Oil Spills, Dollar Bills, and the Conflicts of Interest that Destroyed the Mexican Gulf

As investigations continue and documentation becomes publicly available, it’s seeming more and more that the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico began when certain oil companies “cut corners”. Now, as the disaster unfolds and becomes a tragedy of global proportions, the United States federal government has played its role in hindering the efforts of those who could mitigate this disaster. Rather than “cutting red tape” to connect expertise with equipment and other resources, it seems the current administration prefers empty posturing during press conferences, talking about “whose ass to kick.”

Given the federal government’s track record and the potential for engineering expertise in private industry, it may seem to be a good idea that the companies who caused the spill are now in charge of capping the well. However, companies (like the ones in question) are in the business of earning money for their shareholders. This became apparent when shareholders began to complain about politicians “bad-mouthing” these companies.  However, even those who laugh at the absurdity of these shareholders’ complaints haven’t seemed to realize that the companies have a responsibility to these shareholders, and these companies aren’t laughing about it. This leads these companies to cut costs to try to salvage as much as they can for their shareholders – costs that may make the difference between successful containment of the oil spill and the spill’s continuation.

The oil spill has become an environmental disaster of epic proportions due to the actions and inactions of certain groups of influential people. When examining situations such as these, thinking about motivations behind people’s actions can help to shed light on otherwise inexplicable behaviors. It is important to realize that these companies are not fighting an environmental disaster. They are fighting a public relations disaster and the potential for further liabilities. It should be no surprise that the companies will try to limit their financial exposure to this oil spill since their responsibilities are to the shareholders. Limiting their financial exposure could cause the companies to refrain from engaging in what they may consider overly expensive operations which may end the spill more quickly.

Having millions of barrels of oil as a slick across much of the Gulf of Mexico, coating most of the Gulf Coast’s shores could be very costly to these companies as, not only will they have to pay for cleaning hundreds of miles of beaches and wetlands, but they will also be obligated to clean oil off of hundreds of thousands of dying birds and other animals. To mitigate this possibility, the companies have elected to spray massive amounts of (toxic) chemical dispersants into the oil spill. When oil is on the surface of the water, it can be skimmed off. However, after using chemical dispersants, the oil is no longer collected at the water’s surface and cannot be skimmed off.

After using chemical dispersants, the oil has the ability to mix with the water, polluting entire ecosystems we don’t understand. Using chemical dispersants to contain the oil is tantamount to “sweeping it under the rug”. The oil is still there. It is still causing damage, but it is out of sight and out of mind.  This approach is desirable for the companies since they aren’t fighting an environmental disaster, but they are fighting a public relations disaster. Needless to say, oil-blackened wetlands, beaches, and wildlife are bad for the company’s public relations.

Therefore, while these companies should be held liable for costs associated with this disaster, they should, in no way, be running the show. Local citizens, businesses, and governments have a better understanding of the areas affected and have the most to lose in this tragedy. Nonetheless, their hands continue to be tied by these companies and by the federal government, who want to keep control of the situation themselves at the cost of the Gulf of Mexico.