A critical Evaluation of the response to Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Introduction
The oil industry plays a significant role in providing the oil used as fuel in other major industries that drive the economy. Due diligence and utmost care are among the guiding principles that regulate the industry as any problem may have adverse effects on the environment as well as human and animal life. However, due to unavoidable circumstances, the oil spillage sometimes occurs with devastating results on the seabed and the animal life that lives under the waters. The Deepwater Horizon is one of the worst accidents that happened in the oil production and processing industry. It happened in 2010 taking an estimated three months with about more than 30% of the total capacity of the plant spilling into the sea (Jha et al., 2008, pp236).
Two years later, the oil spillage and leak still occurred which was a strong indication of the impact of the accidental blowout. An organization needs to have prior and proper preparation in case such an incident occurred within their plant, and this is a method used to control the impact of such a spillage. Methods include, but not limited to the mechanical and the state of the art techniques using technology. Every method has their strengths and weaknesses, and more than one method may be utilized at a go during the process of cleaning up the mess to avoid more effects on the environment.
The mechanical methods
It is one of the methods used in correcting the adverse effects of the spill with the hope that there would be better results that would help clean and clear the environment and clean up the oil within a short time (Kostka et al., 2011, pp7965). It involved the use of a dispersant with a significant preference for the Corexit oil directed at the wellhead and the major area that the leak came from under the sea. The dispersant was not previously used for rectification of spillages, but due to the high volume of the oil, experts decided to make a trial and used planes to spray the solution on the surface of the sea. It was faster and efficient, and it required the less human and machine input, unlike other methods that were previously used. However, despite the benefit that the solution had to the sea, critics and health practitioners argued that the dispersant had a high level of cancer-triggering components (Jernelöv, 2010, pp363). Others argued that it lead to more disadvantage than the benefits it brought to reduce the spillage with an indication that once the dispersant mixed with the oil, the solution was more toxic and released chemicals into the sea that further affected the sea and marine life. It affected the flora and fauna that depended on the oxygen and therefore this method stopped altogether.
The government stepped in and argued that the research team in charge of the petroleum industry had the chance to come up with another long lasting solution that would help reduce the negative impact of the spillage. It elected a team of inquiries that would assist in investigating the impact that the dispersant had and if there other options that would help in replacing the Corexit as a dispersant. Results indicated that the dispersant had more benefits and usage as a solution to the spillage and officials in charge of the oil leak solution continued using it.
The In-situ burning method
It was also another method used for containing the spillage at the plant. The burning process included setting on a controlled fire on the surface of the sea that would help burn and consume the top layer of the spillage. The method was also to reduce the thickness of the layer of oil which would make it easy and straightforward for the other ways of controlling the spillage useful. The steps for such activities included the combustion and later offshore filtration of the water from the oil. The fire produced a dark smoke which was also an effect on the environment and there was also the danger of the fire going beyond the control of the experts initiating the process (Fingas, 2010, pp56). There was also the worry that the marine life would face more problems due to the combination of heat and oil in their natural habitat. The method was effective to some extent; however, due to the vast area covered by the spillage, it would require more expenses in purchases of the skimmers.
One of the major disadvantages of this method is the exposure of the workers handling the in-situ fire due to the toxic wastes that the light released which would later lead to malignant diseases (Zock et al., 2007, pp612). One of the main criticism, ideas that came forth from this method is that it was a tedious session, which made the workers hired for that task work for many days, which meant that they had to clean the sea first then proceed to the shore and continue with the process. They also made use of the mechanical devices that would help in clearing the sandy beaches and the marshes. The government responded by recognizing the successful efforts of the method, but they had to take into consideration the health effect both in the long run and in the short term of the process (Gagne et al., 2008, pp81). The protection, in this case, was for the locals and future indications on the health welfare and wellbeing.
Lessons learned from the clean-up techniques
The industry is less prepared regarding taking care of the accidental spillages, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spillage is an indication that sectors in the economy are unprepared in case of danger (Tyagi et al., 2011, pp237). There are no research and development conducted by the engineers on how they can redeem the environment after a spillage despite the twenty-year gap between the Horizon incident and that of the Exxon Valdez. The government should put strict measures and regulations before the operations of such plants to ensure that they are well-equipped with the right tools to cope with problems such as leaks and spillage. It is also evident that the petroleum industry did trial and error in rectifying the spillage. There is more needed in the area as there is a large gap in reducing the impact of spillage (Spier et al., 2013, pp229). It is okay to have incidents in the workplace, but there is also a greater need to have an equipped response team in such an environment. There is, however, hope that a large percentage reduces future incidents of spillage. The human error in triggering such oil spillages is taken into consideration by the industry as they ensure they work with a highly productive and efficient team.
