Course on Environmental Management
Table of Content
1.2. Oil Spill
1.3. Critical Analysis of the Accident
2.1. Environmental Impact
Summary and conclusions
company: Murfy Oil Consulting services
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill has been called several names such as ‘Macondo Blowout, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and BP oil spill. The unfortunate event seriously affected the company’s business and also caused a lot of environmental problems. The disaster led to the damage of human life, Sea ecosystem, commerce and tourism. In fact, this oil spill has been described as the greatest environmental disaster in the history of the United State (Adam, 2010). BP has suffered numerous public criticisms and the government has charged BP to pay $4.5 billion in fines (Krauss and Schwartz, 2012).
Against this background, this report will elaborately discuss the environmental damages caused by the April 20 2010 oil disaster. The security measures BP would have adopted to avoid the disaster will be discussed. Recommendations on how to minimise the occurrence of oil spill will be outlined.
1.2. BP Oil Spill April 20, 2010
Several analysts have called the spill an unprecedented but massive explosion that led to a dangerous spill and unimaginable environmental devastation (Rogers, 2010). There are several issues that needed to be described to understand the root or cause of the BP oil spill in 2010. First is BP’s environmental policy, then the nature of the spill, and the extent of its outcome.
BP provides energy for heat, electricity, fuel, retail services and petrochemical products; with an annual turnover of $361 billion (2008). BP is one of the world’s largest energy providers and employs over 92,000 people. BP states in their website that they practice a very tight and transparent environmental policy that ensures proper research and technology are appointed in any of their project to save cost; minimise environmental harzards and increase sustainability. BP also argues that they are an efficient energy provider that is conscious of the implications of climate change, and also conduct their business in accordance to environmental and legal procedures in their nations of exploration and production (E&P).
If BP follows this procedures as they mentioned there wouldn’t have been any spill. The nature of the spill is so intense that the see ecosystem was utterly destroyed. A statistical compilation by Jarvis (2010) outlined that about 58,000 litres of oil was spilled into the deep water, 11 platform workers were killed by the explosion; 50- 60 percent of the oil remained in the water while 35 percent was acclaimed to have evaporated.
Also in the report by Jarvis (2010) it was noted that the incident cost the US fishing industry the sum of $2.5 billion. It cost the Gulf Coast tourism industry $23billion according to the US Travel Association. 143 oil spill exposure-related health cases were reported by the Louisiana Health Department. Between April and June of 2010, BP lost $105 billion. Wild life destroyed in thousands. Fishes, Sharks, Wales, and oysters gravely killed by the oil flooding. Freudenburg and Gramling (2010) analyse the level of environmental damage of the incident as a mutilating spread of death and destruction. They probed further that incident will have to change oil exploration and production laws in the United States of the America.
2010 was the year the well was to clock seven years without any accident. It was described as a very strong piece of technology. But the question was why didn’t BP hid to the warning signs recorded by investigators?
The sources of information for this report are academic journals, media reports, text books and survey reports. This report will propose in the end ways BP can improve safety in the offshore drilling exercise.