Analyze the BP Oil Spell Case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Analyze the BP Oil Spell Case - Essay Example Transparency From a transparency point of view, the response of BP was insufficient because it did not accord the relevant authorities, the information that would help them counter the problem effectively. The slow nature of the BP Company, in giving response to the spill indicated inadequacies in transparency, which was among the causes that made the spill continue for three months, without being effectively addressed. According to CEG, the BP Company hindered the response offered to the oil spin, which was likely to affect the management of further oil spills (1). According to the CEG, the response to the spill was affected by the restrictions imposed on media access to the site, the delay of the disclosure of information from the company – regarding dispersants, and the overall lack of cooperation by the company and the government agencies responsible (1). Further, the BP Company and respective government agencies were very slow in releasing information to the public, regar ding the extent of damage caused, the effects of the spill and the level of transparency offered in the case, by the parties responsible. Lack of transparencies was evident from the reports offered by the BP Company and the company, regarding the volumes spilled on a daily basis. The company and the government reported that the spill was releasing 1,000 barrels a day, but the reports were discredited later after it was estimated by a specialist agency, that the spill was releasing between 11,000 and 25,000 barrels each day (CEG 1). Lack of transparencies was evident from BP’s delays, in providing high-definition video footage, which would facilitate computer analysis. BP wrote, on the 21st of May 2010, most likely after realizing that its lack of transparency was affecting the deployment of corrective measures to address the oil spill. In the account, the company noted that it would offer transparency and openness about the disaster, and its cooperation with organizations to respond to the oil spill. Rationality From a rationality perspective, the BP oil spill exposed a lack of disaster mitigation preparedness and carelessness on the part of the BP Company and the agencies that were supposed to respond to the issue. These agencies include the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the DHS (Department of Homeland Security). The oil spill exposed the careless of the company because – knowing well, the impacts of leaving the spill open – they left it open, for more than three months. From a rational point of view, it is clear that BP, as well as the government, did not engage the resources they required to mitigate the spill, in the short time they could (Walsh 1). Among the reasons cited as causes for the explosion, include that the BP Company had failed to administer effective risk management, including that they did not inspect the facility, prior to the time of the explosion. Therefore, the nature and the extent of the disaster display ed the company’s ineffective risk mitigation and non-preparedness to address disasters (Walsh 1). Avoiding Extremes From a point of view of avoiding extremes, the BP oil spill was evidently a demonstration of disregard for the extreme effects of disaster. This is evident from the fact that, after the explosion of April 20th the company and