Enbridge Oil Spill Case
This case study is based on an ethical dilemma due to a 2011 oil spill. Enbridge had an oil spill near Wrigley. Although the company has taken responsibility for the spill, the members of the community are uneducated people who live off the land. The members of the community do not understand the technical jargon buried in the 600 pages of documents the company has presented them with. To try and fix things they offered the community members $5,000 to get a consultant.
1. The facts. Gather all of the relevant facts. It is critical at this stage that we do not unintentionally bias our later decision by gathering only those facts in support of one particular outcome.
A. Enbridge had an oil leak in Wrigley, a town near Anchorage …show more content…
Alaska.
B. The residents of the area were very upset about the oil spill.
C. Wrigley is a very small area with about 165 residents.
D. The residents of the town are not educated nor do many of them work. Most of the people and they live off the land. They make their livings by hunting, fishing, and trapping of animals. Due to this fact, an oil spill could cripple the entire group of residents.
E. Enbridge told the members of the community they were certain that the spill did not reach Willowlake River but, the residents had their doubts.
F. The company devised a plan to clean up the spill, which was over 600 pages of documents that the locals did not understand due to the lack of education. The company in turn attempted to give the community $5,000 to hire a consultant who could explain the documents to ensure the plan was good for them.
2. Ethical issues that need to be resolved.
A. The community needs to know whether did the right thing to protect them
B. Community members need to do independent study to determine if $5000.00 is hire someone who would have their best interest at heart.
C. They need to determine whether Enbridge’s statement reguarding the Willowlake River not being affected.
3. Identify stakeholders.
A. The investors and employees of Enbridge who could face millions of dollars worth of loses
B. Members of Wrigley’s community who deserve to keep their lives in tact. The could lose their homes and life as they know it.
C. The owners of Enbridge because they could end up going bankrupt
D. Banks, credit unions, and finance companies wont get paid if they go bankrupt
E. The companies that Enbridge gets their supplies for would see a decrease in product orders.
F. Competitors could face positive and negative consequences.
1. They could see an increase in revenue when their competiors go out of business.
2. They could be negatvely affected because other communities could block them from coming into their areas because they find out about the oil spill. . Consider the available alternatives. Exercise “moral imagination.” Are there creative ways to resolve conflicts? Explore not only the obvious choices, but also those that are less obvious and that require some creative thinking or moral imagination to create.
4. Availabe Alternatives
A. Enbridge could allow the community members to find their own consultant. They could take the $5,000 limit and raise the amount to the amount that the community feels they need.
B. They could also pay to set up some type of grocery store in the town for about a year. This will ensure the people are able to maintain themselves until the final decision has been made regarding the spill
C. They could also have a meeting with the members to listen to their opinions on what they think is right and determine what they need to provide them with to make them comfortable and accept that they are safe.
D. Enbridge could also put money aside for any medical bills that could arise from ingesting contaminated food or water.
E. They could offer the families stipends and provide them with drinking water.
F. They could have a meeting with the members of the community and reassure them that there land is safe. They could also go through arbitration to ensure both parties are satisfied with their resolution.
5. The affects for each stakeholder affected A. They could lose business because the members of the community would probably lose faith in the company. Often times when businesses do things that have negative consequences, people lose faith in them. The city could decide to run the company out of businss.
B. The invertors and the employees would then lose their income and investment money. If the communty forces them to leave, it would lead to job loses along with investore, share holders, and owners would lose a large amount of revenue.
C. The decision to just accept that Enbridge is correct in assuming the river would not be affected, could have an even greater effect on the community. If they accept this, and there is contamination there would be side effects from eating and drinking contaminated food and water. This could lead to huge medical costs to a group of people who are already poor. The illnesses could also leave many members of the community unable to hunt or provide for their families. The ultimate cost could be death if they can’t afford medical treatment.
D. They could find their own consultant, to investigate Enbridge’s claims. They could hold off on accepting the$5,000 originally offered to find a consulant and get their pricing. By doing this then ensure that can negotiate with Enbridge. They are also ensureing that theey ave an outside entity that is not biased or working for them
6. Duties, principles and law.
A.
The law says “A responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act is one who is found accountable for the discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil from a vessel or facility into navigable waters, exclusive economic zones, or the shorelines of such covered waters. Responsible parties are strictly, jointly, and severally liable for the cost of removing the oil in addition to any damages linked to the discharge. Unlike the liability for removal costs which are uncapped, liability for damages is limited as discussed in further detail below. Furthermore the Oil Pollution Act allows for additional liability enacted by other relevant state laws. Under the Oil Pollution Act, federal, tribal, state, and any other person can recover removal costs from a responsible party so long as such entity has incurred costs from carrying out oil removal activities in accordance with the Clean Water Act National Contingency Plan. Reimbursement claims must first be made to the responsible party. If the potentially responsible party refutes liability or fails to distribute the reimbursement within 90 days of the claim, the claimant may file suit in court or bring the claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund described below. In some instances, claims for removal cost reimbursement can be initially brought to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund thus sidestepping the responsible party. For example, claimants advised by the EPA, governors of affected states, and American claimants for incidents involving foreign vessels or facilities may initially present their claims to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. When claims for removal cost reimbursement are brought to the fund, the claimant must prove that removal costs were sustained from activities required to avoid or alleviate effects of the incident and that such actions were approved or directed by the federal on-scene
coordinator.”
