That business causes profound effects on society is a well-known fact.
The main purpose of legitimate business activity is to improve the lives and wellbeing of citizens in ways that make organizations profitable. Simply stated, organizations and businesses cannot be successful, unless they benefit the society in which they operate. Unfortunately, businesses produce a multitude of negative effects on society. The explosion at BP’s Macondo oil well in 2010 confirmed that businesses were a serious threat to stability and peace in the American society. Only a broad regulatory move can help to resolve the ecological and economic safety problems in the U.S. oil industry.
The explosion at BP’s Macondo oil well and the subsequent spill of almost 5 million barrels of oil into Louisiana waters was one of the hot topics in the U.S. in 2010. The New York Times called the oil spill “a potentially unprecedented environmental disaster” (Broder & Zeller). The exact causes of the disaster are poorly understood. It would be fair to say that a combination of mechanical and human failures caused an unprecedented ecological catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. The largest oil spill in the history of America, the blowout that killed 11 men and resulted in enormous economic losses, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy was a logical result of the BP’s failure to anticipate and address the complexities in operational implementation, engineering design, and team interfaces (Clayton). The tragedy was not merely the product of BP’s carelessness but a reflection of an “industrywide culture of complacency” (“One Year Later: Editorial”).
For years, companies in the U.S. oil industry paid no attention to the technical and safety requirements. The results of internal investigation suggest that the main reasons of the tragedy include but are not limited to faulty cement at the bottom of the oil well, incorrect and unprofessional evaluation of negative pressures, and the presence of natural gas in the engine and ventilation systems (Clayton). Technical and human failures in the oil industry cause profound effects on the lives and wellbeing of the American people. The scope of the ecological damage is difficult to estimate.
1,000 miles of contaminated beaches and soiled fish nurseries are just the beginning (“One Year Later: Editorial”). Years will pass before scientists can estimate the damage caused to the tiny organisms in the Louisiana marine ecosystem. The economic effects of the oil spill are no less serious. Following the oil spill, President Obama put a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (Zeller).
“Each exploration and production job represents four supporting jobs in and around the region. If that is the case, thousands of jobs – and millions of dollars in wages – could be affected by the work stoppage.” (Zeller) As a result, Louisiana residents asked the Obama administration to review and lift the ban (Zeller). Certainly, the oil industry is a crucial factor of economic stability in the U.S.
The U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a continued object of public scrutiny. However, increased drilling is unlikely to reduce oil dependence in the U.S., since the amount of available oil can hardly meet the growing demand for oil in America (Gertz). Only a broad regulatory move can help to resolve ecological and economic safety problems in the U.
S. oil industry. The oil spill exposed severe flaws in the system of regulation and federal oversight in the U.S. oil drilling sector (“One Year Later: Editorial”). The relationship between regulators and the oil industry was getting extremely costly (“One Year Later: Editorial”).
The lack of control over the actions and decisions in the U.S. oil industry affected the lives and wellbeing of millions of Americans. As of today, companies in the oil industry lack financial opportunities and equipment needed to prevent further disasters. Congress could contribute to the ecological and economic balance in the U.S.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration could become an equal partner in decisions regarding oil drilling permissions in the U.S. (“One Year Later: Editorial”). It is imperative that a new system of federal oversight in the U.
S. oil sector be developed, to ensure that companies comply with the ecological and technical regulations and demands in the oil sector. Certainly, this solution is not without controversy. The development and implementation of a new system of federal oversight will incur additional costs and increase the burden on the U.S. taxpayers. However, given the crucial role of ecology and the economic implications of the oil drilling sector, oil companies can become the main source of funding for the proposed system.
This is how the state can release taxpayers from the need to invest additional resources in the development of sophisticated oversight systems in the oil drilling sector.
Businesses cause profound effects on the American society. The explosion at BP’s Macondo oil confirmed that businesses threatened stability in the U.S. Technical and human failures in the oil industry negatively affect the lives and wellbeing of the American people. The scope of the ecological damage is difficult to estimate. Only a broad regulatory move can help to resolve ecological and economic safety problems in the U.
S. oil industry. Congress must initiate the development of a sophisticated system of federal oversight in the U.S. oil industry. Oil companies can become the main source of funding for the proposed system.
This is the best way to ensure that oil drilling companies comply with the technical regulations in the U.S.
1. Broder, John M. & Tom Zeller.
“Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad?” The New York Times, 3 May 2010. Web. 17 April 2011. 2.
Clayton, Mark. “BP Report On Cause of Gulf Oil Spill Spreads the Blame.” The Christian Science Monitor, 8 September 2010. Web. 17 April 2011.
3. Gertz, Emily. “Can Offshore Drilling Really Make the U.S. Oil Independent?” Scientific American, 12 September 2008. Web.
17 April 2011. 4. “One Year Later: Editorial.” The New York Times, 15 April 2011. Web.
17 April 2011. 5. Zeller, Tom. “With Drilling Stopped, Losses Could Multiply.
” The New York Times, 4 June 2010. Web. 17 April 2011.