Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: A Virtue Ethics Case Study
This paper presents a case study analysis of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill — the worst oil spill in U.S. history — through the framework of virtue ethics. It identifies the main actors, including BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, and examines the key ethical failures that led to and followed the disaster. The paper evaluates available options for BP and argues that accepting full responsibility, making restitution to affected stakeholders, and committing to transparent safety oversight represents the most ethical course of action. Drawing on virtue ethics, the paper defends this position by demonstrating how accountability and genuine remediation would restore BP's moral character and long-term standing.
- Introduction: Overview of the Deepwater Horizon spill and paper scope
- Main Characters and Their Roles: BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other key actors
- Key Ethical Issues: Risk downplaying, negligence, and stakeholder duty failures
- Main Options Available to BP: Two paths: deflect blame or accept full responsibility
- The Most Ethical Option and Virtue Ethics Framework: Accepting responsibility and virtue ethics rationale
- Plan for Implementation: Restitution fund and transparent safety oversight steps
- Defense and Conclusion: Long-term character restoration through accountability
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies a single ethical framework — virtue ethics — consistently throughout, grounding every evaluative claim in that framework rather than switching between theories.
- It clearly distinguishes between multiple responsible parties while maintaining a focused argument that BP bears ultimate accountability, avoiding oversimplification without losing analytical clarity.
- The move from ethical analysis to a concrete implementation plan strengthens the paper's practical relevance, bridging abstract moral reasoning with actionable recommendations.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis: it takes a real-world corporate crisis, identifies the morally relevant actors and actions, evaluates options against a stated normative framework (virtue ethics), and defends a recommended course of action. This structure — identify, evaluate, recommend, defend — is a standard and effective approach in professional and applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction that previews its structure, then moves sequentially through identification of actors, analysis of ethical failures, enumeration of options, selection and defense of the most ethical option, and a practical implementation plan. The conclusion synthesizes the argument and reinforces the virtue ethics rationale. This tight, stepwise organization makes the reasoning easy to follow and evaluate.
Introduction
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the worst in U.S. history, and yet it could have been prevented had the agents involved taken proper care and precaution, even at some cost to themselves. This paper identifies the main characters and the ethical issues at stake. It then determines the main options available to the agents, discusses the most ethical option, and provides a plan for implementation. Finally, it defends that decision and the moral principles it invokes by applying the virtue ethics framework.
Main Characters and Their Roles
The main characters in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill were BP; Transocean, the oil rig operator contracted by BP to operate Deepwater Horizon; Halliburton, 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 the risk posed by "kicks" — events in which natural gas is suddenly unleashed during drilling. The rig operators also demonstrated a lack of care and diligence in operating the rig, and Halliburton failed to mix the cement for the seal properly, contributing to the explosion. During the cleanup process, BP injected hundreds of thousands of gallons of Corexit into the oil to help break it up, a substance that also contributed to the illness of hundreds of crew workers (Claasen & McNamara, n.d.).
Key Ethical Issues
The most significant ethical issue in the case was, first, the downplaying of risk. BP should not have downplayed the risk of kicks, as this is the problem that led directly to the explosion. Other factors entered in, but by setting the bar for accountability low, BP effectively engineered its own catastrophe. Risk is something that should never be taken lightly or minimized simply 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 risk — it heightens it.
The next major ethical issue was Transocean's lack of diligence and care. Transocean was responsible for operating the rig and yet did little to attend properly to the situation; the same applies to Halliburton. Claasen and McNamara (n.d.) explain that all three parties "ignored forewarnings that imminent danger was looming." To deflect blame, BP later argued 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 this situation. Its approach to cleaning up the ocean was equally negligent: rather than properly cleaning up the spill, it injected hundreds of thousands of gallons of the toxic Corexit dispersant into the sea, making a bad situation worse for both humans and marine life. Even though Corexit was approved by the U.S. EPA at the time of its use, it had been banned in Europe, and BP ought to have weighed this fact more carefully, anticipating the harmful effects that would inevitably come to light.
BP had a duty to its stakeholders to manage risk appropriately, and it failed to fulfill that duty both before and after the explosion — first by seeking to deflect blame, and then by using a toxic cleanup substance to prevent the oil from spreading. It failed in its duty to stakeholders out of concern for costs and for its reputation. By placing these factors first, it prioritized its own immediate interests over the reasonable good of its stakeholders, and thus acted without virtue. It demonstrated little care or regard for its neighbors and employees, focusing instead on the costs of conducting operations responsibly and the reputational harm that might follow from accepting responsibility.
Main Options Available to BP
The main options available to BP are: (1) to continue attempting to deflect blame and responsibility for the disaster, the cleanup, and the restoration of the environment; or (2) to accept responsibility for the disaster and commit to full restoration regardless of the cost — demonstrating to stakeholders that the company cares and wants to make things right — while also committing to improved oversight of drilling operations in the future.
References
Claasen, C. & McNamara, T. (n.d.). The Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.