B. The oil company should be responsible for cleaning up the oil spill and ensuring the members of the community are safe.
C. It is their responsibility to use an independent source nonaffiliated with either party to come in, collect data, and make a decision that would help both the company and the people. By doing this it ensures both parties are being treated fairly.
D. These decisions made are ethically sound decisions. We need to ensure both parties are satisfied. By doing the right thing, even if it costs a lot of money we are ensuring the members of the community are safe. The company may be upset that they are paying out a lot of money, the could save lives which are more precious than money. E. Bringing in outside peole to evaluate should be a top priority. The independent people will ensure there is no favortism with either party. It ensures both groups are treated fairly and they can provide unbiased advice, directions, and solutions. The public should be aware of the progress. This ensures that everyone is aware of what is going on so neither group will hide information from the others. 6. Guidance. Can you discuss the case with relevant others; can you gather additional opinions or perspectives? Are their any guidelines, codes, or other external sources that might shed light on the dilemma?
I think we could discuss the case with other companies who have had to deal with oil spills. I also think we should consult the Alaska Oil Commission since they were created to investigate oil spills and create solutions. We should consult the Oil Pollution Act documentation. This document ensures that companies take responsibility for oil spills are are responsible for the cost. This document is enforced by the EPA so we need to ensure to consult them to ensure that the solutions which we have created is both legal, and ensures the problem is resolved in a timely fashion with as little impact to the environment as possible. While we want to ene mosure that we are being cost effective with the removal costs, we need to ensure that we are doing it in accordance with the Clean Water Act National Contingency Plan.
7. Assessment.
A. These ideas can and more than likely have to be modified. Each party needs to ensure they are open to listen. By researching, the cousultant fees, they can modify the amount of money required.
B. As they speak with different agencies, they could very easily find out their plan issnt considered legal or that the directives that define the correct procedures has been updated.
C. The findings may indicate that the river and land are contaminated so the company may need to spend more money to correct it.
Have you built in mechanisms for assessment of your decision and possible modifications? Are they necessary? Make sure that you learn from each decision and move forward with that increased knowledge; you may face similar decisions in the future or find it necessary to make changes to your current situation. While there are programs and rules put in place when oil spills occur, companies also need to factor other things also. When an oil spill occurs, companies must communicate with any residents in the area. They need to ensure that everything is transparent. By working together, being open minded, and honest the problems will always be fixed the rght way. Companies must ensure that they follow proper procedures to ensure the safety of the public.
1. The facts. Gather all of the relevant facts. It is critical at this stage that we do not unintentionally bias our later decision by gathering only those facts in support of one particular outcome.
A. Enbridge had an oil leak in Wrigley, a town near Anchorage …show more content…
Alaska.
B. The residents of the area were very upset about the oil spill.
C. Wrigley is a very small area with about 165 residents.
D. The residents of the town are not educated nor do many of them work. Most of the people and they live off the land. They make their livings by hunting, fishing, and trapping of animals. Due to this fact, an oil spill could cripple the entire group of residents.
E. Enbridge told the members of the community they were certain that the spill did not reach Willowlake River but, the residents had their doubts.
F. The company devised a plan to clean up the spill, which was over 600 pages of documents that the locals did not understand due to the lack of education. The company in turn attempted to give the community $5,000 to hire a consultant who could explain the documents to ensure the plan was good for them.
2. Ethical issues that need to be resolved.
A. The community needs to know whether did the right thing to protect them
B. Community members need to do independent study to determine if $5000.00 is hire someone who would have their best interest at heart.
C. They need to determine whether Enbridge’s statement reguarding the Willowlake River not being affected.
3. Identify stakeholders.
A. The investors and employees of Enbridge who could face millions of dollars worth of loses
B. Members of Wrigley’s community who deserve to keep their lives in tact. The could lose their homes and life as they know it.
C. The owners of Enbridge because they could end up going bankrupt
D. Banks, credit unions, and finance companies wont get paid if they go bankrupt
E. The companies that Enbridge gets their supplies for would see a decrease in product orders.
F. Competitors could face positive and negative consequences.
1. They could see an increase in revenue when their competiors go out of business.
2. They could be negatvely affected because other communities could block them from coming into their areas because they find out about the oil spill. . Consider the available alternatives. Exercise “moral imagination.” Are there creative ways to resolve conflicts? Explore not only the obvious choices, but also those that are less obvious and that require some creative thinking or moral imagination to create.
4. Availabe Alternatives
A. Enbridge could allow the community members to find their own consultant. They could take the $5,000 limit and raise the amount to the amount that the community feels they need.
B. They could also pay to set up some type of grocery store in the town for about a year. This will ensure the people are able to maintain themselves until the final decision has been made regarding the spill
C. They could also have a meeting with the members to listen to their opinions on what they think is right and determine what they need to provide them with to make them comfortable and accept that they are safe.
