History of Bp Oil Spill

Oil covered everything: beaches, animals, plants, bottoms of boats. Approximately 205.8 million gallons of oil leaked into the ocean and toward the Louisiana shoreline. To put the amount in perspective, that oil could be used to drive a Toyota Prius around the earth 184,181 times (Repanich). All of this pollution and destruction because of one singular company: British Petroleum. Needless to say, the image of BP was tarnished because of this. What can a company do to come back from such a serious setback? This was the question that was faced by the company in 2010 (when the spill occurred), and is still being wrestled with today. By analyzing BP’s “Commitment to the Gulf” ad campaign, the brand’s desired identity is made very apparent. When it comes to oil, nearly all consumers are involved. However, BP does take specific steps in order to narrow down a target audience when it comes to advertising its product. Despite the hardships faced by BP stemming from the spill, consumers still have an addiction to oil. BP, the fourth largest oil company in the world (“Biggest Oil”), has such a firm hold on consumer society that it is a necessity in today’s consumer landscape. By pushing the brand’s identity to its target audience, BP used branding to overcome a severe controversy and rebuild the image it hoped to convey to consumers.

BP has also been accused of violating human rights. In 2005, one of BP’s refineries in Texas exploded, caused 15 deaths and 180 injuries. The explosion was largely a result of safety cuts to reduce costs (Baker et al., 2007). From 2006 to 2008, three workers were killed at BP’s Texas refinery due to equipment failure (Collette, 2008).

Simply put, BP pretended like there wasn’t a problem in the way they were handling things, and when they came under fire they would lie about it or put the blame on someone else. What they did was they tried to control the message the public was giving them via a method known as ‘corporate greenwashing’, which is a way of giving off the perception that a company’s business model is environmentally friendly, so it can be thought of as putting more money towards advertising how green a company is instead of using it to pursue such practices that would make it so. BP gambled on this and ultimately lost when the Oil Spill occurred; rather than actively doing something about it, they blamed subordinates and contractors to try and take pressure off of themselves while simultaneously showing minimal regard to the impact that their mistake had on the environment. They only made the problem of them getting a bad reputation even worse when they weren’t listening to the public and ultimately paid the price, losing $80 billion and an additional $1.3 billion on criminal

As the National Commission report put it: “The immediate causes of the Macondo well blowout can be

BP did not take an interest and spoke to public, they didn't give their side however their activities in the prompt consequence says a lot. The human stories are intercut with scenes of oil organization administrators doing nothing about this finished devastation. Brown must have truly picked up the trust of these men since they don't get away from the film looking great. Their general take: didn’t manage the business at all and we ought to express gratitude toward them for conveying vitality as economically as they do. The people who are being paid very little are like slaves working to oil and will be for quite a long time.

With Hayward and Suttles appearances on the television screen it was starting to look like that no one was in control or in charge at BP to the general public. This is what made it impossible for a transformational reactive change to take place at BP during the time they needed it the most. BP and their two executive spokespersons were faced with a very large problem when it came to their adaptive personality attributes during the time of change. Both Hayward and Suttles showed a low emotional intelligence and could not connect with the victims affected by the spill by showing them empathy with their choice words and actions during the crisis.

The disaster could also have been prevented through a series of preparedness. Preparedness is the capacity to respond to a disaster, crisis, or any other type of emergency situation (Haddow et al, 2014). This definition seems to say that, when we use preparedness, it shows that we are ready to respond to any type of emergency with the tools needed, to recover as quickly as possible. Here we see that through this method after the effects of the disaster could have been better if the response was better. Even though preparedness doesn’t help prevent the disaster from occurring, it does help in the recovery process after a disaster. For example, a mentioned previously a similar disaster to the BP oil spill was the Exxon Valdez spill in the 1980’s.

