Gulf of Mexico Disaster: A Failure of Regulation and Corporate Responsibility

The Gulf of Mexico disaster, triggered by a huge fire and explosion that toppled an oil-drilling rig, has turned into a disaster of epic proportions. The oil spill, which has been ongoing for five months, has releases an estimated 20-70,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf per day, causing widespread environmental damage and devastating the livelihoods of people in the region. The incident has sparked a public outcry against British Petroleum (BP) and the government agencies that were supposed to regulate them. The Minerals Management Service (MMS), which is responsible for overseeing offshore oil and gas operations, has been criticized for its cozy relationship with BP and for ignoring warnings of environmental damage and predicted risks of drilling operations at great depths.

The cozy relationship between BP and MMS has been characterized by a culture of corruption and a lack of transparency. Documents have been altered or ignored, and scientific studies warning of environmental damage have been suppressed. The regulatory agency's lax approach to oversight has allowed BP to operate with impunity, despite its clear failure to develop adequate contingency plans to deal with a disaster of this magnitude. The public and elected officials have expressed outrage and anger, and President Obama has been reported to be extremely dissatisfied with the role of regulators in the disaster.

The lack of effective regulation and oversight has meant that the government is starting to look powerless in the face of the disaster. BP has been given a hard deadline by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change the type and amount of chemical dispersants it is using to contain the spill, but the effectiveness of these measures is still unclear. The administration has pushed BP to move forward with a "top kill" process, which involves injecting mud and trash into the well to seal off the rupture, but this has been met with skepticism. With a 60% chance of success, the method has taken longer than expected, and Professor Goddard questions whether the government can show the progress it needs to.

Key Takeaways:

• The Gulf of Mexico disaster has resulted in an estimated 20-70,000 barrels of oil released into the Gulf per day, causing widespread environmental damage.
• The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has been criticized for its cozy relationship with BP and for ignoring warnings of environmental damage and predicted risks of drilling operations at great depths.
• The regulatory agency has a culture of corruption and a lack of transparency, leading to the suppression of scientific studies and altering of documents.
• The public and elected officials have expressed outrage and anger over the disaster, and President Obama has been reported to be extremely dissatisfied with the role of regulators.
• BP has been given a hard deadline by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change the type and amount of chemical dispersants it is using to contain the spill.
• The administration has pushed BP to move forward with a "top kill" process, which involves injecting mud and trash into the well to seal off the rupture, but this has been met with skepticism.
• With a 60% chance of success, the method has taken longer than expected, and the government is under pressure to show progress in stopping the oil spill.
• The president's administration is facing criticism for not having effective regulatory oversight, and for not being able to control the disaster.

Statistics:

• Estimated 20-70,000 barrels of oil released into the Gulf per day (1)
• Five months of oil spill (2)
• 60% chance of success for the "top kill" process (3)
• 1-2 weeks delay in the effective start date of the "top kill" process due to the company needing to bring in high-tech equipment (4)

Sources:

• The Huffington Post (1)
• Various news articles and reports (2)
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (3)
• Professor Goddard, in an interview (4)