Mexican Gulf Oil Spill - Research Paper Example

? Mexican Gulf Oil Spill Introduction The Gulf of Mexico oil spill of is considered the greatest accidental oil spill in the history of the United States. The marine life damage as a result of the oil spill was significant, and it is argued that the damage might never be undone. The relief efforts continued for more than a year and many steps were taken to preserve the natural habitat. The oil company responsible for the oil spill was British Petroleum. The company suffered massive losses due to this disaster, and its profitability was badly affected. The company’s reputation was also tarnished severely, as the oil spill was a public relations disaster. British Petroleum had to face criticism not only from environmental groups but also from the general populace. The case study of Gulf of Mexico oil spill will aid the understanding of the audience as to how the company dealt with the situation. The focus will be on the way company handled its communication in the media. Also, the role of culture and politics and its impact on the way the company dealt with the crisis will be discussed. The reaction of the public and how British Petroleum handled it will also be significant part of this case study. Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill The Gulf of Mexico oil spill started on 20th April 2010 with an explosion of the deep water horizon in which 11 men lost their lives and another 17 were left wounded (Welch & Joyner, 2010). The explosion resulted in the worst oil spill in the history of oil and gas industry, and millions of barrels of crude oil polluted the sea. The oil spill lasted for about 3 months, during which British Petroleum tried many attempts to block the oil well. Government agencies also took action, and the company was fined. The company also had to deal with many lawsuits from businesses and individuals. The underwater oil spills are difficult to stop, because the source of oil is underwater. This is why it took the company 3 months to stop the oil spill. The company tried very hard to stop the oil spill earlier but was not successful. British Petroleum also had to face severe criticism and public outrage when many of its attempts to stop the oil spills went unsuccessful. People couldn’t find answers as to how it is not possible for a company as big as British Petroleum to stop the oil spill. The underwater oil spill is also more damaging than other types of drilling disasters, because it is very difficult to clean the rivers and seas that are affected by the oil spill. British Petroleum had to handle this situation, as it was no less than a public relations disaster. The company had to take tough decisions to protect its reputation, as it was getting a bashing from media, environmental groups, and public. The company first tried to dial down the situation and took a position that the oil spill is not as big as people think it is. The potential damage of the oil spill was dialed down by the company. The company also took steps to curb the damage from the oil spill. The policy of damage control was put in place as the company was trying to stop the oil spill. Initially, people believed the company’s stance that everything would work out. But when days went by and the oil spill didn’t stop, the media and the public started to panic. This is when the company publicly admitted that there was something seriously wrong and steps had to be taken. Initially, however, the policy of dialing down the issue was followed by the company. Given the size of the company, it was necessary for it to dial down the danger. Any bad news would result in lowering stock prices, which is not acceptable by the shareholders; therefore, the company initially tried to tell people that the problem was not bad enough and the company would soon solve it. From the standpoint of the company, it was a good step, as it stopped the share prices from falling immediately. But when the news broke out that the company is finding it difficult to fix the oil spill, company stocks decreased and, eventually, the company had to accept the gravity of the situation. Reaction of the People The reaction of the people and media was sheer outrage, as both blamed the company for the oil spill. Environmental groups started criticizing the company and its ways. The criticism of offshore drilling went alive again as a result of the crisis. It is safe to suggest that the company was also not able to handle the crisis in the media effectively. Communication strategy of the company was not good, as they were constantly giving the wrong message to the people regarding the oil spill. As discussed earlier, the initial communication strategy of the company was to dial down the issue and cover up the problem. At that time, in an effort to dial down the situation, the CEO of the company suggested that oil spilled was only a tiny fraction of ocean (Webb, 2010a). After the reaction of the people started to become strong, the company changed its stance and started making promises about cleaning the oil from the ocean (Muskal, 2010). The company also agreed to pay damages to businesses and people that were affected by the oil spill. After the oil spill had not stopped after several weeks, people started to panic and media criticism also increased. Government was also involved, and an official investigation started aiming to find the culprits behind the spill. All this pressure forced the company to talk about who is responsible. British Petroleum did not take responsibility for the oil spill; instead, the company blamed the manufacturer of the oil rig responsible for the oil spill (Bergin & Rascoe, 2010). The public reaction over the blame game was not very good, as they wanted answers. Unfortunately, the communication strategy of the company was no way close to satisfying the public. The company came out with its own investigative report that found that company was not at fault (Bergin & Rascoe, 2010). The report was directly opposite to the government’s investigation of the oil spill. British Petroleum tried its best to convince people that it was not at fault for the incident, but no one was willing to believe the company. The idea that company had nothing to do with the oil spill was not suiting the appetite of the public and the media, who were looking for someone to blame for the greatest oil spill in history. The blame game strategy of the company failed miserably and the media and public saw right through the strategy of the company. The company made many blunders in handling the situation. The CEO of the company at the time made promises and guarantees about the oil spill which didn’t come true, because till then no one was able to assess the real situation clearly (Webb, 2010b). The CEO also mentioned a comment comparing the size of the ocean with the oil spill. Such comments made the company look like it was oblivious of the environmental damage it was