In the early hours of March 24th, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling more than 11 million gallons of crude oil.This accident was devastating for the environment and the eco-systems surrounding the incident. There were many parts leading up to this disaster which made it sound almost inevitable to occur. With it being called a man-made accident because of the captain being intoxicated during the event, it feels like there was more behind the picture. There are a lot of players in this accident that can be blamed, but what about the corporation Exxon itself. The people that can be blamed for the event include captain Joseph Hazelwood, the state of Alaska, the Coast guard, and Exxon themselves. The weird thing about calling out Exxon for such a disaster, is that it isn’t really someone, but something to get the blame. The reason being is that Exxon is a corporation and not a person so there is no “person” too blame. Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the …show more content…
With him and his hardworking crew working double time, they thought it was alright to take a little break down at the tavern while the ship was being loaded with oil. He unfortunately drank too much and according to a test taken ten hours after the oil spill, he was still legally drunk by Alaska’s law. So with himself and his crew tired and tipsy, they tried to rush through to get the ship docked and unloaded. That’s when they scrapped the reef unloading the millions of gallons of crude oil seeping into the waters. What about the state itself, they aloud Alyeska to do their process without all judges of the Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation all passing the safety regulations. One of the DEC’s workers, Dan Lawn, was the only one stating that with the ill preparation of a large oil spill plan and other details being missed, Alaska should have paused the oil
On April 9, 1997, Rig 52 that belonged to Mallard Bay Drilling was towed to a location in the territorial waters of Louisiana, where it drilled a well over two miles deep. After the well was almost complete an explosion occurred killing four of the crew and injuring several others. Seeing that this was a marine casualty in navigable U.S. waters, under existing regulations the United States Coast Guard responded. When the investigation was over the Coast Guard did not find any violations of their regulations and noted it was an uninspected vessel and the operator held an Operator Uninspected Passenger Vessel (OUPV) license. Soon after the incident the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited Mallard Bay Drilling for violations
Arnold & Porter chose to sue Pittston rather than the Buffalo Mining Company because the value of the corporation allowed for adequate compensation to the victims. Author and head lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gerald M. Stern, writes that the original goal was sue to sue for $21 million for the disaster to have a material effect on the cooperation (51). To avoid responsibility Pittston attempted to prove that the Buffalo Mining Company was an independent corporation with its own board of directors. The lawyers for the plaintiffs disproved this claim by arguing the Buffalo Mining Company never held formal meetings of the board of directors and was not independent of the parent company. During this case Pittston’s Oil division had applied to build an oil refinery in Maine. The ...
The steps explained by Krakauer can be described not only as reckless but as arrogant and insensitive to those that live in Alaska. The messages sent to Krakauer by the people of Alaska show more examples of people who were anything but inspired by Chris McCandless. The Alaskan’s went as far as to say, “The only difference is that McCandless ended up dead, with the story on his dumbassedness splashed across the media” (Krakauer, 71). That same Alaskan continued, “Such willful ignorance… amounts to disrespect for the land, and paradoxically demonstrates the same sort of arrogance that resulted in the Exxon Valdez spill--” (Krakauer, 72). People all over have read Krakauer’s book and vouch for the inspirational tale it tells, because of the controversy this Chris McCandless’s story still brings today, it is obvious that there are people out there inspired by his story and journey. Many have even followed his lead by pulling what is sometimes referred to as “a McCandless”
There are mysteries which man can only guess at, which may only ever truly be solved in part; the SS Edmund Fitzgerald’s sinking is one of them. At the time it was launched in 1958, the 729-foot long, 75-foot wide freighter was the largest ship to ply the Great Lakes. Although, on November 9, 1975 the ship embarked upon what would become its final voyage. She was carrying 26,000 tons of iron ore pellets and bound for Detroit, and though the day was bright, in her path laid great turbulence. On November 10, at 1:00am, the first signs of trouble appeared, and prevailed into the afternoon. As the waves built, luck was neither with the ship nor the crew. At 7:10 PM, Captain McSorley delivered what was to be his final message "We are holding our own." Ten minutes later, the Fitzgerald could neither be raised by radio, nor detected on radar, and no distress signal was received. With that, the ship and crew of 29 men sank to the bottom of Lake Superior. Several expeditions have been mounted to the wreck and have been the subject of some controversy. There are many theories for how the Fitzgerald found itself hundreds of feet below the water; however none of them have been proven indefinitely. One possible cause of this disaster includes the ship crossing the Superior Shoal, with water as shallow as 22 feet. Additionally, the ship may have suffered a stress fracture and broke apart on the surface. Another possibility is that the ship succumbed to the forces of the Three Sisters, a Lake Superior phenomenon, consisting of massive waves. These current theories are merely conjectures, and since each holds the possibility of being true, it cannot yet be determined which one actually is.
He had no common sense, and he had no business going into Alaska with his romantic silliness. He made a lot of mistakes based on arrogance. I don’t admire him at all for his courage nor his noble ideas. Really, I think he was just plain crazy.” Essentially,
Ethical issues in this case are the impact on tourism industry of Gulf of Mexico and its beaches, unemployment around area because of closure of business, wildlife and the environment destruction and concerned with human health and post incident trauma. It has been almost year but world is still recovering from the devastation of disastrous oil spill. It destroyed the environment and wildlife all over the place and its total impact is still unknown. Environmental impacts may be noticeable for years to come.
