have occurred. The white house investigation committee looking into the case itself remarked that, '... without effective government oversight, the offshore oil and gas industry will not adequately reduce the risk of accidents, nor prepare effectively to respond in emergencies.'8 But did the government provide that oversight? And if it did, how effectively did it do so that such an accident occurred barely a year later, albeit not of the same magnitude. In light of the spill, the government placed a temporary six month suspension on all off-shore drilling, in an attempt to provide the government with time to analyze the safety measures that needed to be taken, and then allow the commission to implement those measures, and to prevent any further accidents that may occur until those measures were put into place.9 Furthermore, the federal government was appointed to issue leases for further drilling after this hiatus only after these measures were properly assessed and confirmed.10 Nonetheless, despite the safety measures the government or oil companies might taken, the possibility of an accident can never entirely be ruled out. This factor has sparked the debate of whether off-shore drilling should be legalized, but with stricter conditions, or whether it should be completely banned. Those that support off-shore drilling see it as new resources for oil, thereby leading to a decrease on America's dependency on other the reserves of other countries. This would give the country multiple advantages, both in terms of having a more reliable source of energy, without having to depend on the conditions another country may impose or be naturally going through, as well as economic benefits and reduced fuel costs. Those that oppose it naturally do so on the basis of the environmental factors and other risks involved, feeling that the cost benefits are not a viable excuse11. Others see a mid-way approach, where they feel it should be allowed in certain areas, but banned in others. So where does the answer lie, and what will the government do now that the ExxonMobil oil spill has refreshed the urgency of the debate? Though it is too soon to tell the impact it will be have, and the causes behind it, or whether there were failures on behalf of the company or the government, there is no doubt over how critical a debate it is. Oil prices and other economic factors will have a large role to play, but be that as it may, the environmental concerns and risks involved cannot be overlooked either. Perhaps the solution lies not in banning off-shore drilling, but by restricting it through legislation. Furthermore, if the government took a more active role and involvement in the companies carrying out the drilling before they actually started doing so, the probability is that fewer accidents would occur, as most occur from a case of negligence or compromised standards of quality. Indeed as the saying goes, prevention is better than cure, a fact that can be illustrated no more perfectly that in this case. References 1. Thean, T. July 7th, 2011 Groundhog Day: An Oil Giant Spins a Spill, Time Magazine for CNN. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/07/07/groundhog-day-an-oil-giant-spins-a-spill/ 6 July 2011 2. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (January 2011). "Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling". US Government. 3. "Panel: BP, others made risky decisions before spill". Associated Press. January 5, 2011. 4. Broder, John M. (January 5, 2011). "Blunders Abounded Before Gulf Spill, Panel Says". New York Times. Retrieved 6 January 2011. 5. BP Is Criticized Over Oil Spill, but U.S. Missed Chances to Act – The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/us/01gulf.html April 30 2010 6. Initial Exploration Plans BP http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf 7. The Federal Government's Role In BP Oil Spill, May 25 2010 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127114635 8. Final Report: BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling 9. U.S. Department of the Interior: Secretary Salazar's Statement Regarding the Moratorium on Deepwater Drilling "Interior Issues Directive to Guide Safe, Six-Month Moratorium on Deepwater Drilling". DOI. Retrieved 20 July 2010. 10. "Oil Spill Reaches Mississippi River". CBS News. 11. Risky Business: 75 pipeline incidents in two years for Enbridge, TransCanada http://www.firstperspective.ca/news/2634-risky-business-75-pipeline-incidents-in-two-years-for-enbridge-transcanada-.html Read More