Comparison between the Deepwater Horizon oil spills with Exxon Valdez oil spills
The similarities are as follows;
One major similarity that is common in both oil spills is that they were the worst accidents that happened on the surface of the water whose effects on life under the sea and that of the environment were affected in a negative way.
Both were unexpected incidents which brought the industries in oil mining to a limelight on the safety precautions that such should undertake once, they operate their activities (Persoff, 2011, pp88). They spilled oil in large quantities and the area covered by the discharges increased with time due to the high impact of the spillage.
Both plants closed indefinitely due to the accidents and prompted the government to take harsh steps towards legalization and operations of oil facilities. The environmentalists and Marine international groups also reacted in suggesting of laws that would regulate the industry in the future to prevent such incidents.
A significant difference between the two incidents is that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a wellhead blowout which was beyond the human control. The pressure on the water under the sea as they extracted led to the blowout while the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred due to human error (Nedwed et al., 2012, pp.133). The misconduct and errors of commission and omission were the main triggers to the accident. The Deepwater spill affected a larger area than Exxon spillage with more adverse effects reported due to the leak. It took longer to clean the mess than it was for the Exxon and the environment as well as diseases of the locals that lived around the area more pronounced. It also used more money in the cases that were taken to the courts against the company as some form of compensation.
In conclusion, it is prudent for an organization to have prior and proper preparation in case such an incident occurred within their plant. Proper preparation is a method used to control the impact of such a spillage. Methods include, but not limited to the mechanical and the state of the art techniques using technology. Besides, every method has their strengths and weaknesses, and more than one method may be utilized at a go during the process of cleaning up the mess to avoid more effects on the environment. The majority of the methods have disadvantages, for example, in the case of the in-situ method; the workers are exposed to toxic wastes released by the light from the fire, which would later lead to malignant diseases. One of the main criticism ideas that came forth from this method is that it was a tedious session, which made the workers hired for that task work for many days, which meant that they had to clean the sea first then proceed to the shore and continue with the process.
Bibliography
Gagne, L., Gunnoe, E., Linnell, A. and Williamson, E., 2008. Exxon Valdez oil spill. CH111: Principles of Chemistry Writing Project Fall 2007, p.81.
Fingas, M., 2010. Oil spill science and technology. Gulf professional publishing, pp.53-66.
Jernelöv, A., 2010. The threats from oil spills: Now, then, and in the future. Ambio, 39(5-6), pp.353-366.
Jha, M.N., Levy, J. and Gao, Y., 2008. Advances in remote sensing for oil spill disaster management: state-of-the-art sensors technology for oil spill surveillance. Sensors, 8(1), pp.236-255.
Kostka, J.E., Prakash, O., Overholt, W.A., Green, S.J., Freyer, G., Canion, A., Delgardio, J., Norton, N., Hazen, T.C. and Huettel, M., 2011. Hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria and the bacterial community response in Gulf of Mexico beach sands impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Applied and environmental microbiology, 77(22), pp.7962-7974.
Persoff, P., 2011. Control Strategies for Abandoned In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, pp.83-110.
Spier, C., Stringfellow, W.T., Hazen, T.C. and Conrad, M., 2013. Distribution of hydrocarbons released during the 2010 MC252 oil spill in deep offshore waters. Environmental pollution, 173, pp.224-230.
Tyagi, M., da Fonseca, M.M.R. and de Carvalho, C.C., 2011. Bioaugmentation and biostimulation strategies to improve the effectiveness of bioremediation processes. Biodegradation, 22(2), pp.231-241.
Zock, J.P., Rodríguez-Trigo, G., Pozo-Rodríguez, F., Barberà, J.A., Bouso, L., Torralba, Y., Antó, J.M., Gómez, F.P., Fuster, C. and Verea, H., 2007. Prolonged respiratory symptoms in clean-up workers of the prestige oil spill. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 176(6), pp.610-616.