causing. Also, the company tried to flew some journalist over the affected area to show them that most of the oil was cleaned, but the pilot turned around half way (Webb, 2010b). Such conflicting and blatantly incorrect statement made the situation worse and made the public angrier. The CEO of the company also seems very insensitive towards the crisis all the time. His many statements regarding the issue were a cause of ridicule of the company. The CEO Tony Hayward said in an interview, “We're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused their lives. There's no one who wants this over more than I do. I'd like my life back” (Webb, 2010b). Such statements showed that the company was not ready to take the blame and was also oblivious to the damage it is causing to the environment. This statement also proves the point that the communication strategy of the company was a massive public relation disaster. Stereotyping of Oil Spills Offshore drilling is not viewed in positive light by majority of the public. Especially the environmentalists are against offshore drilling due to the environmental pollution it causes. With many oil spills happening over the course of history, people have developed a negative opinion about oil companies involved in offshore drilling. Oil spill is itself bad for the environment, but people blame oil companies for it as they are viewed in a negative light by the people in general. There is also a general stereotype regarding oil spills that they are caused by oil companies and these companies have utter disregard for the environment. It is because of this stereotyping that people were quick to blame British Petroleum for the oil drill. Oil spill was a result of an accident in which people lost their lives, and it could have been viewed as an accident. However, people, due to their stereotypes of oil spills and oil companies, were quick to blame the company for the disaster. It is a popular belief among the general public that major oil companies are very powerful and they control the prices of oil and gas, which is untrue (Glover, 2012). Such stereotypes about the oil and gas companies also played a role in shaping public opinion against the company. Also, British Petroleum did not make any effort to make people think otherwise. Absence of a coherent strategy made it impossible for the company to fight with negative stereotypes of the public. The popular beliefs and stereotypes of people are not true, but they played a role in bolstering the negative criticism against the company. Politics, Culture, and Oil Spill Politics and culture are two very important elements in a disaster of the magnitude of Mexican Gulf oil spill. Oil spill caused political tremors in the White House, because a bill was to be introduced that would have encouraged off-shore drilling (Mufson, 2010). Politics played a very important role in the way British Petroleum handled the crisis. Their communication strategy was largely aimed to please the government. The company took the responsibility straightaway to clean the waters that were affected due to the oil spill. Communication by the company was also not aimed at blaming the government. However, later on, government and British Petroleum started to criticize each other. British Petroleum argued that the government did not investigate the issue in a right manner while government put the blame on the company. The culture of people affected should also have been considered by the company when it was designing its communication strategy, but it didn’t happen. The region relied heavily on fishing, which was destroyed as a result of the oil spill (Driver & Krasny, 2010). This meant that people had to find new ways of earning a living, which was tough. Experts suggest that the oil spill will have massive cultural and social repercussions in the long run, and these changes will transcend to the next generations (Sandmel, 2010). The communication strategy should have been aimed to cater to the specific problems of the people, but instead the company kept on blaming the manufacturer for the oil spill. The oil spill also affected tourism, which was the 2nd largest revenue earner in the area (Reid, 2010). There is no doubt that this disaster affected the culture of the people, but the company made no effort in its communication to soothe the affected people. Instead, the company kept on changing their stance. Conclusion Mexican Gulf oil spill is considered the worst oil drilling disaster in history of the country. The harmful effects of the oil spill are still felt today and may continue to affect the people of the region in future as well. The way British Petroleum handled the crisis was not exemplary. The communication strategy of the company failed to show any kind of consistency. Also, the company failed to fight stereotypes and take into account cultural factors in their communication. References Bergin, T., & Rascoe, A. (2010). BP points fingers in oil spill blame game. Retrieved on July 06, 2012 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/09/us-bp-idUSTRE6871GC20100909 Driver, A., & Krasny, R. (2010). Fishing closed in Gulf waters affected by oil spill. Retrieved on July 06, 2012 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/03/us-usa-rig-fishing-idUSTRE6412DN20100503 Glover, Peter. (2012). Big oil, big profits, big green lies. Retrieved on July 06, 2012 from http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1098/big_oil_big_profits_big_green_lies?print=true Mufson, Stevenson. (2010). Gulf of Mexico oil spill creates environmental and political dilemmas. Retrieved on July 06, 2012 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042604308.html Muskal, Michael. (2010). Gulf oil spill: BP accepts responsibility for oil cleanup. Retrieved on July 06, 2012 from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-bp-accepts-responsibility-for-oil-cleanup.html Reid, Robert. (2010). How the Gulf of Mexico oil spill affected US tourism. Retrieved on July 06, 2012 from http://www.lonelyplanet.com/usa/florida/travel-tips-and-articles/76151 Sandmel, Ben, (2010). Oil spill 'worse than Katrina,' Shrimper says, 'This is like a death'. Retrieved on July 06, 2012 from http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/27/oil-spill-worse-than-katrina-shrimper-says-this-is-like-a/ Webb, Tim. (2010a). BP boss admits job on the line over Gulf oil spill. The Guardian UK. Retrieved on July 06, 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/13/bp-boss-admits-mistakes-gulf-oil-spill Webb, Tim. (2010b). BP's clumsy response to oil spill threatens to make a bad situation worse. The Guardian UK. Retrieved on July 06, 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/01/bp-response-oil-spill-tony-hayward Welch, W., & Joyner, C. (2010). Memorial service honors 11 dead oil rig workers. USA Today. Retrieved on July 06, 2012 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-25-oil-spill-victims-memorial_N.htm Read More