D. Enbridge could also put money aside for any medical bills that could arise from ingesting contaminated food or water.
E. They could offer the families stipends and provide them with drinking water.
F. They could have a meeting with the members of the community and reassure them that there land is safe. They could also go through arbitration to ensure both parties are satisfied with their resolution.
5. The affects for each stakeholder affected A. They could lose business because the members of the community would probably lose faith in the company. Often times when businesses do things that have negative consequences, people lose faith in them. The city could decide to run the company out of businss.
B. The invertors and the employees would then lose their income and investment money. If the communty forces them to leave, it would lead to job loses along with investore, share holders, and owners would lose a large amount of revenue.
C. The decision to just accept that Enbridge is correct in assuming the river would not be affected, could have an even greater effect on the community. If they accept this, and there is contamination there would be side effects from eating and drinking contaminated food and water. This could lead to huge medical costs to a group of people who are already poor. The illnesses could also leave many members of the community unable to hunt or provide for their families. The ultimate cost could be death if they can’t afford medical treatment.
D. They could find their own consultant, to investigate Enbridge’s claims. They could hold off on accepting the$5,000 originally offered to find a consulant and get their pricing. By doing this then ensure that can negotiate with Enbridge. They are also ensureing that theey ave an outside entity that is not biased or working for them
6. Duties, principles and law.
A.
The law says “A responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act is one who is found accountable for the discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil from a vessel or facility into navigable waters, exclusive economic zones, or the shorelines of such covered waters. Responsible parties are strictly, jointly, and severally liable for the cost of removing the oil in addition to any damages linked to the discharge. Unlike the liability for removal costs which are uncapped, liability for damages is limited as discussed in further detail below. Furthermore the Oil Pollution Act allows for additional liability enacted by other relevant state laws. Under the Oil Pollution Act, federal, tribal, state, and any other person can recover removal costs from a responsible party so long as such entity has incurred costs from carrying out oil removal activities in accordance with the Clean Water Act National Contingency Plan. Reimbursement claims must first be made to the responsible party. If the potentially responsible party refutes liability or fails to distribute the reimbursement within 90 days of the claim, the claimant may file suit in court or bring the claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund described below. In some instances, claims for removal cost reimbursement can be initially brought to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund thus sidestepping the responsible party. For example, claimants advised by the EPA, governors of affected states, and American claimants for incidents involving foreign vessels or facilities may initially present their claims to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. When claims for removal cost reimbursement are brought to the fund, the claimant must prove that removal costs were sustained from activities required to avoid or alleviate effects of the incident and that such actions were approved or directed by the federal on-scene
coordinator.”
B. The oil company should be responsible for cleaning up the oil spill and ensuring the members of the community are safe.
C. It is their responsibility to use an independent source nonaffiliated with either party to come in, collect data, and make a decision that would help both the company and the people. By doing this it ensures both parties are being treated fairly.
D. These decisions made are ethically sound decisions. We need to ensure both parties are satisfied. By doing the right thing, even if it costs a lot of money we are ensuring the members of the community are safe. The company may be upset that they are paying out a lot of money, the could save lives which are more precious than money. E. Bringing in outside peole to evaluate should be a top priority. The independent people will ensure there is no favortism with either party. It ensures both groups are treated fairly and they can provide unbiased advice, directions, and solutions. The public should be aware of the progress. This ensures that everyone is aware of what is going on so neither group will hide information from the others. 6. Guidance. Can you discuss the case with relevant others; can you gather additional opinions or perspectives? Are their any guidelines, codes, or other external sources that might shed light on the dilemma?
I think we could discuss the case with other companies who have had to deal with oil spills. I also think we should consult the Alaska Oil Commission since they were created to investigate oil spills and create solutions. We should consult the Oil Pollution Act documentation. This document ensures that companies take responsibility for oil spills are are responsible for the cost. This document is enforced by the EPA so we need to ensure to consult them to ensure that the solutions which we have created is both legal, and ensures the problem is resolved in a timely fashion with as little impact to the environment as possible. While we want to ene mosure that we are being cost effective with the removal costs, we need to ensure that we are doing it in accordance with the Clean Water Act National Contingency Plan.
7. Assessment.
A. These ideas can and more than likely have to be modified. Each party needs to ensure they are open to listen. By researching, the cousultant fees, they can modify the amount of money required.
B. As they speak with different agencies, they could very easily find out their plan issnt considered legal or that the directives that define the correct procedures has been updated.
C. The findings may indicate that the river and land are contaminated so the company may need to spend more money to correct it.
Have you built in mechanisms for assessment of your decision and possible modifications? Are they necessary? Make sure that you learn from each decision and move forward with that increased knowledge; you may face similar decisions in the future or find it necessary to make changes to your current situation. While there are programs and rules put in place when oil spills occur, companies also need to factor other things also. When an oil spill occurs, companies must communicate with any residents in the area. They need to ensure that everything is transparent. By working together, being open minded, and honest the problems will always be fixed the rght way. Companies must ensure that they follow proper procedures to ensure the safety of the public.