Contents

 The Gulf Oil Spill seems to be getting worse each day.  No one seems to have a handle on how or when to shut off the gushing oil.

Ethical questions have rose regarding the truth of reporting the crisis, the precautions and response related to economic and environmental impacts, and the current energy policy that led to this disaster.

This is not the first oil spill by BP.  In 2006 BP was investigated by a Federal Grand Jury for possible criminal prosecution related to 267,000 gallons spilled into Prudhoe Bay field, the largest spill ever on Alaska's North Slope..  The investigation related to failure to maintain the safety of the pipeline.  BP countered that it was just management failure and employee mistakes as if that were a better excuse.  Eventually BP pled guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge and paid $20 million in fines.

This followed the 2005 felony conviction of BP in relationship to the Texas refinery explosion that killed 15 and injured 170.

Less than 48 hours after the recent oil spill begain BP and the Federal government both revised their estimates of the oil spill from 1000 barrels to over 5000 barrels a day per day after Sky Truth used satellite data to call the initial estimates into question.  The estimate has now been increased to 25,000 barrels per day or a total spill of more than 11 million gallons making it the largest spill in American history.                                  See:  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-measure-20100502,0,1279704.story

Why is it that a small one person not-for-profit organization can provide better information on the size of the spill than both BP and the U.S. Government.  The low estimates resulted in a delay in the response by the Federal Government declaring this a disaster situation which in turn delayed the response.   What are the ethics of a oil company deliberately misleading the public?  What are the ethics of the federal government taking the oil companies word for the estimates rather than using their own satellite capabilities to determine the truth as Sky truth did?    The Federal government apparently chose to go with BP’s figures despite the recent history of it’s criminal convictions.

The potential and already existing environmental impacts of the Gulf oil spill include soaking the grass marshes of Southern Louisiana which are home to nurseries for baby shrimp and blue crab.  The more serious impact is that the oil in the wetlands can deliver toxins that will last for years. It is one thing to wash oil off a rock, it is quite a larger challenge to remove from the wetlands.

The timing of the spill could not be worse for many birds and animals such as the Brown Pelican and alligators which are now reproducing in the area.  The spill is also impacting the favored breeding grounds of the endangered bluefin tuna whose numbers have already decreased by 90%.   The impact on the Blue Tuna is yet to be determined.

The Washington Post reported that NOAA administrator Jane Lubchencho notes that 40% of all remaining coastal wetlands in the United States are in Louisiana and that 97% of commercial fish and shellfish rely on wetlands and estuaries during their life cycle.  see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001788_2.html?sid=ST2010043001050

About 20% of Louisiana’s commercial fishing is now closed by NOAA and the situation can still grow worse.     See may of closed area at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/deepwater_horizon/DWHEmergClosure2.pdf

While the mainstream media has been slow to report on the economic impacts, ironically Al Jezerra has covered this story.

The financial firm Bernsteain says that the spill could cost the fishing industry $2.5 billion.   Others estimate the cost is already going to be $12.5 billion and this is just for starters.  See:  http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/05/03/oil-spill-cost

While President Obama says that BP will be held accountable, Congress has set a limit on the liability of BP at a mere $75 million for costs not directly related to cleanup.  It may be the taxpayers and fishing industry that will pay the bulk of the real costs of this spill.

How is it that both industry and government could allow such risk with inadequate means to respond to potential disasters.

To answer that ethical question, we have to go back to the oilmen like Dick Cheney of the previous administration who were determined to deregulate the oil industry and not require the kind of stringent safeguards as you would find in Norway to prevent such a disaster.

See the story on this most unreported aspect of the story below.

The Gulf region now faces tremendous environmental and economic consequences due to the ethical decisions that Congress and BP both made not to invest in the best safeguards, not to have an adequate plan of action to respond to this crisis, and their willingness to risk the Gulf regions economy and environment to support the U.S. addiction to oil.

With the need to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate climate change, is it ethical to be doing any off shore drilling at all when other alternatives are available.

The Gulf oil spill has brought devastating ocean pollution impacts, the additional pressure on our marine food security, and a seeming total disregard for the need to reduce oil consumption to mitigate climate change.

The U.S. addiction to oil like the addiction to drugs is not without risks, costs, and unintended consequences.

Perhaps the greatest ethical question of the Gulf oil crisis is whether can we separate the oil money from the people we elect to develop energy policy and regulate corporate business to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our nation.