Film Analysis Of A Docudrama Deepwater Horizon

Film Summary

The film, Deepwater Horizon, is a docudrama based on the true story of the disaster that took place, causing the immense BP oil spill. The main character in the movie are Mike Williams, James Harrell (Mr Jimmy), David Vidrine, Robert Kaluza and Andrea Fleytas.

The film is set on the Transocean oil rig, Deepwater Horizon – the namesake of the film – in the ocean on the Gulf of Mexico.

Plot

Rig workers who were meant to be conducting a negative pressure test on the oil well were being sent home without the test having been done, a decision made by senior supervisors Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine.

James Harrell, a safety officer on the rig, insists a test be run to test the integrity of the well. Two tests were conducted, and where Vidrine decided the rig is fit to run on the basis that the pressure was as a result og gas, not mud or cement, the viewer is aware of the fact that one line on the rig was blocked, which is why a positive reading showed and encouraged Vidirne to order men to work.

As a result of procedures not being followed by senior operatives, a massive blowout of mud occurred which compromised the rig and after some time led to an explosion when the combustion chamber stopped working which started a fire.

11 casualties occurred on the rig, and those who were rescued were reunited with their families.

Executive Summary

In attempting to evaluate BP’s conduct in Deepwater Horizon and the role that individuals in its senior structures played in the disaster that saw over 200 million gallons of oil being spilled into the ocean, an analysis of the company’s managerial competencies and leadership, the challenges it currently faces and the strategies they need to overcome them, their stance on corporate social responsibility and its ethical practice as a business was conducted. This analysis is used in conjunction* with external research to create a link between BP as a multinational company and BP as the entity that caused the oil spill on the gulf of Mexico and its behaviour in other countries.

Management & Leadership

The central management competencies* identified in the film were Organisational Awareness, Analysis, Strategic Action and Judgement – linked largely to Donald Vidrine as he was instrumental in the collapse of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

Donald Vidrine’s lack of organisational awareness is pointed out when Mike Williams informs him of the 390 under-maintained machines on the rig that need repair. What he describes as ‘mission critical equipment’ includes control pods, telephone systems, and GPS antennae to name a few, including the air conditioning in the room they are in which explains why he was sweating so much during the meeting.

Vidrine’s lack of organisational awareness is evidenced by his shock at the account given by Mike Williams of the non-functional machinery on the rig.

Analysis and Judgement as managerial competencies link together regarding the execution of the negative pressure tests to determine the integrity and stability of the cement block beneath the rig.

Donald Vidrine’s analysis of the primary pressure test shows that he was able to identify a key fact of the test and that was that if the pressure was something to be worried about, then mud would have come up through the central pipe outside of the control room as the pressure would have forced mud out onto the rig. His ability to recognise the consequences of malignant pressure is what led him to the conclusion that the oil well should be flowed.

Additionally, he conducted a second pressure test on the kill line which gave a much safer result in terms of pressure, which affirmed* Vidrine’s certainty of the well’s readiness to be drilled. However, where the viewer knows the integrity of the test and the well have been compromised by a blocked pipe, Donald Vidrine’s analysis of the two test and his application of prior expertise that allows him to determine whether operations can be executed demonstrate his competency as a manager to analyse information, identify necessary facts and allow him to make an informed decision on what action needs to take place.

It is this analysis of the problem, its causes and outcomes that lead Donald Vidrine to pass his judgment – another managerial competency – that the well can indeed be flowed. The viewer understands that Vidrine’s decision is as a result of impatience and not wanting to be challenged by a subordinate. However, it can also be argued that Donald Vidrine called his judgement based on his reasoning that if the kill line’s pressure was agreeable and the drill pipe’s pressure test did not cause a massive outburst, then the rig’s integrity was of a high standard and operations could continue.

