It is also noted how BP took many risks before the accident occurred, which could have prevented the disaster from occurring in the first place. Before the disaster BP had sent in a lighter sea water fluid down the pipe, instead of a more common heavy drilling fluid, for cost cutting measures and the company knew it was riskier to use this option (Anonymous 2010, 8). This is something that we see that is all too common in most man-made disasters, and is something that is questioned by the general public, on why they would take such a risk in the first place. BP knew it was riskier to use this method and decided that is was better to use this uncommon method, instead of the much more proven, and most commonly used by most oil rigs methods for …show more content…
The real answer to this question is oil and our dependency on it for our daily lives. Oil is used in almost everything we use, sometimes on a daily basis. It is used to run our cars, and transportation centers, and it is used in everyday products. Oil is a precious commodity that has impacted man-kind for the last century and seems to grow each and every year. One of the main problems that has come up in recent years, is finding it and digging for it. Most of the oil has already been found, captured, and used already, and this is only the oil we found on land. There are still large amounts of oil untapped that lie in our ocean waters. This new expedition to get this oil has been a gold mine to many countries and oil companies. In fact, according to David Bond (2016), the deep seabed is ideal for large oil fields (36). This type of information shows how our dependence on oil and to search for new and untapped oil fields led to this disaster happening in the first place. Humanity has almost conquered all the oil fields on the planet, and the race was on to find more of it before the other person gets to it first. Where this oil is on earth, has led to deeper and deeper drilling to reach this untapped gold mine, and with the new technology that has been created over the past several years, we are now able to reach this oil, an dig for it, when it was not possible just a few …show more content…
Elliott (2015). Mentions how Bon Secor a local fisherman and his fishing business is struggling, because of a lack of oyster production and he blames this due to the oil spill. This type of reaction by Mr. Secor and the information given, shows how the oil spill has affected the community and many local businesses that are dependent on the ocean for their income. People like Mr. Secor, entire business relies on the ocean, and if it gets damaged or something changes, it can and will severely damage his business. There are many people like this person who probably still struggling or have lost their business entirely due to the oil spill and is something that could have been avoided if the company had taken the proper precautions to prevent the disaster from happening in the first place. This is also one of the news stories that normally wouldn’t get attention from the mainstream media and often either his story gets untold or gets lost in the shuffle of telling the general audience the impact the oil is having on the surrounding area. While shortly after the oil spill happened, tourists stopped coming to the area, they were slowly returning. According to Elliott (2015), tourists were coming back to the area, thanks mainly due to BP’s aggressive campaign ads. This type of information shows how a disaster can have an immediate impact and extremely hurt an area’s economic income, in this instance, that was the
The U.S. uses 25% to 30% of the oil produced in the world, yet has less than 3% of known oil reserves,” (Doc C Paragraph 3).This is important because if becoming self-sufficient is impossible than is drilling even worth
“If we do nothing, it doesn't matter how we feel. And that’s exactly what oil companies are banking on: out of sight, out of mind” (Hart, 24). In his article, 50 Miles Out, Brandt Hart explains the controversy surrounding offshore oil drilling along the east coast. This argument on whether to end or continue drilling started when new oil and gas leasing programs were made for 2017-2022, which included plans for oil and gas “exploration and development” in federal waters (Hart. 24). This plan also includes more oil drilling along American coasts, more specifically the Gulf of Mexico and east coast of the U.S.
The environment is suffering days after days, there will a point where the green house won’t take it anymore and the earth will meltdown. The oil refineries are the main contributors to this issue, since they are the ones who produce the
However, companies claim that the economy can improve if there is an environmental disaster. For example, JP Morgan Chase said the BP oil spill on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig created 4,000 jobs through the cleanup process and paid $6 billion for their labor. (Amadeo, 2015) Although some companies claim spill disasters can help the economy, they are not accounting for the long term effect of the spills on wildlife habitats and how that will impact the economy in the next
Environmental America urges citizens to reach out to the Obama Administration in saying “save our coast, no offshore drilling”. Meanwhile, smaller actions can be preformed, by holding companies personally responsible for clean up cost, which would entice them to do everything in their power to prevent future spills. Another option would be follow Federal Commissions recommendation, and undertake full environmental protection reviews at all offshore drilling locations. A lot can be accomplished to stop further risk of harming wildlife as a result of drilling. Likewise, there is a series of morally persistent reasons on why it is urgent to the health of our planet and all species that live on it.
The scientific empirical evidence that oil spills are dangerous and a threat to
Despite being a mere 5% of the world’s population, the U.S oil-based economy consumes 25% of the world’s petroleum. In fact, 98% of transportation energy comes from petroleum products. The entire agricultural industry is reliant on oil. This dependence on imported oil has been expected to increase drastically over the next 25 years. Accordingly, the U.S is expected to import 70% of its oil in 2025.
Extracting oil from the sands requires a massive amount of energy. This process also creates large environmental issues for the surrounding area. By 2015, 196,000 tonnes of green-house gases will be emitted into the atmosphere; as well as the large amount of fresh water that is required for the process alone (324). The extent of environmental issues with this practice is enormous, but this instance itself shows the absurdity when we take the economist approach seriously. When faced with a resource shortage, we need to stop thinking of only alternatives but also think of the reason for the shortage.
Oil is one of the most used resources in the world. It fuels our cars, warms our homes, and powers commerce. Oil is the source of billions of dollars in revenue and the cause of millions of deaths in the power struggle to control the oil fields of Africa and Middle East. According to the CIA Factbook, America consumed 6,894,850,000 in 2013. Clearly, oil is an extremely significant commodity that America greatly depends upon.
Therefore, I will examine the consequences of the oil spill and the reactions of the parties involved, such as BP, the government, the states involved, the fisheries and tourism industry and other parties affected by the oil spill. These consequences include environmental damage, litigation, cleaning costs and stricter
Health Over Wealth In this world where most nations have some type of conflicting alliances, it is hard to find resources and obtain them relatively cheap. Most people do not concern themselves with specific issues if they do not directly impact their lives. As a result, a large portion of people do not understand fracking. Merriam-Webster defines fracking as “the injection of fluid into shale beds at high pressure in order to free up petroleum resources (such as oil or natural gas).”
The oil spill later on caused a collapse of the Pacific Herrings’ population because nearly half of their eggs laid in 1989 were exposed to the oil (Liszka 1-30). These deadly outcomes changed their environment
It can kill and destroy whole ecosystems and kill multiple species of wildlife super fast. Oil leaks could also be very deadly to humans as well. If an oil leak happened in a water stream or supply it could infect our drinking water or have no water for hours or even days. Oil also contaminates food supply like fish and birds. It kills these animals by the animals ingesting or getting covered by oil which leads to organ failure and death.
This graph shown below shows the oils production in 2015-2019 the production oil is reduced and by 2035-2050 the oil produced barrel per year is reduced from 60 billion barrels years to 10 billion barrels be year in
Drilling into Disaster: BP in the Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico is one of the valuable place in which it has variety of marine life, such as fish, shrimp and other species The issues of incident on spill oil should be on concerned as it leads to this disaster for human being and environment. The case is discussed how BP company responses. It means how its board and management accountability, corporate responsibility, risk management, code of conduct and whistleblowing, compensation practices, and stakeholder communications react on this disaster. With regard to the disaster, BP CEO should have behaved appropriately because he should have responsibility on his job and should give his employees a better solution better than not saying anything. The problem was still there even BP change CEO to Dudley.