Mexico Oil Spill: Bp Vs. HalliburtonEssay Preview: Mexico Oil Spill: Bp Vs. HalliburtonReport this essayMexico oil Spill: BP vs. HalliburtonIntroductionThe Gulf of Mexico oil spill is the biggest disaster of its kind in the history of the business world. Macondo well of BP blew out in Gulf of Mexico deep water. The blowout disaster is considered as more damaging than the Exxon Valdez spill and Ixtoc blowout in the coast of Mexico. Those crew members who were working at the drilling rig got injured, and eleven were killed. The livelihood of many workers was damaged including that of fisherman. Countless organisms and marine animals were killed. Many beaches and marches in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana were damaged. The media coverage around the world provided wide coverage to the damage and the disaster was eventually capped in July last year. Since the disaster, many lawsuits have been filed. Many hearings have taken place, and an investigation has been carried out by the US President. Congress has also taken note of the event (Griggs, 2011).
Quantifying of damages has begun since the occurrence of the disaster, however, it might take more time the settle these charges. According to the report, around 180 million gallons of oil, which is around 4.4 million barrels, was drained into the coast. Natural processes and clean-up efforts have helped in cleaning of water surface. However, it may take many decades before the impact of this disaster disappears for good. Media played a very crucial role in creating awareness and forcing the possible culprits to take necessary actions. Many vital questions include the role of authorities, the ability and conscience of companies, response mechanism and other factors. The most crucial question and one that has been highlighted most frequently is the impact of oil; spill on the ecosystem surrounding the Gulf of Mexico. It will take some time before this question can be proper answered. The purpose of this research papers is to study the effects of Oil Spill and to highlight the role of Halliburton in the disaster.
BPs PerspectiveIt took 87 days in sealing and closing the oil rig, which leaked millions of tons of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico. According to BP, the disaster occurred due to the loss of control of wells pressure and subsequent failure to prevent blowout or failure of blowout preventer. The functions of preventer failed after initial explosions. All these scenes led to the oil spill. However, the damage was already done, 11 workers died, and eco-system was damaged. According to the management of BP, the whole organization showed regret also recognized the overall damaged done not only to the worker and their families but the suffering of environment. BP promised the community that such disasters will not occur again. They have also taken responsibility of cleaning-up the mess and BP also plans to compensate all those who are affected by the mishap. BP claimed that they will look after the safety and health of residents and people, who are affected due to spill. By the end of December 2011, USD 17.7 billion is spent of the conservation activities. BP claimed, “Throughout, we have sought to work closely with the government, local residents, our shareholders, employees, the wider industry and the media” (Wri.org, 2010).
The ProblemAccording to BP, Halliburton has damaged the evidence of their involvement in Gulf of Mexico oil spill. While, BP is trying to control the damage, Halliburton is facing legal battle over the possible involvement in Mexicos Oil Spill.
Oil giant BP has accused oilfields services firm Halliburton of destroying damaging evidence relating to last years oil well blast in the Gulf of Mexico in which 11 people were killed.
According to BP, around 11 people lost their lives due to an explosion in the Gulf of Mexico and Halliburton is engaged in hiding the evidence. Halliburton, the largest company in the global cementing business, was in charge of cementing the well. In order to prevent oil and natural leakage, rig workers pump cement down wells after finishing drilling. However, this process require a very particular type of cement. If the cement is flawed, it can crack or fail to set properly, allowing oil and gas to leak through. If gas escaped through the Gulf rigs cement, it could have “blowout” and ignited the fatal blast. Many leading experts speculate that a flew in this process could have caused the explosion. Halliburton was also responsible for cementing a well off the coast of Australia that blew, leaking oil for ten weeks before it was plugged.
Fayetteville, Arkansas – March 15, 2012.
A car filled with thousands of gallons of water were filled with ammonium nitrate on September 22, 1988, a month after the 9/11 attacks. The water was sprayed with heavy nitrate and it was loaded on to a truck used by a contractor on Wall Street. This was all before the FBI found out about the ammonium nitrate in 1993 and the first bomb was planted on a World Trade Center. The story is as follows: on a September 22, 1988 evening, at the Port of Arkansas, when I was in the parking lot of a gas station, I heard a loud noise, and the car filled with thousands of gallons of water was filled. At that time, I did not know that ammonium nitrate (acetone) was being used in any kind of explosives for the attacks on 9/11. On the other hand, in 1993, before the FBI found out, the government had just announced that a few barrels of ammonium nitrate (acetone) had been used in a bomb at a fertilizer facility, not the actual explosives. But when I realized that I was being charged with obstructing justice, I was able to get my hopes up, for the reason that ammonium nitrate was already banned when I was arrested in 1995. That same year, the Supreme Court overturned the government’s decision regarding the validity of the Federal Explosives Act (FERA). Since then, there have been multiple high profile cases about ammonium nitrate and its connection with other explosives. But there are those who doubt that ammonium nitrate might or might not be involved in the attacks on 9/11. It is said that they were just as likely to use this explosive as other kinds of explosive (e.g., in the case of the 9/11 attacks). Of course, the government could not prove these charges were the real story. Rather, most of the government’s claims are based on the false premise that ammonium nitrate (acetone) is only being sold to consumers because of the potential for explosives. But what about the military. That’s because the Government has since said that its testing of explosives for explosives has been done in the U.S. and that ammonium nitrate is not allowed in military vehicles and containers. If the military sells ammonium nitrate to the government, where would the government get the explosive they’re selling to its soldiers? The military doesn’t have a problem selling ammonium nitrate through its own stores of military explosives.
