Case Study Analysis: Deepwater Horizon
Introduction
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the worst in US history, and yet it could have been prevented if agents involved had taken the proper care and precaution at some cost to themselves. This paper highlights the main characters and identifies the ethical issues. It then determines the main options available to the agents, discusses the most ethical option and provides a plan for implementation. Finally, it defends the decision and the moral principles it appeals to by applying the virtue ethics framework.
Main Characters
The main characters in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill were BP; Transocean, the oil rig operator contracted by BP to operate Deepwater Horizon; Haliburton, which mixed the cement meant to seal the drill; the workers tasked with cleanup; the EPA, which oversees rules for cleanup; and analysts, whose task it was to observe and identify problems. The main actor was BP, as it downplayed risk posed by kicks when natural gas is unleashed from drilling; the rig operators also demonstrated a lack of care and diligence in operating the rig; Halliburton failed to mix the cement for the seal properly, which contributed to the explosion; and in the clean-up process, BP injected hundreds of thousands of gallons of Corexit into the oil to help break it up but which also contributed to the sickness of hundreds of crew workers (Claasen & McNamara, n.d.).
Ethical Issues
The most significant ethical issues in the case were, in the first place, the downplaying of risk. BP should not have downplayed the risk of kicks, as this is the problem that led to the explosion. Other factors entered in, but by setting the bar for accountability low, BP engineered its own catastrophe. Risk is something that should never be taken lightly or downplayed just because addressing it poses a potential headache. It is important to be transparent and honest about risk factors and to address them upfront; downplaying them does not mitigate riskit heightens it.
The next major ethical issue was the lack of Transoceans diligence and care; it was responsible for operating the rig, and yet it did little to attend properly to the situation, and the same goes for Halliburton. Claasen and McNamara (n.d.) explain that all three ignored forewarnings that imminent danger was looming. Then to deflect blame, BP tried to argue that Transocean was responsible for the disaster. However, it was BP that downplayed the kicks because the crew was behind schedule and BP was losing money. BP was clearly negligent in the situation. Its attempt to clean up the ocean was also negligent, for instead of cleaning up the spill it simply added hundreds of gallons of the toxic Corexit dissolvent into the
Even though Corexit was approved by the US EPA at the time of its use, it had been banned in Europe and BP ought to have considered this fact more substantially, foreseeing the harmful effects that would likely be called to its attention after its usage.
BP had a duty to stakeholders to attend to risk appropriately and it...
…and it would not be seen as a trustworthy organization.
Protests against future drilling in communities could be organized to the detriment of the firm. Virtue ethics is not just about doing what is right toward others but is also the
ethical framework that shows that by doing the right moral action at the right time one is able to do what is best for himself as well. That is what BP needs to do now: by providing restitution here and cleaning up the
environment properly it does what is right toward the community and what will be seen as right for itself in the long-run.
Conclusion
BPs Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the result of negligence and lack of proper accountability on the part of the oil company. Although other agents were involved, such as Transocean and Halliburton, BP still has to take ultimate responsibility. Halliburton did fail to mix the cement properly and Transocean did fail to show proper care for operations, but BP was also negligent in responding appropriately to risk in the first place, and it urged Transocean to hurry because the crew was behind schedule. This shows at the very least that BP had promoted a culture of haphazardness. The disaster grew out of that culture, which it fostered. BP therefore has to make amends to restore its character and show that it is committed to the good by adopting a virtuous stance, regardless of the immediate financial cost to itself. Making restitution is not likely to put the oil company out of business but it will help to…
