BP Case Study

The major environmental damage was the Gulf Coast Oil spill disaster considered as one of the worst Oil Spills in the US history in 2010. This paper explores how the ethical culture of BP and its risk management practices contributed to the disaster together with recommendations for mitigating potential risks in the future. BP’s Ethical Culture The Gulf Coast oil spill disaster can largely be attributed to the ethical culture of BP. First, it is imperative to note that before the disaster occurred in 2010, BP had been found guilty of committing a number of various environmental crimes notably the 2005 explosion in one of its owned refineries in Texas that led to 15 employees dying and 170 of other people injured. The striking element in the two explosions is that there is sufficient evidence that the BP had knowledge of the fatal leaks before the explosions occurred but did nothing to correct the situation.

Even more, the company chose not to put in place a remote-controlled cut-off valve that would have the made all the difference in the Deepwater Explosion. Moreover, there was a suggestion that the company moved up its timeline after realizing the venture was far behind the desired timeline for exploration. The fact no other company had tried exploration of the reservoir in the Gulf Coast, indicates the BP was ready to do anything to be on the forefront of the oil production. This is further evidenced by the fact in 2004, BP chose to buy all the available TET propane and later sell at prices way above the market price. BP Risk management practices Astoundingly, BP is a victim of poor potential risk management practices than it is a victim of an unfortunate accident.

Additionally, in 2006 the company was yet found to have committed another environmental crime; it violated the Clean Water Act. Generally, the Clean Water Act requires companies especially petroleum companies to make sure that their oil pipelines are well maintained to have accidental leaks to water bodies. Alaskan Oil Pipelines owned By BP was found guilty of leaking crude oil into the tundra and the frozen lake. BP, in this case, was slapped with a number of fines; it was ordered to pay the state of Alaska an amount of 4 million dollars, criminal fines of 12 million dollars and another 4 million dollars to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which is the agency responsible for maintenance of the water bodies in the United States (Andrade & de Oliveira, 2015, p.

Even more, the case was also an act of negligence considering the fact the company had ignored various red flag calls that would have possibly prevented the leaks. Surprisingly, there was an argument by one of the technicians that the BP had prior knowledge of the leak before the explosion but did not halt production. If proven to be true, this is an act of willful negligence that BP was trying to cover up after Transocean engineers claimed that there were no leak hours before the explosion occurred. Nonetheless, despite the fact BP had various shortcomings in the risk management, the Deepwater explosion was not entirely the fault of BP. To start with there was no law demanding that BP should have a remotely controlled cut-off to be used in case of an oil disaster.

Even more, in response, BP sent submarine robots to initiate control through activation of the switch-off valve on the good and even though, the robots managed to trigger the switch-off valve device, the device did not manage to slow or stop the flow of oil (Ferrell & Fraedrick, 2015, p. This strategy should run from design, construction, commissioning, operation and even decommissioning. This method increases the assurance of the system on grounds that each stage’s risks have been identified and properly analyzed and the recommended measures are in place. Inspection and assessments should be carried out during construction and operation to ensure compliance and establish the reliability levels (Dane & Sonenshein, 2015, p. Besides, the system assessment should focus on the high inherent risks that critical to the reliability of the whole system to establish priorities for maintenance and possible upgrade.