Liberal Individualism In The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Case

Liberal individualism is a theory which emphases on the belief that an individual is significant and not the background, culture or family, but recognized by the aspects that make individuals who they are. The aspects that make an individual more unique and different to other individuals in society. Factors such as family, background or ethnicity are ignored by the Liberal individualist theory, but significantly focussed on by communitarianism. In Business ethics, Liberal Individualisms is a Rights based theory which focusses on the belief that to be able to have the right, an individual is able to determine actions of others by their choice. It provides the right of receiving a respectable or bad service. It can be argued that individuals have the rights to make reasonable claims on society or other individuals.

2.0 CASE STUDY

On April 20, 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, owned and operated by Transocean and drilling for BP in the Macondo Prospect oil field, during the final phases of drilling the exploratory well at Macondo, experienced an explosion and sank 50 miles off the
coast of Louisiana. The high pressure of the escaping hydrocarbons, in addition to the loss of control of the drilling rig and its operations caused by the explosion, created a blowout of the well. The explosion killed 11 workers injured 16 others and left the remaining 99 survivors on board traumatized. The oil rig, liquid-fuelled by the pipeline connected to the well, burned for about two days before sinking under the ocean on April 22. This tragic event caused the discharging of 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for a period of 87 days killing wildlife and posing the health of operators assigned to clean and of residents living in the area. Moreover it also made a bad-effect on the economy of the Gulf especially in the fishing industry and tourism. BP attempted to plug the well with multiple strategies, but were not successful. 1.84 million gallons of toxic dispersant were released to break up the oil but on the other hand there is a bad aspect connected to this usage. In fact a similar capacity of dispersant had never been used and this make it impossible to realize the true effect that the spill and Bp-s response can produce on the environment and ecosystem. Moreover it is impossible to de-pure all the organisms affected by the oil. Therefore, what happened has still mysterious consequences but it will have probably serious effects on the local food, which can also affect human beings.

3.0 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
3.1.
In the Deepwater Horizon oil spill case there is no evidence of any ethical perspective used by the actors in making critical decisions.
There are four principle ethical perspectives related to the case which have not been taken in consideration to avoid the catastrophe. The first one is duty which is concerned with people’s obligations to others. This duty could be often recognised as universal and natural. There were some obligations to environment and ecology that the parties in the case as BP, Transocean and Halliburton had to consider. Moreover there is the obligation of the organizations and the employees to the rest of society as consumers, other organizations and governments that could have been affected by an event like that. Relationship focuses on the attention that emerges in and through communication. The third one is utility which is referred to the outcomes or
consequences

3.2.
An insufficient level of information presented to decision makers was one of the factors that consented the catastrophe. This was due to a poor communication because the different departments and organizations related to this case did not communicate with each other and consequently decision makers were not always aware of the context of their choices. A better communication could have permitted to people interpreting the negative test. Transparency is another factor that could have prevented the catastrophe. Ethical organizations engage in decision making that is transparent to their employees and other stakeholders. This type of organizations have clear and visible governance, missions, policies, procedures, and guidelines. Employees of transparent organization better understand the rationales for decision making and consequently more fully support them and learn to make effective decisions themselves. Transparency provides greater confidence that the organization is being managed effectively.
Although the media have discussed that the catastrophe was ultimately BP’s responsibility, the intricate inter-organizational structure involved with oil drilling cases as the Macondo well makes accountability more problematic. BP, Transocean and Halliburton denote nearly a reciprocal fault in the adversity happened. Two principle reasons can be assembled in the bad management of controls after execution of procedures and the lack of follow-up. BP did not completely pay attention to all the risks that Macondo was involved in, especially in the dangers created by last-minute alterations of well design and operations. It did not sufficiently manage well the procedures of the other parties, creating confusion and providing inadequate information and orders to the personnel who consequently did not provide back the remunerations of their knowledge. Furthermore, also BP-s staff on the rig were not adequately trained and supported, factor that lead in making an error in choosing to use a single tube rather than a tie-back tube casing for the well.
On the other hand Halliburton did not put much effort in supervising the work of the cementing section and did consequently review data necessary to redesign the Macondo cement slurry. Finally Transocean did not train properly its staff regarding the emergency procedures and kick detention. In addition it did not share with them crucial information derived from a similar drilling incident.