The Exxon Valdez and the BP oil spill were caused by different disasters but had just as great of effects. On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil spill began to reek havoc on the Pacific Ocean. The oil tanker, Exxon Valdez, left from Valdez, Alaska and was headed for Los Angeles, California. The tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef in Alaska. After six hours of being grounded, the Exxon Valdez spilled about 10.9 million gallons of oil (53 million gallons aboard). The BP oil spill occurred a little differently. On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil platform exploded and caused the largest marine oil spill in history. The platform sank about 5,000 feet underwater. The BP oil spill poured 4.2 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. These oil spills are largely compared but were cause by completely different events. They had similar effects/damage, however.
Pratt, Joseph A. “Exxon and the Control of Oil.” Journal of American History. 99.1 (2012): 145-154. Academic search elite. Web. 26. Jan. 2014.
for the workers of the company. All the blame is not due to poor design and construction flaws, but to the oil companies for not teaching the employees about the system. This disaster could have been prevented if the engineers and oil companies were not blinded by their ignorant beliefs that the Ocean Ranger was unsinkable. Citations 1. http://www.canadianheritage.org/reproductions/21050.htm.
...oot causes of the oil spill. From claim information, BP demonstrates that it paid approximately 11 billion dollars to individuals and businesses who survived the disaster. BP lost its agreement with the EPA in 2010 after the oil spill but it retained the agreement in 2014 by resolving all debarment and suspension matter. From all these activities, BP demonstrates its efforts to repair the reputational damages.
Clean water involves seclusion of lakes and hoping the acid rain does not reach these pure water supplies. Another major source of contaminating clean water are oil spills and how destructively they blanket the shoreline they come in contact with. Although offshore drilling expeditions contribute some to the devastating outcome, oil tankers are the superior enemies toward the water. One estimate is that for every one million tons of petroleum shipped one ton is spilled. The largest super tanker spill was in 1979 when 3.3 million barrels was spilled off the coast of France. The largest in the United States was the Exxon Valdez in the gulf of Alaska. On the night of March 24, 1989 the 987 foot Exxon Valdez ran aground in the gulf of Alaska spilling 260,000 barrels of oil. With the help of the forceful winds, the slick soon covered about 1,100 miles of shoreline, including many islands in the sound.
The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is perhaps the most notorious failure in the world of engineering. It collapsed on November 7, 1940 just months after its opening on July 1, 1940. It was designed by Leon Moisseiff and at its time it was the third largest suspension bridge in the world with a center span of over half a mile long. The bridge was very narrow and sleek giving it a look of grace, but this design made it very flexible in the wind. Nicknamed the "Galloping Gertie," because of its undulating behavior, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge drew the attention of motorists seeking a cheap thrill. Drivers felt that they were driving on a roller coaster, as they would disappear from sight in the trough of the wave. On the last day of the bridge's existence it gave fair warning that its destruction was eminent. Not only did it oscillate up and down, but twisted side to side in a cork screw motion. After hours of this violent motion with wind speeds reaching forty and fifty miles per hour, the bridge collapsed. With such a catastrophic failure, many people ask why such an apparently well thought out plan could have failed so badly?(This rhetorical question clearly sets up a position of inquiry-which iniates all research.) The reason for the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is still controversial, but three theories reveal the basis of an engineering explanation. (Jason then directly asserts what he found to be a possible answer to his question.)
For this assignment we will discuss some theories on organizational change learned during this class and how they relate to the case study of NASA (The Challenger and Columbia Shuttle Disaster). First we will look the images of managing change used by NASA in the case study. Then we will discuss the types of change(s) NASA under took. Next we will look at some of the challenges of change that NASA faced. Next we will discuss some of the resistance to change that NASA dealt with. Then we look at how NASA implemented change. Next we will discuss vision and change and the impact in the case study. Finally we will discuss sustaining change as it relates to the changes implemented by NASA in the case study.
It was known as the great Alaska earthquake. On March 27, 1964, an earthquake with a magnitude of 9.2 struck the Prince William Sound region of Alaska. This earthquake is the second largest earthquake ever recorded in the world, the first as a magnitude 9.2 in Chile in 1960. In other words, this earthquake released 10 million times more energy than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima Japan. Equally important, this (Abby Lautt) earthquake produced landslides and caused catastrophic damage covering an area of 130,000 square kilometers, which is the entire state of Alaska, parts of Canada and Washington. The earthquake lasted approximately four minutes with eleven substantial after shock occurring over the next 24hrs causing damages in the amount of almost $400,000 and killed 131 people.
On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, located in the Gulf of Mexico exploded killing 11 workers and injuring 17. The oil rig sank a day-and-a-half later. The spill was referred to as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP oil spill, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and BP oil disaster. It was first said that little oil had actually leaked into the ocean but a little over a month later the estimate was 12,000-19,000 barrels of crude oil being leaked per day. Many attempts were made to stop the leak but all failed until they capped the leak on July 15, 2010, and on September 19 the federal government declared the well “effectively dead.” In the three months that it took to finally put a stop the leak, 4.9 million barrels of oil were released into the ocean. The spill caused considerable damage to marine and wildlife habitats and the Gulf’s fishing and tourism industries. The White House energy advisor, Carol Browner, goes as far to say that the Deepwater oil spill is the “worst environmental disaster the US has faced.”