Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of North Texas *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
5140
Subject
English
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by melaniecampoverder
Short summary of the situation
The Deepwater Horizon Spillage is an engineering disaster that took place from April 2010, within the Gulf of Mexico, and it is regarded as the greatest oil spillage in the history. The US Federal government approximated the total spillage to be 780, 000 cubic meters. In pursuit of containing this flow, there were several failures but the well was eventually sealed on September,
2010 (Borunda, 2020). This makes the BP spillage among the largest environmental catastrophe in the US history. Failure Analysis Themain agent that led to this failure is the BP and this is following a series of events and decisions that resulted to the disaster. This agent's conduct shows some form of negligence and recklessness. The main failure in this case includes the poor management of the company which led to poor decision. The company clearly depicts poo industrial managementbecause it failed to identify and address the key risks posed by the latest changes to the procedures and well designs. Furthermore, the management at BP did not sufficiently ensure that experts fully considered the perils created by money and time saving decisions (EPA, 2020). BP was running behind the schedule and the costs were beyond the budget line in efforts to complete the Macondo well. This made the management think of taking numerous shortcuts leading to oil spillage and disastrous blowout. Besides, the failure to properly place the cement at the bottom of the well that was to contain the oil is another factor that contributed to the disaster. This error resulted to a cascade of mechanical and human errors, which permitted the natural gas under great pressure to blow away into drilling platforms, leading to the fire and explosion that killed a total of 11 individuals and a massive spillage that took months to control. For the 40 minutes period, the Transocean rig team did not identify and act upon the hydrocarbons influx into the well, which was the eventual cause of explosion. Therefore, the chief contractors, Transocean, the owner of the drilling rig together with the leading cementing operators, Halliburton, are to be blamed for the fatal failures and mistakes (EPA, 2020). Federal violations can be seen as an important group of failures that contributed to the disaster. The BP contractors violated the laws and regulations requiring the company and its contractors to operate in a safe environment. These regulations require company to take precautions to contain gas and oil for the protection of the environment and human health, by conducting suitable tests on well pressures and to inform federal regulators on the changes on the
plans of drilling. A series of mechanical failures were reported in this project and this played an integral role in the disaster. The pipe's bottom to was sealed using two approaches. It was
cemented and two mechanical valves were integrated into this system to regulate the flow of gas and oil. Nevertheless, the valves did not function as they were intended, thus making the gas and oil to flow up the pipe and to the surface. Approximately eight minutes prior to the actual explosion, an amalgamation of gas and mud began spreading into the rig's floor and this was caused by the failure of the second valve (Friedman, 2020). The project team made some efforts to close a valve found in blowout preventor which is located at the ocean floor over the top of the
well, but it failed to function properly. The other aspect of the incident that indicated the mechanical failure is the misinterpretation of the pressure test. The crew conducted different pressure tests to ascertain whether the well was properly sealed from leakages. Following the misinterpretation of the pressure results, the crew concluded that the well was under control. Finally, the management was not able to identify the leak within the right time, and this eliminated a room for prevention of the disaster.The crew on the surface must be able to detect the flow of gas and oil towards the surface in the event of change in pressure within well. This variation in pressure took place almost an hour before the explosion, but the personnel did not interpret it as a leak. The parties that should be held responsible for this fatal incident include BP
and its contractors. Following the investigation report, BP agreed that it had a role to play in the whole incident and it urged its drilling partners to accept the part of the blame. BP agreed to the investigation report that the incident was caused by multiple failures that involved different parities including Halliburton and Transocean. The professionals are required to act in ways that do not violate code of ethics in this field. Making decisions that would jeopardize the public health, safety, and wellbeing violates engineering code of ethics. From this case analysis, this incident occurred because the involved parties failed to follow the engineering code of ethics which requires professionals from this field to act in ethical manner. All engineers are required to
hold paramount thewelfare, health, and safety of the public during their period of practice (Friedman, 2020). However, this code of ethics was neglected in the project because the public health was jeopardized leading to death of 11 persons. The negligence and recklessness among the involved parties show unethical acts among the professionals in the field of engineering. The negligence and poor decisions made by the involved parties came with legal, financial, environmental, and health consequences. After the court settlement, BP paid a total of $15 billion to cater for the ocean cleanup and $20 billion for economic damages of persons and companies affected by the disaster. This set benchmarks that changed the penalties imposed for
successive corporate wrongdoing. The imposed fines were in line with theLimitation on Liability
Act (1851), SPILL Act, Death on the High Seas Act (1920) and Jones Act (1920) which were impact toprotect the marine environment from spillage and pollution (EPA, 2020). The reputation of the company was also ruined as a result of the incidence, and this also had a negative implication to the shareholders and investors. The general public came to realize that the incidence occurred as a result of negligence of duty by stakeholders, and this ruined the reputation of this organization. Finally, clients are willing to work with organizations that are environmentally friendly, but BP proven otherwise after this incidence. The company might have
lost potential customers not to mention the financial losses because of their negative impact on the oceanic environment.
Future Directions
The main lesson learned is that poor management skills and decisions could eventually lead to a disastrous event like that of BP. This is because the BP disaster was avoidable if all the stakeholders involved did their part (Friedman, 2020). Further, if the company was not focused on saving money and time with considering the possible ramifications of their actions, it would be possible to avoid the disaster. The other important lesson learned from this incident is the importance of ensuring that all the operations have been caried out securely and the necessity of precautionary measures to avert such issues. The consequences imposed on the involved parties can be justified because they were required to pay heavy fines in order to correct the consequences of the spill. These fines were imposed on the ground of cleaning the oceans and paying for the damages and losses resulting for this event. It is impossible to reverse such occurrences, but heavy fines will prevent other organizations from making the same mistakes, lest they are ready to pay heavy fines. Finally, humans make grave mistakes and BP are not exempted for this instance. Since the company learned a vital lesson through the hardest way, itestablished best practices and measures to prevent such incidences in future, and this makes the consequences justifiable. The engineering plan for moving forwards entails establishing procedures and guidelines for assessing the well and the pipe system around it to ensure there is no leakage. This would have prevented the fatality of the disaster because the engineers would have identified the possible cause of a disaster and present it. I would have also included hired certified and reputable contractors to drill and cement the well and this would have ensured that
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
quality structures are constructed to contain the oil and gas. Finally, the skills of the personnel would be assessed to ensure they all meet the technical capabilities and requirements.
References
Borunda, A. (2020, April 20).The Deepwater Horizon spill started 10 years ago. Its effects are still playing out. Retrieved May 12, 2022, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/bp-oil-spill-still-dont-know-effects- decade-
later EPA. (2020, December 4). Deepwater Horizon - BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Retrieved May 12, 2022, from https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/deepwater-horizon-bp-gulf-mexico-oil- spill Friedman, L. (2020, April 21). Ten years after Deepwater Horizon, U.S. is still vulnerable to catastrophic spills (Published 2020). Retrieved May 12, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/19/climate/deepwater-horizon-anniversary.html