'Bp Case\r'

'1. The aspects of BP’s good culture that could come contri simplyed to the Gulf Coast oil color descent calamity include: * The go along essay to assure concerned stakeholders that it took environmental concerns seriously, merely BP’s actions incur not forever concided with its words. BP has industrious in many instances of enigmatic behavior including fraud, environmental, and ethical transgressions clearly abut that the company has a history of regard slight the well-being of stakeholders.The company has claimed to be an ethical company, concerned with stakeholder well-being, but its many violations report a different story. * BP’s write in code of conduct was not sufficient to clog a man made environmental disaster on an unprecedented scale. Apparently, BP’s code did not effectively dispense specific high danger activities within the scope of daily operations. * An investigation implies that BP caterpillar track short procedures and quality testing of the shriek (tests that are meant to detect has in the well).Also, BP employ a less costly well design that some investigators deemed â€Å"risky”. installation of this design is easier and costs are lower. Although, BP didn’t break any laws by utilize this design, they handle safer alternatives (to save money) that might have prevented, or at least hindered, the accident. * BP admitted that they had unattended several procedures required by the bonny Air Act for ensuring mechanical legality and a safe moveup amongst 1999 until the explosion in 2005 that killed 15 employees and hurt another 170 people.The explosion was the takings of a escape cock of hydrocarbon liquid, and vapor. Another leak that happened in 2006 occurred after BP failed to respond to numerous red flags. One of these flags consisted of a parlous corrosion in its pipes that had gone unbridled for more than a decade. * To narrow this ideal question up, BP took sho rt quashs in their productions to cut their costs, and ignored defaults, regular routine cleanings, and maintenance of the rigs cause explosions and leaks, and people getting killed, harmed, or injured. . Yes, BP engaged in purposeful avoidance of risk management. * Some suggest that BP cut corners in risk management to save magazine and money. * BP had a responsibility to ensure that eliminate precautions were taken to prevent a disaster, but they failed to meet their responsibilities. For example, one technician that worked on the oil rig accused BP of willful negligence. He claims that BP did in fact have knowledge that the rig’s blowout preventer was leaking weeks preceding to the explosion, but did not halt the production. BP’s contingency externalise in showcase of a disaster was inadequate. It contained many crucial inaccuracies. For example, one of the wildlife experts listed as an emergency answerer had been dead since 2005. Another example, is that the contingency device estimated that if a oil spill should occur, that the company would be able to recover about 500,000 barrels of oil per day, when in truthfulness it took BP months to just contain the leak, at a spill rate of much less than listed in their plan.The inaccuracies of BP’s contingency plan shows how unprepared the company was for a disaster like the Deep Water sight spill. 3. I think that in locate for BP to rebuild their reputation and manage the risks associated with seaward drilling, they should not take shortcuts or cut corners to save time or money. They should mail to a socially responsible address and stakeholder engagement. They should have safety organizations in place. They should follow safety rules and regulations. Conduct better start up procedures.\r\n'