Beyond petroleum or bottom line profits only? An ethical analysis of BP and the Gulf oil spill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On April 20th, 2010, an incident was to take place 49 miles off the Louisiana coast at the Macondo Prospect location in the Gulf of Mexico that would potentially change the future of offshore oil drilling. On that day, 11 men would lose their lives when the 33,000 ton Deepwater Horizon rig, owned by Transocean but leased by BP PLC, exploded. As a result of the explosion, millions of barrels of oil would be released into the Gulf of Mexico, leading to widespread environmental harm and devastation to the shoreline communities. To better examine the underlying reasons for how such an event could take place in 2010, this paper will unfold as follows. First, we provide context to the oil spill by discussing the history of BP, including its transformation into an “environmental” firm in 1995. Second, we explore and analyze the catastrophe through the lens of ethics. Finally, we analyze the disaster through a comparison with the U.S. 2008 financial crisis with a view to identify the root causes of the disaster and the string of ethical failures that have scarred the market economy over the past three or four decades.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".