1.

0 Introduction/ Background of the case

Deepwater Horizon oil spill or BP Oil and Gas group organization also called as Gulf of

Mexico oil spill. The Deep Horizon Oil spill was founded in 1908. This organization is

British Petroleum and headquarter is in United Kingdom (UK). In 2010 the BP oil and Gas

group organization becomes the second largest oil company in the world. The organization

owned more than 92,000 employees. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the largest oil spill in

the world history caused by an April 20, 2010 and this is due to explosion on the Deepwater

Horizon oil rig which located in the Gulf of Mexico approximately 41 miles (66 km) off the

coast of Louisiana and its subsequent sinking on April 22. On the night of April 20 a surge

of natural gas blasted through a concrete core recently installed by contractor Halliburton in

order to seal the well for later use. Furthermore on April 20, 2010, the oil drilling

rig Deepwater Horizon, operating in the Macondo Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico, exploded

and sank resulting in the death of 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon and the largest spill

of oil in the history of marine oil drilling operations.  4 million barrels of oil flowed from the

damaged Macondo well over an 87-day period, before it was finally capped on July 15,

2010.  On December 15, 2010, the United States filed a complaint in District Court against

BP Exploration & Production and several other defendants alleged to be responsible for the

spill. Moreover, due to spill of the oil disaster deepwater horizon into the oceans causes to

effect oceans in many ways such as fishing, tourism, food and oil.

Furthermore, the ultimate cause of the Deepwater Horizon disaster was a series of

preventable missteps by engineers and workers designing and carrying out a drill plan in the

weeks and hours preceding the event. Besides that, the main disaster deepwater horizon leads

to the cruel oil spill into the ocean through three major cracks. In addition, the problems

began during drilling. BP had to stop drilling into the seabed about 2,000 feet (610 m) higher

than expected because the pressure was too high. Next, they had to line the hole with a casing
of a concrete pipe that prevents the hole from caving in. A shorter casing would be easier to

cement into place and was deemed safer by computer models, but the company ultimately

decided to use a longer casing, which would be less prone to leaks. In order to hold the casing

in place, concrete would be pumped into the space between the casing and the surrounding

Earth. For this to work, the concrete must surround the casing evenly, otherwise it could be

unstable and vulnerable to oil leaking in from the sides. To ensure an even, snug fit,

engineers fit the casing with centralizers, which are metal tubes with strips of metal sticking

out on each side. Computer models recommended that the casing be fit with 21 centralizers,

but BP engineers chose to insert only six centralizers because of a supply shortage. This

increased the risk that the cement would surround the casing unevenly. Finally, there are

several major causes to the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill reported by the BP

such as, the cementing of the well, inaccurate of safety test, faulty sensors that were supposed

to detect hydrocarbon, gas venting into the oil rig, and the failure of the blow out preventer.

2.0 Court Decisions

According to the claimer or justification of the court decisions, BP must allocate funds, not to

increase its exploration and exploitation in deep water, but rather for reparations for damage

caused by the Gulf oil spill and the harmful use of dispersants. BP must leave underground an

amount of oil equivalent to the quantity of oil spilled in the Gulf as an initial step toward

leaving more oil underground. BP must incorporate into its agenda a meaningful plan for the

realization of corporate social responsibility. It must respect and abide by a moratoria on oil

and gas exploration and production in deep seas as well as the progressive abandonment of

maritime operations overall. BP must make public all the information it has about the oil

spill’s damage, the techniques used to “clean up” the mess, and make public the list of
scientific institutions and individual scientists who have been commissioned by the company

to undertake studies, research or technical conceptualizations and interventions in relation to

the disaster. The Tribunal agrees to make a request to the UN to create a collective,

multilateral process to assess petroleum operations at sea, to consider and impose moratoria,

and to identify necessary reparation actions for disasters past, present and future.

Moreover, the Tribunal salutes the fast-expanding international campaign to divest

investments in fossil fuel and hydrocarbon corporations (oil, gas and coal) and recommends

to parties promoting such divestment that they prioritize eliminating investments in BP,

because of BP’s violations of the rights of Nature with respect to its oil spill in the Gulf of

Mexico, while not neglecting other fossil fuel and hydrocarbon corporate divestments.