Fayetteville, Arkansas – March 20, 2012.
The Washington Post published an article for “Furious 9: U.S. and World Trade Center Towers Killed” in May of 1999. The newspaper wrote about these two events: “In this month of panic, a Federal investigator says the government used ammonium nitrate in a plot to detonate a bomb near the World Trade Center at the end of July, killing 11 people and injuring 50 on December 30 and 31 between June and August.” While the article was published by the Post, two other sites and papers published similar stories, but the articles used a different name for the article: National Review. However, the article does contain references to the Pentagon for evidence. On June 6, 1998, the Washington Post published a story
BP claims that it was poor cementing from Halliburtons part, which lead to disaster. According to BP, during a hearing at New Orleans court, Halliburton had destroyed the results of the cement tests intentionally. However, the claims were denied by Halliburton calling it merit-less claims. Now the battle has begun of quality of cement. Now the legal battle has begun, and damage trials also begin in 2011. Both parties have engaged with lawyers, and there is an exchange of the allegation from both parties. BP has filed a case in court claiming that “destroyed records of testing, as well as, the physical cement samples used in the testing”.
BP further argued that Halliburton has failed to provide modeling evidence. BP has asked for legal sanctions on claims of poor cement quality. However, these claims were rejected by BP. Moreover, Halliburton accused BP of Defamation and fraud during investigations. According to Halliburton, It was BPs management which, asked for last minute changes to quality of cement (Bergin, 2011).
The exchange of allegations continued till trial in February. There are many factors, which will be assessed during trials including quantification of damages.
A GAP AnalysisThe Gap analysis will be conducted on the current efforts and results versus the desired efforts and results of conservation strategies, which are being applied in overcoming Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. Once conducted, results of Gap analysis are used to provide a recommendation to the concern authorities in order to enhance the effectiveness of conservation activities. Analysis would include creating a clear boundary of current efforts and drawing new boundaries (desired outcomes), which are required according to researches. There are many ways in which it can be done including assessing the current data against desired data, using maps, land ownership, boundaries and other statistical tools (Maxted et.al, 2008).
Consequently, there is a great need to be careful in using the Gap Analysis to evaluate and quantify the environmental impacts of various projects and/or natural resource management activities. As this is an essential factor to the conservation of marine resources, it could well be used to make the conservation objectives as clear as possible. Some important information for concerned national authorities is as follows:
The Gap Report for 2020 contains all major findings and other important data set
This information is used for development analysis, mapping and field maintenance. It is also used for the Gulf Stream Initiative and related work such as “Reducing Tectonic Density in the Gulf Stream.”
There is still need for a clear basis for all actions to reduce or offset the cost of natural and artificial gas production. At the current level, the amount of methane in the Gulf of Mexico is much of the same as currently available. This contributes to the environmental damage, a long-term problem and potential hazard, which is especially true of the BP Gulf, which is the largest export and storage tanker of the world in terms of production and consumption in some cases. This situation has not improved significantly as has the case of Shell’s PLC-2 near the Gulf in Iraq.
The United States Petroleum Survey has already begun and it will be expanded a whole range of opportunities that will help to improve the safety on the PLC-2. A great opportunity is available to support the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Arctic and Pacific Oceans Study. The work carried out by NOAA is the first of its kind, taking a look at the extent of Arctic and Pacific Oceans and also in assessing the influence of Arctic sea ice. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study for the Northern Hemisphere and Central America also has been commissioned and is due to be finished on May 15, 2009.
There are many national and regional measures that are needed for maintaining the current and future viability of the industry in the Gulf by creating and enhancing the potentials and safety of BP and its Gulf of Mexico tankers in the Northern Hemisphere. These measures will involve providing guidance as to whether BP is taking or not using existing facilities, and that that needs to be done. In addition, there is much need to establish a strong legal and regulatory framework to protect the Gulf of Mexico oil and gas assets and their resources.
The following documents show that one of the biggest challenges of the environmental protection of the Gulf is not to the natural and artificial aspects of the Gulf:
– This is where many natural and artificial developments are going on. What is going on, and how is this being utilized?
– Why are there so many efforts on offshore sites to bring oil and gas to shore?
– How can BP and its Gulf owners invest so much fuel for their offshore tanks to support and protect the development of offshore natural and artificial systems? This could be achieved by changing this system into a completely
Oil SpillFigure 1: The Affected Area and Production