BP Oil Spill

Outline

i. Short-Term solutions

Considering the extensive damage of the oil spill, BP could have taken a number of short-term efforts to contain the oil spill.

ii. Permanent Solutions

Permanent solutions could have effectively contained the oil spill for good.

iii. Environment Solutions

To contain the effects on the environment, the company should have undertaken a number of initiatives to protect the marine environment and the coastline

Conclusion

Short-Term solutions

            Considering the extensive damage of the oil spill, BP could have taken a number of short-term efforts to contain the oil spill. As one primary effort, the company should have used remotely operated vehicles that work underwater to prevent the blowout preventer valve from leaking. This should have been done by closing the well head. If this initiative failed, the company should have used a 125-tonne or a 280,000lb containment dome on areas that exhibited the highest volume of oil leaks to a surface storage container. This technique would practically entail the use of a container dome and has also been proved to function in shallow water.

            Alternatively, they could have facilitated the pumping of drilling fluids onto the blowout preventer to minimize oil flow before permanently sealing it with cement. This is otherwise known as the “top kill” method. A riser insertion tube could also be placed onto the pipe that had the burst. This method could have been effective because there is a valve on the tube that plugs the end of the riser and eventually diverting the flow of oil directly into the insertion tube. The gas that would have been collected in this process should be flared.

Permanent Solutions

            As a permanent method of preventing the oil spill, BP should have started drilling a first relief well. This should have been at least 18,000 feet. A second relief well should also have been drilled. These efforts were supposed to begin relief efforts to prevent the rogue well from further causing preventable damages, at least by August. Nevertheless, the company should have been prepared to spend at least $100 million in drilling each well.

Steel casing should then have been added to the relief shaft as reinforcement. Drilling this relief tunnel could have taken not less than a week; though this could have been important if the first phase failed. Alternatively, the company should have used the “static kill” method by pouring mud and cement on top of the well. This should have been followed by the “bottom kill” method where mud and cement should have been let to penetrate the well from under the sea floor. If all these efforts failed, the company could have contemplated using explosives to clog the well. However, this should have been done by incorporating the services of nuclear physicists and hydrogen bomb designers.

Environmental Solutions

            To contain the effects on the environment, the company should have added commercial fishing boats to help in the clean up efforts. Moreover, efforts should have been intensified to contain the extensiveness of the oil spill on the surface. Alternatively, dilution of the oil should have been done to help disperse the oil to less sensitive areas and also remove the oil from the water using fast and effective technologies. To facilitate these efforts, the company should have employed more than the 700 workers it had. More airplanes and vessels should also have been employed to hasten the rescue efforts and complement the oil diversion efforts. 

            The company should also have deployed extensive miles of containment boom which would have gone a long way in corralling the oil and ultimately blocking it from a marsh, mangrove or a shrimp ranch. In other words, the oil should have been redirected from affecting any sensitive areas. These efforts should have been done simultaneously. Out of the analysis of these approaches, BP could have therefore done a lot to avert the extensive damage of the oil spill.