Finally, the Tribunal urges the Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador to initiate a review of the

BP case with a view to expanding Earth jurisprudence, especially considering that Ecuador

along with Bolivia are the only countries in the world, along with several dozen local

communities in the USA, that recognize nature as a subject of rights and as such, that nature

has rights to restoration and reparations. The Tribunal recognizes that in addition to the

violation of the rights of Nature in the Gulf of Mexico, BP has generated serious negative

ecological impacts elsewhere that may constitute additional violations of the rights of Nature.

For example, BP’s involvement in the exploitation of the Athabasca Tar Sands in northern

Alberta, Canada requires investigation in this regard. Other BP exploitations of hydrocarbons

demand investigation. Therefore the Tribunal has decided to remain engaged in hearings

about BP’s global hydrocarbon exploitations in its subsequent hearings.

3.0 Conflict of analysis

The main conflict of analysis in this case between the company of BP and Mexico with the

society is the issues of ethical dilemma. This refers to, there is a not balancing between profit

production and protection safety in running the organization activities. The major issues of

conflict this organisation was the interest of the conflict. This means, the board of

management of the BP organization was not balancing their objective. This mainly because

their main focus on production or making profit in their business operation compare with

safety protocol on the equipment’s that they use, the way of managing their resources and its

effect to the natural environment such as humans and animals in the oceans and the personal

interest each of them in the board of management.

Furthermore, the BP organization has violated 7 federal regulations at one time. This means,

in processing their the production of oil and gas the company have lack focusing towards

their employees in taking care of their safety precaution, lack of compliances of standard

safety for all their employees who is working in the organization . Apart from that, the

organization also fail to make time and aggressive control over their activities conducted and

action taken which causes the conflict between their stakeholders and the society in running

their productions. In addition, the organization does not have provided any little training for

their staff in order for them making responses in easy way in the condition of responses to

emergency.

Besides that, the another major conflict that has been address from the case is on the profits

benefits of directors versus the compensation or losses of the affected communities, cleaning

up cost deterioration of environment, ecosystems and the image of the of the company or

organizations. On the other hand, the BP organisation has not taken seriously on the issue of

oil spill and taught that this was only small negligence of them. However, this was taken a
serious major problem to many other activities and human and causes big disaster to the

environment and leads to people or the society and the employees of the organisation have a

conflict with the their need of interest compare with their employees and society welfare.

References

Demacio, P., 2021. Self-Directed Learning: A Four-Step Process | Centre for

Teaching Excellence. [online] Centre for Teaching Excellence. Available at:
<https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/teaching-
resources/teaching-tips/tips-students/self-directed-learning/self-directed-
learning-four-step-process> [Accessed 30 July 2021].
Govinfo.gov. 2021. [online] Available at:
<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-OILCOMMISSION/pdf/GPO-
OILCOMMISSION.pdf> [Accessed 1 August 2021].
Jaynee, B., 2021. Case Study 17: The Deep Water Horizon Disaster. [online]
prezi.com. Available at: <https://prezi.com/hviylftnhrkv/case-study-17-the-
deep-water-horizon-disaster/> [Accessed 1 August 2021].
Pallardy, R., 2021. Deepwater Horizon oil spill | Summary, Effects, Cause, Clean
Up, & Facts. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at:
<https://www.britannica.com/event/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill> [Accessed 1
August 2021].
Salcic, Z., 2011. EURASIP Journal on Embedded Systems now publishing with
SpringerOpen. EURASIP Journal on Embedded Systems, [online] 2011(1).
Available at: <https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/>.
Slideshare.net. 2021. Deep water horizon oil spill. [online] Available at:
<https://www.slideshare.net/virgo_az/deep-water-horizon-oil-spill> [Accessed
1 August 2021].
Slideshare.net. 2021. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. [online] Available at:
<https://www.slideshare.net/tifftai/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-6168962>
[Accessed 1 August 2021].
Thi, O., 2021. BP's Deepwater Oil Spill Case Study Analysis - Business Ethics.
[online] Slideshare.net. Available at: <https://www.slideshare.net/onthi71/bps-
deepwater-oil-spill-case-study-analysis-business-ethics> [Accessed 1 August
2021].