Strategic action is evident in the scene where Mr Jimmy attempts to convince Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine to run a pressure test. He states that a 180 billion dollar company like BP shouldn’t be so cheap as to skip out on a test that would only cost them $125 000. Vidrine makes the distinction that they are a 186 billion dollar company, presumably as a result of their ability to minimise expenditure* for the sake of profit, an aspect of long term strategic planning made by upper management for the long-term running of the business. In this case, their ability to continuously maximise profit margins is what shows their effectiveness as management in their refusal to incur expenses that cut into profits.

Therefore, Vidrine’s inadequate organisational awareness regarding the machinery and operations on the rig, his abilities to analyse and pass judgment on the cement job following the pressure test, and his strategic action in ensuring the business’ long term goal of making a profit demonstrate his competence as a manager.

Challenges & Strategies

BP is facing several challenges regarding the severe impact they have had on the environment. These include the several other oil rig disasters they have had since Deepwater Horizon between 2010 and 2014, their conviction as an environmental criminal in South Africa and the sustainability of their operations as a petroleum company in the 21st century.

BP’s conviction* as an environmental criminal in South Africa occurred in April 2019 in the Pretoria High court.

They were convicted on 8 charges of building flying stations in the country without environmental clearance, an offence for which many sources state BP will be fined heavily as the potential risk of ground pollution is high. Gideon Erasmus, a member of the Uzani Environmental Advocacy, stated in an interview “what the law requires is that those impacts must be identified, assessed and reported on to the competent authority before you can commence […] in these instances, BP went ahead and built these filling stations with no prior assessment at all.” According to an ENCA news report, BP will be liable for up to R100 000 in fines for each of its charges as well as 3x the commercial value of the petrol stations. The impact that this would have on BP is their reputation would be damaged further, making South Africans more reluctant to endorse them as a petrol brand in the country, and both in South Africa and globally, BP’s reputation as an environmentally conscious and ethical company will be called into question as it appears they have no regard for the environment following the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

In order to quell* the turmoil surrounding BP’s conduct in South Africa, the company should revise their mission statement which currently stands to the effect of valuing the people and elevating their employees. Their mission statement should change from this to be focussing on their efforts on operating ethically within the environment and placing emphasis on creating a culture of respect for the environment within all structures of the company.

BP’s other failures since Deepwater Horizon include the Lisburne field pipeline leak in Alaska in 2011, which saw a ruptured pipeline leak between 2 000 and 4 000 gallons of oily water into the aquatic tundra.

A Guardian UK report found that BP’s poor maintenance of rigs saw an estimated 125 barrels and 1 600 kg of gas being leaked into the North Sea in 2013.

In Lake Michigan in the US, 15 barrels of oil leaked out from the oil around platform as it ended up in a sealed cooling system. Lake Michigan is the source of drinking water for 7 million Americans and while the damage done was minor, this 2014 incident could have had severe consequences for the lives of millions of people.

The impact of these occurrences are negative on BP’s reputation in terms of how ordinary people see them and how governments see them as they would be reluctant to allow BP to operate in their countries for fear of the environmental damage they may cause.

As a result, BP should allocate resources differently for the effective running of oil rigs. It is evident that their platforms are underfunded for their magnitude as a company and as a result, equipment is under-maintained and causing avoidable environmental crises through the leaks of fuel into the oceans. Therefore, BP must allocate resources towards the maintenance of all of their oil rigs as it would, as Mr Jimmy said in reference to flossing, “save a lot of pain and money in the future.” The allocation of resources towards the maintenance of their oil rigs will allow them to run effectively and prevent potential future oil spills and gas leaks that have the potential to reach the catastrophic levels that Deepwater Horizon did.

