It was worth a short, right? British Petroleum tried to put a positive spin on some of the risks associated with oil drilling its environmental safety plan submitted to Austalian authorities as part of a bid to win drilling approval in the Great Australian Bight.
Documents obtained by Climate Home News under FOI laws show BP asserted that a potential oil spill could be good for shoreline communities as “in most instances, the increased activity associated with cleanup operations will be a welcome boost to local economies”.
This is a good thing?
Image source: Al Jazeera
Australia’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) wasn’t buying it though. The authority requested that BP remove a number of statements or support them with additional analysis and raised a number of concerns with BP’s proposal. Here’s a few more details:
BP discovered a number of endangered southern right whales and sperm whales when surveying the drilling area and suggested the whales may simply change course in response to underwater sounds from operations. BP, however, did not evaluate the potential ecological implications of whales being re-routed. Nor did they address a number of other environmental and social concerns related to the impact of an oil spill.
In the event of a blow out, BP planned to store a “capping stack” in Singapore – 5,000km and 35 days’ travel away. Keeping a capping stack on call incurs significant costs. Meanwhile, BP’s risk models predicted the potential for “oiling of 650km coastline [sic] at 125 days after the spill, increasing to 750km after 300 days”.
Thoughts
BP eventually withdrew its plans after re-submitting them. But CHN’s reporting on this issue may shed some light on the mentality of the corporate stakeholders’ that drive global capitalism. This example highlights how their avarice can breed a disregard or lack of appreciation for the negative social and environmental externalities engendered by their decisions.
On one hand, it could be surprising that BP submitted such socially and environmentally irresponsible claims in the first place - especially after their management of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill . From a business perspective, though, perhaps BP took such an approach to its safety plan as a negotiating tactic knowing that they were going to face strong opposition to drilling in the area. Or maybe BP is simply accustomed to fulfilling lax environmental standards in many other parts of the world in which it operates. Regardless, BP is not the first, nor will they be the last, corporation to push projects that endanger the environment and local communities.
How can we create an economic and social system that factors social and environmental welfare into corporate decision-making?
Sources
Nicole Hasham, "BP claims an oil spill off Australia's coast would be a 'welcome boost' to local economies", Sydney Morning Herald, April 6, 2018.
Karl Mathiesen, "Documents shed light on BP’s failures in the Great Australian Bight", Climate Change News, April 5, 2018.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more like it, please follow @factotumk!