Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Essay

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Damage April 20, 2010 began as a day of celebration, a day that marked 7 years without injury on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, and ended with 11 people dead, 78 days of oil flow, and 1,074 miles of the Gulf of Mexico contaminated. Three years after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill the beaches may appear clean but we have yet to see the final effects. BP, the company behind this tragedy, is still trying to clean up the mess they have created. This is a lot more complicated than it seems though. It all comes back to social responsibility- doing what is best for the company, the environment, the economy, and society as a whole. The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill effected each of these and BP has had the huge task of
trying to satisfy each of them. While all of these are important, the factor that contributes the most to the others is the wellbeing of the environment. Once it is back to normal the others will follow suit. Overall, in my opinion, BP has not sufficiently shown social responsibility when it comes to the wellbeing of the environment. One question that is often asked is if this tragedy could have been prevented and without question it could have.
One concern was the cementing job on BP’s blown out Macondo Well. A day before the blow out a cement mixture was pumped into the well that was proven unsound multiple times in the weeks before the spill. BP made the decision to use this mixture anyways and then didn’t give it time to set or harden before they began using the well again. It was also found that BP decided to use six centralizers for the well instead of the recommended 21, which allowed hydrocarbons to reach the surface and contribute to the cause of the blowout (Thompson). BP was aware of all of these issues and had no plans to correct them before the spill. Researchers also found that the day of the spill workers may have ignored signs of high pressure in the well that should have been addressed. BP’s blowout preventer then failed because of a dead battery and a misplaced pipe. BP lacked a contingency plan for a disaster so large which caused the oil to leak for 87 days, while scientists tried to find a way to plug the well. A plan to stop the flow within a timelier manner should have been in place. All of these issues should have been addressed by BP and suggest social irresponsibility, specifically a lack of concern for the wellbeing of the environment from the very beginning
(Mufson). Once the oil spill had been stopped BP’s next goal was cleaning up the environment. The most obvious start to this was removing the oil from the water and the beaches. BP did this by hiring volunteers to burn oil, set up booms, and disperse Corexit. On the surface these all sound like the things to do, but it may have caused more harm than good. More than 500,000 feet of booms were placed throughout the Gulf of Mexico. In calm waters they did their job but in choppy waters they only contained up to ten percent of the oil. They don’t harm the environment in anyway so they were a socially responsible thing for BP to use even if they weren’t completely effective (Filosa). Burning large amounts of the oil was also a cleanup method used. This is by far the most effective way to remove oil from the Gulf, some researchers even believe this could have removed up to ninety percent of it. The only downside is the amount of smoke this releases into the environment. Overall this was still a socially responsible way to remove the oil. The amount of oil that was removed did more good than the amount of smoke produced did wrong. The use of Corexit, something that most people don’t know was used, as a dispersant is where things weren’t so responsible. It was simply something used to disguise the amount of oil that the well was leaking, and make BP look better. The purpose of Corexit is to stick to the oil and make it sink or disperse into the ocean instead of turning into oil slicks and reaching the shoreline. By doing this BP received significantly less fines because not as much oil could be traced back to them. This also helped with BP’s image and made the spill seem like not so much of a big deal. Their idea behind this was “out of sight out of mind,” and it worked. When people didn’t find oil on the beaches they became less concerned. The problems go further than just lying to improve BP’s image and save money though. To start with, Corexit is harmful to humans, and BP was irresponsible while dispersing it. Offshore cleanup workers often were sprayed with this substance which can cause any number of health issues and symptoms. Many of these workers filed complaints about muscle spasms, coughing, persistent headaches and more. The final effects of this concerning humans are yet to be seen (Hertsgaard).
Animals were also negatively affected by the Corexit. Because it causes the oil to break into small droplets and sink into the ocean, it appears as food to many small organisms. This then moves up the food chain as larger organisms eat the smaller ones. This can cause illness all the way up the food chain and harm animals as large as sharks and whales (Hertsgaard).
The main animals that were affected by the oil spill were birds, sea turtles, and dolphins. More than 8,000 of these animals were found injured and dead. BP instilled a 7 part treatment and rescue process, and founded four bird rehabilitation centers and seven marine mammal and sea turtle rehabilitation centers. These centers cared for 2,086 birds, 456 sea turtles, and 2 marine mammals. In my opinion these were very helpful in caring for animals. The booms that were placed throughout the Gulf didn’t only help to collect oil, but also to protect smaller organisms. While these actions concerning animals were socially responsible, others were not. The burning of the oil burned sea turtles alive, and as discussed earlier, the dispersant caused harm to nearly every sea animal (Viegas).
The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill may have been stopped on July 15, 2010, but we have yet to see the end results. The Gulf of Mexico, humans, the economy, BP, and animals are all likely to face negative effects for years to come, and that is certain. The question is how BP will handle these problems. Will they just try to hide what they have done and cause more damage or will they admit to their faults and do what is right. While BP may have made some wrong choices in the past three years, they have done some things to help clean up the mess that they have created. We can only hope that in the future this company will step up to the plate, and do the right thing.

Works Cited
Filosa, Gwen. “Boom used in Gulf oil spill works in limited way, experts say.” The times-Picayune. 5 May
2010. Web. 23 November 2013.
Hertsgaard, Mark. "Drowning In Oil." Newsweek Global 161.15 (2013): 1. Business Source Complete.
Web. 22 Nov. 2013
Mufson, Steven. “BP’s internal investigation of oil spill: Several “warning signs” were ignored.” The
Washington Post. 26 May 2010. Web. 10 November 2013.
Thompson, Richard. “Expert testifies BP should have halted cement job, as Gulf oil spill trial continues.”
The Times-Picayune. 7 March 2013. Web. 23 November 2013.
Viegas, Jennifer “Animal Clean-Up After Oil Spill: A Lengthy Process.” News Discovery, 30 August. 2010.
10 Nov. 2013.