BP faces sustainability challenges in that their primary purpose as a company is to provide petroleum – a fossil fuel and non renewable energy source which is estimated to run out within a number of decades at the rate which people consume them. Therefore if BP does not adapt to the global energy market, they will be left to provide natural gas only, a resource which, at the current rate of consumption, has eighty years left before it runs out. Additionally, global trends indicate a move towards greener, renewable energy and fuel efficiency, with the rapid emergence of electric cars and a movement to reduce carbon emissions. This is seeing an increase in the purchases of electric transport, most remarkably Tesla vehicles, which are placing petroleum fuelled cars at risk of becoming obsolete within this century.

To combat this, growth and focus strategies can be used by BP to expand into the electric energy market and cater to the needs of electric car users through the provision of either their own electric power as an independent electricity provider in the energy market, or provide BP electric power charging stations to maintain their relevance in the motor industry. Seeing that electricity, especially in South Africa, is fuelled by coal, BP can enter coal processing in partnership with the government to establish themselves as a company that does more than just petroleum and natural gas. Globally, there is a market for electric cars although they haven’t taken off yet in South Africa. Therefore, if BP establishes electric charging stations for electric cars, they would be able to open up to a niche market of electric car users who are a minority in comparison to the users of petroleum fuelled cars.

Corporate Social Responsibility

BP’s position in terms of CSR stands largely with its primary characteristics of good governance.

The focus areas of characteristics of good governance that are shown in Deepwater Horizon are transparency; accountability; integrity and the promotion of ethical and fair business practice.

Transparency: BP’s transparency is breached by Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine by way of them making the decision to send workers home without a pressure test being conducted. Employees on the rig were not made aware of the decision by their superiors and it would have gone unnoticed if not for the actions of James Harrell and Mike Williams. Vidrine also conducted a second pressure test outside of Mr Jimmy’s presence, reflecting his negligence for transparency in that he would not have a trained safety officer present when the test was conducted.

Accountability: Where the film fails to demonstrate how Kaluza and Vidrine were held accountable for the disaster, there is a real testimony given by the real Mike Williams, James Harrell and Andrea Fleytas which gives insight into what happened on the rig. Further research revealed that Kaluza and Vidrine stood trial for involuntary manslaughter following the deaths of 11 workers who died on the rig do to their oversight of safety procedures. It was found that the charges were dropped, demonstrating that while they were held accountable for the explosion, justice did not prevail.

Integrity: The integrity of BP as a company was compromised by the decisions of the supervisors to save money on a safety test at the expense of human lives. Both Vidrine and Kaluza cannot be labelled as individuals with integrity as they were self-serving and placed profit over the lives of people. Integrity is demonstrated in the actions of Mike Williams and Mr Jimmy who placed others before themselves, recognising the importance of the greater good over their own self-interest.

Ethical and fair business practice: What occurred in Deepwater Horizon was as a result of malpractice a lack of business ethics. It is argued that Vidrine and Kaluza were not unethical because they did not act with the intention to damage and end lives. However, their egregious* neglect of safety procedures reflects that their actions were unethical.

Ethics

Ethically, it can be argued that BP is company that is considerably unethical. BP has operated both unlawfully and unethically in South Africa, and from a global perspective, the effect that BP has had on the environment is largely as a result of compromised ethical procedures.

With respect to the film Deepwater Horizon, Robert Kaluza and Donald vidrine were overwhelmingly unethical based off of their decisions to refuse the cement block log test for the sake of saving money at the expense of human lives.

BP as a company have operated unethically globally as evidenced by the oil spills from their under maintained oil rigs, an issue that could have been avoided if they were ethical in their resource allocation and followed through on the upkeep of their platforms.

In South Africa, BP seems to justify their malpractice of building filling stations without proper environmental clearance, stating: “Everyone who is anyone in South Africa as made environmental mistakes.” A statement that proves their unethical behaviour and lack of remorse for their actions.

Conclusion

Therefore, with the combination external research and an evaluation of the above topics, BP, both in the Deepwater Horizon and in the real world has proved itself to be a company that does not act entirely ethically and cannot be said to be placing sound business practice at the forefront of its priorities, as evidenced by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and subsequent disasters thereafter