1. Identify an argument put forth in the case about the BP oil spill. Describe that argument clearly and base your description on evidence from the case.
One argument talked about in the case was the need for circulating mud and the use of a cement bond log. In order to prevent blowouts, you are supposed to circulate mud through the entire drilling rig to see if any gas is coming up with it, then once separated out, if present, you are to put all the mud back down through the well. It was advised by the American Petroleum Institute to circulate mud at least once.
In this case BP decided that the Macondo well would require 6 to 12 hours of work in order to circulate the mud, which apparently took too long for their liking, because they only …show more content…
With turnover at the CEO level constantly changing viewpoints of where the company should go, lack of company culture being spread throughout rigs and locations, and a lack of safety procedures actually being carried out, BP was doomed. CEO Robert Horton, 1989 wanted to cut expenses by $750 million, he started by removing management levels and cut back on the people working at BP headquarters. Horton also changed the decision making process so that there were smaller teams that were meant to keep open lines of communication. In 1992 David Simon became CEO and he continued to cut expenses, focusing on staffing. When John Browne became CEO in 1995 he gave all employees a sense of power and a voice, he wanted everyone to be involved in the decision making process. Under Browne asset managers came about, which turned into a model referred to as the “asset federation” this caused site managers to be compensated for their individual locations performance, which threw best practices and risk management out the …show more content…
Circulation of mud would be carried out by the book, cement bond logs would be administered, rigs would shut down for maintenance, and safety precautions would have to be followed. All of this would prevent future harm to employees, the environment and company reputation. This would also prevent loss of revenues, and productivity. If a clear set of rules and regulations had been instilled throughout BP, and enforced appropriately, most if not all of the setbacks or problems mentioned in this case could have been prevented.
Alternative 2: Fix the chain of command Both the Deepwater Horizon and the Macondo project could have been well oiled machines if the chain of command was less split up. There needs to be consistency and reliability in each chain of command, in order for work to go according to plan. BP violated the unity of command principle. By having multiple people sharing ideals and viewpoints on which procedures are best, most time efficient, and cost effective, BP allowed for these issues to occur. There needs to be cross communication within departments so that everyone is on the same page. Policies and procedures need to be handed down throughout the company, starting with the CEO. In the Deepwater Horizon chain of command chart you can see that some positions were only help for a mere 4 days,
One argument talked about in the case was the need for circulating mud and the use of a cement bond log. In order to prevent blowouts, you are supposed to circulate mud through the entire drilling rig to see if any gas is coming up with it, then once separated out, if present, you are to put all the mud back down through the well. It was advised by the American Petroleum Institute to circulate mud at least once.
In this case BP decided that the Macondo well would require 6 to 12 hours of work in order to circulate the mud, which apparently took too long for their liking, because they only …show more content…
With turnover at the CEO level constantly changing viewpoints of where the company should go, lack of company culture being spread throughout rigs and locations, and a lack of safety procedures actually being carried out, BP was doomed. CEO Robert Horton, 1989 wanted to cut expenses by $750 million, he started by removing management levels and cut back on the people working at BP headquarters. Horton also changed the decision making process so that there were smaller teams that were meant to keep open lines of communication. In 1992 David Simon became CEO and he continued to cut expenses, focusing on staffing. When John Browne became CEO in 1995 he gave all employees a sense of power and a voice, he wanted everyone to be involved in the decision making process. Under Browne asset managers came about, which turned into a model referred to as the “asset federation” this caused site managers to be compensated for their individual locations performance, which threw best practices and risk management out the …show more content…
Circulation of mud would be carried out by the book, cement bond logs would be administered, rigs would shut down for maintenance, and safety precautions would have to be followed. All of this would prevent future harm to employees, the environment and company reputation. This would also prevent loss of revenues, and productivity. If a clear set of rules and regulations had been instilled throughout BP, and enforced appropriately, most if not all of the setbacks or problems mentioned in this case could have been prevented.
Alternative 2: Fix the chain of command Both the Deepwater Horizon and the Macondo project could have been well oiled machines if the chain of command was less split up. There needs to be consistency and reliability in each chain of command, in order for work to go according to plan. BP violated the unity of command principle. By having multiple people sharing ideals and viewpoints on which procedures are best, most time efficient, and cost effective, BP allowed for these issues to occur. There needs to be cross communication within departments so that everyone is on the same page. Policies and procedures need to be handed down throughout the company, starting with the CEO. In the Deepwater Horizon chain of command chart you can see that some positions were only help for a mere 4 days,