BP tends to make bets that others don’t which is most likely why the disastrous deep water horizon oil spill occurred in the Gulf of Mexico five years ago. The fire burned for 36 hours while hydrocarbons leaked into the gulf before the well was sealed, unfortunately eleven individuals died. It has been difficult for BP to be the best company right now since this falling and they have been in reparation mode since this catastrophe. However, BP is now incorporating high safety and showed everyone that they are very reliable on the recovery of this hardship of BP trying to mix oil with water. BP came together to control the situation, cleanup, and diminish as much contamination as possible into the gulf. In addition, they are devoted long term to improve the Gulf of Mexico’s bionetwork and promise to be more careful so this will not happen again.

BP knew in advance, the life span of the pipes. These pipes were installed in 1977 and had a twenty five year expiration (Jennings, 2009). BP decided not to replace the pipes. The explosion occured in 2006 because the corrosion in the pipes had exceeded their expiration date by five years.

There are very few aspects of how a company behaves as a corporate citizen that do not apply to a company of the size and nature of BP. The most significant of these are the sheer environmental impact - not simply of the extraction of oil and the energy use of BP's own operation, but more significantly of the impact on climate change of the actual use of all the oil by BP's customers. The state of current scientific evidence raises serious question marks over whether or not human society can actually afford to burn all the hydrocarbons whose existence we have already identified - never mind potential future discoveries. Twenty years ago, people worried that one day the oil would run out. Now, it is the case that the real issue has been identified as one of emissions.

Part 1 - Ethical Dilemmas- The accident elicited many feelings anger, disillusionment, disgust, and even employees feeling like they were let down because BP had not backed up its values promised to

BP, formerly known as British Petroleum, is the third largest oil and gas producer in the world, producing almost 3.8 million barrels per day. BP was founded in 1908 by William Knox D’Arcy in London, United Kingdom. The company operates worldwide in several sectors of the oil and gas industry such as generating low carbon energy, moving oil and gas, and off and onshore oil and gas extraction (BP, 2014). However, the offshore Deepwater Horizon oil spill that happened on April 20th, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico was one of the greatest oil spills that took place in history. The disaster caused the loss of the lives of 11 workers, severely injuring 17 workers, and the aftermath had a great impact on the environment in the Gulf of Mexico.

On April 20, the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico led to the largest accidental release of oil into marine waters in history. As a result, a huge loss of money and life was caused and affected serious environmental damage to wild animals and water pollution. BP was accused of their irresponsibility that it took 87 days before the well was closed and sealed. BP’s shares

In the month of April 2010, Deepwater Horizon exploded, killing 11 workers and releasing oil from the well into an ocean. This paper will discuss BP management, ethical and social behavior. BP along with a few of its partners Transocean and Halliburton was involved in the gulf oil spill. The explosion of the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon was the root cause of the oil spill. This paper will focus on BP organization behavioral issues that caused the economic, environmental, and human losses. The research further focuses on what BP leadership could have done as a precautionary measure using highest ethics and management behavior.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 resulted in considerable damage to the environment, economy and human livelihoods. While BP, as one of the parties involved in the operation of the oil drilling on Deepwater Horizon rig, suffered huge financial loss and reputation loss, it was found to be the one to be mostly blamed due to its lack of risk management. As poor risk management can lead to an astonishing disaster like this, it appears to be necessary for every business to learn from BP’s mistakes and try the best to prevent such disaster from happening again. This report studies this case, focusing on two issues identified in BP’s risk management practices, namely its sloppy preparation for risks and its inappropriate communication strategy after the crisis happened. No evidence showed that BP had a sufficient emergency plan for the worst-case deep-water oil spill although the depth of the oil drilling was one of the deepest. BP’s unseriousness towards safety was also indicated in their attempt to shift blames to its contractors and the unaccountability shown by the words of BP’s executives during interviews. Based on the examination of BP’s deficiency in risk management, the lessons that can be learned from it are discussed. In brief, firstly, accurate risk assessment and appropriate emergency plan should be available before the operation is started. Secondly, post-crisis communication should show the world that the company cares and is accountable