Below is a response that I had to answer about the BP and the Deepwater Horizon

Question

Below is a response that I had to answer about the BP and the Deepwater Horizon Disaster (by Christina Ingersoll, Richard M. Locke, Cate Reavis on the MIT learning edge site) Could you please revise and add more detail to it? I am stuck. The question I'm supposed to answer is.....

If you were a judge hearing a case on BP's liability for this disaster, to what extent measured from 0% to 100% liable/culpable, how would you render judgement on this point for or against BP and why?

My answer.....

According to the facts presented in the case, if I were a judge, I would say BP is 75% liable for the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. There were three major decisions, all made by BP, that impacted the cause of the tragedy. The first decision was determining what well casing to use to secure the well hole safely.  The second choice made by BP was only to use six centralizers rather than the 21 centralizers that was recommended by the OptiCem model. The third decision made by the BP managers was not to run the test called "cement bond log." All three of these significant decisions made by BP can be traced back to one single theme, trying to reduce capital expenditures and earn profits in any way possible, even if it increases risk and jeopardizes safety.

The first decision was to choose between a steel tube called a “liner” or a “long string casing” to secure the well hole. The liner was a steel tube that would hang from a liner hanger on the bottom of the casing already in the well and then they would insert another steel liner tube called a "tieback" on top of the liner hanger. The “liner” provides four barriers of protection but takes longer to install. The “long string casing” involved running a single string of steel casing from the seafloor all the way to the bottom of the well. This choice only provided two barriers of protection and is quicker to install. By choosing the “long string casing,” it saved BP time and money (over $7 million). However, BP knew about the possible risks using the string casing but decided it was the best economical choice for the company. The influence of this decision was made by the mindset throughout BP, trying to reduce capital expenses any way possible.

The second decision made by BP was to use only six centralizers rather than 21. Centralizers help keep the pipe centered and assists with the proper gas flow. The OptiCem model was used to help determine how many centralizers were recommended to use to reduce gas flow. BP planned to use only six, but the model concluded that the risk for gas flow problems was quite significant and 21 centralizers should be used. However, BP’s engineer department ignored the possible dangers of just using six centralizers. They felt it would be a waste of time to acquire more centralizers and decided only to use six. BP once again neglected safety and risks to reduce capital expenses.

The most neglectful decision made by BP was to not run a test called “cement bond log.” The “cement bond log” checks the integrity of the cement after it is pumped into the well. “A 2007 study by the MMS found that cementing was the single most significant factor in 18 of 39 well blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico over a 14-year period.”[i]BP had workers from a company called Schlumberger on the rig ready to perform the test. If BP decided to run the test it would have costed them around $181,000, but BP chose not to run the test even with warnings of potential channeling. Not running the test saved BP about $117,000 and about six to 12 hours of labor. BP’s decision focused on cost saving rather than the possible risks of not running the test.

All three of these critical decisions that were made by BP had one thing in common, ignoring possible risks to reduce costs........

Explanation / Answer

This is a specific answer is a detailed enough as it covers all the information and Critical points which were involved in the main reason behind the disaster.
Another suggestion is to relate with the ethical or logical standards or relate the specific decision making process on the basis of looking at the internal control levels of the organisations such as corruption or other fitting criterias.
You can improve the answer according to subject if the ethical perspective is allowed to be attached in the specific question, as the subject is not mentioned, I am assuming that implementation of any kind of ethical perspective would be appropriate.
For assessment of percentage you can also compare the specific disaster with some other disaster and involvement of government rules and regulation in such a specific scenario. Comparing BP oil spill with union carbide disaster is usually done as they face the same propensity but different standards of rules and regulations applicable on both of the cases.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse B
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.