The British Petroleum (BP) Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill can be understood as the largest tragedy marine oil disaster ever recorded in the U.S history of petroleum industry which began on April 20, 2010. It was characterized with explosions and successive dropping of the Deep-water Horizon rig. The disaster was as a result of the methane gas which was generated and blasted in the BP-owned Maconda survey well. It was recorded that the fire lasted for 36 hours which also caused the sinking of the Deep-water hence causing the loss of eleven lives as well as the spill of approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil. As a consequence, this occurrence affected a more considerable distance of roughly 68,000 square miles. Notably, the dumping of the crude oil from BP is still present due to its leakages thus endangering hundreds of species in the Gulf of Mexico such as migratory birds, whales and sea turtles.
After this occurrence, BP immediately designed regulator and remediation actions with BP reimbursing for the full costs. Other recommendations were established to avert the blowout of oil on water, onto the beaches and the ocean. Some of the significant measures applied involved the use of inhibition boom which managed fire and Corexit dispersant. However, in spite of these efforts, it is believed that a considerable amount of this oil is still unaccounted for thus causing adverse environmental and economic destruction. In response to this predicament, BP has spent roughly $14 billion on cleanup expenses in 2014. Nevertheless, there is a likelihood of contributing more to this exercise in future to avert the spill effects (Griggs, 2011). Moreover, the indigenous community is also going through the economic downturn leading to the stoppage of the exploration work and fishing in the vast tract of the ocean. Therefore, it is apparent that the oil spill has adversely caused destruction to the environment and negatively affecting the economy of the area as well as the prospect of BP.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Explain the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, including why it was enacted, its general provisions, and OPA 90's effectiveness regarding containing a significant spill.
The current administrative structure for oil slick response to a more significant degree mirrors reactions to previous crude slick disasters. The Oil Pollution Act was implemented in 1990 to address the Exxon-Valdez oil spill since it was believed that improved-harmonized exertions could have reduced the destruction and also abridged the public obligation of any imminent spills. The Act functioned as the capstone of a fifteen-year administrative requirement for union and safeguard the oil slick response systems in multiple government laws. These elements were enacted in the law as a result of Exxon Valdez.
Notably, some of the primary provisions of the law entail the Coast Guard is tasked with the management for offshore cleanup, and Agency performs the synchronization of spill cleaning while environmental protection agency is given the mandate controlling on-shore efforts. Therefore, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 provides an extensive lawful system that develops government interactions and managing of oil slicks as well as the picked regulator. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 act holds every watchful social affair at risk for the expense of heading, clean up, and harms held as the inevitable outcome of the spill (Griggs, 2011). Notably, it enhances the formation of a single, collective spare known as the Oil Spill Trust Fund to cater for cleanup and clearing costs of approximately $1 billion. Subsequently, it also makes extensive grounded endorsement power, spill control policies, disciplines and reaction mechanisms
Why did it take BP so long to stop the spill?
The spill started on 20 April, and it was surpassed on 15 July although they sealed it permanently on 19 September 2010 after multiple futile trials. It took a prolonged period due to the lack of appropriate facilities to cap it irrespective of the presence of contingency strategies set aside such occurrences. Notably, the NCP holds that every offshore drilling firm should set up a facility-specific oil spill plan of action even before drilling. The deliberate strategy is expected to be the central device for averting any spill or leakage. For that reason, BP’s oil spill response plan was wholly inadequate.
Nonetheless, the aspect of operating in the subterranean sea at the spring of the Gulf oil leakages is seen as working in space. It is difficult to get to a complicated space whereby maneuver as well as daunting the laws of physics. It is believed to be a place where it comes with some of the challenges that robotics operates encounter in the external space. Ultimately, the engineers succeeded in bolting a closing cap on the blowout preventer. As a consequence, this offered a temporary solution until engineers could pump heavy kill mud in combination with cement into the well so that levels of pressure at the well could be reduced as well as permanently closing off the flow paths.
Which type of control would have been most helpful to BP in averting the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Provide one (1) supporting fact to support your response.
It is now evident that the tragedy may possibly have been averted. An investigation by the White House oil spill committee documented that before the disaster, a crucial adverse pressure test on the rig produced unanticipated outcomes. Nevertheless, the site workers did not consider confirming with a BP technician who was checking the rig or any other on-shore worker. The test outcomes were misinterpreted, and it kept on to operating even after momentary neglect. The report noted that, since Halliburton's issues were known, BP ought to have taken proper interventions to avert such an occurrence. Therefore, it is believed that an extensive testing or preventive interventions could have played a vital role in the managing or stopping of that disaster (Griggs, 2011). In that, this involved the application of a precautionary principle whereby an individual is prepared for any potential harm after deriving evidence from the human community and environmental activities. It holds that it is essential to place safeguards in an attempt to address any problem that may arise.
In that, the disaster could have been managed or avoided by BP by setting up multiple management regulations at the organizational levels along with the oil rig functioning phases. Therefore, the central control who have played an essential function of stopping the incident through the effective management control which is traditionally termed as the forward control. As a consequence, this method will ensure that all the challenges and problems are addressed before they occur through the development and execution of laws and procedures instead of going through the curing process later. Nonetheless, the control recommendations highlight the concept of being proactive as opposed to being reactive to issues. This will ensure that safety tragedies are not recorded at the place of work through the aspect of developing and implementing policies and training as well as retaining all the workers who can take the measures at the right time hence avoiding the concomitant damages.
Reference
Griggs, J. W. (2011). BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. Energy Law Journal , 57-78.
