Now BP's conduct can be properly punished by the EPA because they have pleaded guilty to 11 of the criminal cases filed against them. The EPA is punishing BP by preventing them from leasing new contracts, which seems strange as they have filed 50 new contracts since the disaster and just now they are being banned from participating in auctions. How severe of a consequence this will be for BP depends on how long the ban lasts, and considering that the EPA has agreed to lift the ban once BP demonstrates it can measure up to our nations business standards, this ban may not be very long or consequential for BP.The ban brings up a few interesting ideas. One, actions like these show the importance of being careful with energy projects. With energy being so important and such a huge industry, there are large scale projects with lots of investment and complex operations and thus and a potential for catastrophic failure. Or are we getting better at avoiding that? Is there even hope that we will? Also, there is this whole idea of globalization and the importance of energy in today's society makes the incident a reminder of how high the stakes are when it comes to large scale energy projects.
Are large scale energy disasters, like nuclear power plant disasters and oil spills, isolated incidents? Is it a matter of incompetence and mismanagement that can be solved by greater investment? Or are these projects so complex as to be inherently risky and unpredictable, so that greater investment is not a satisfactory solution? Should we suck it up and take the risk in order to secure U.S energy independence?
4 comments:
There is some inherent risk in most forms of energy production, but this isn't the case. Nuclear disasters and oil spills do seem to be isolated incidents, and most of the time result from human error. But that's exactly the reason its also preventable; that means that these risks can definitely be managed and basically eliminated.
BP created an enormous problem, but in a way they aren't the only perpetrator here. Lax enforcement of standards throughout the Gulf paved the way for the oil spill we saw in 2010, and it seems more like it was the luck of the draw that Deepwater Horizon was what finally brought attention to the problem. I think that simply slapping BP on the wrist for this incident isn't enough and will perpetuate a problem that needs to be resolved. It shouldn't take another incident like this from another company to add more inspections.
These projects are definitely predictable, because we can predict the risks. Otherwise the headlines would be filled far more frequently with reports of failing reactors and other disastrous oil spills. So obviously, we can regulate and manage the risks involved with these forms of energy production. As time goes on and more mistakes are made, hopefully we learn from those mistakes. BP made the mistake of underestimating the size of the leak, and in the future will be able to look back at this incident and respond more effectively. Likewise, while nobody anticipated the combination of an earthquake and tsunami at the Fukushima nuclear plant, in the future I'm confident that extra measures will be taken so that authorities can respond in such a case. It's trial and error, so each time there's an error, its less likely to happen again.
For such an enormous empire such as BP, a punishment like the EPA's ban on new contracts will likely do little to discourage BP from preventing future disasters. That being said, it does seem that the Deepwater Horizon explosion was a somewhat isolated incident, although one that could have been prevented. Since the 2010 incident, there haven't really been any explosions that come close to its magnitude. However, because an explosion like the Deepwater incident can have such a large impact on the environment (affecting the economies and food supplies of some areas of the world), they cannot be ignored. The government simply needs to regulate energy companies more effectively. The Deepwater rig was concerning engineers as early as 2009. Furthermore, because of lax government regulations, BP wasn't required to file a detailed plan of action in the event of an explosion. Admittedly, energy companies may not seem like the government's priority at the moment, but due to the extreme consequences of these explosions, they must be made a greater priority.
Punishing a company as large as BP is a nearly impossible task. If your punishment is merely a matter of principle then it will likely have little impact on the practices of a giant corporation. If the punishment is too stiff, thousands of workers may suffer as a result of the shortcomings of their management. Punishment of a major company hardly seems feasible at all. Instead, more attention should be focused on the proactive regulation of energy companies rather than the retroactive wrist-slapping as both James and Garrett have mentioned. Considering the lobbying power of oil companies, even this may not be easily achieved. Unfortunately, it seems that the EPA has their work cut out for them.
I wonder if this ban will really be effective in changing anything, as how BP can "measure up to our nations business standards" has not been defined and is fairly vague. For all we know, this could be fulfilled by an empty pledge to do better.
I don't think that the US should just "suck it up". While ensuring our energy independence is important, at the same time,relying on energy companies with bad conduct like BP would be worse because it would send them the message that we are okay with their behavior and allow them to continue to behave badly with no worries of repercussions.
Post a Comment