Responsibility for the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that began April of 2010, questions have begun to surface for claims of damages and loss of business. As these cases are filed and precedents are being set in this situation, the question of who is responsible for the damages caused by the oil spill has become more widely discussed. Though BP was the company responsible for operating the oil rig at the time of the leak, they may not be the only responsible party.

BP has been officially recognized as the responsible party for the oil spill. The multinational company was the main owners and operators of the Deepwater Horizon rig, which was built by Hyundai Heavy Industries in 2001. The rig, which has been in operation for the better part of the nine years that it has been in existence, was being leased by BP from March 2008 to September 2013. During that time several different entities have been part of it's operations and were active at the time of this disastrous event.

The nine-year old rig is owned by Transocean Ltd., a Swiss company that did not originally commission the building of the rig. This Swiss company was responsible for regulating drilling operations in regards to the equipment and maintenance of the platform. Any faulty practices in maintaining the rig would be the responsibility of Transocean.

Halliburton was responsible for the cementing of the well. Cement casing lines a well and is perforated at specific points to allow for oil to flow. If the cementing and well cap are proven to have been constructed in a faulty manner, Halliburton could share a great amount of responsibility for the damages caused by the leak.

These types of blowouts are not unexpected in the oil and gas industry. For this reason, blowout prevention equipment is always in place to minimize the risk for this type of event. Cameron is the company responsible for manufacturing the blowout preventer used on this rig. If their product was faulty, they too may have a major part in the cause of the leak and the resulting damage.

The Dawn of Conflict - A Realization for Mediators and Disputing Parties

There are times when a person is fighting a conflict and does not even realize it. When the realization comes it's shocking to the conscience. This is normally true, especially when the person on the other side is fully known to be one who is close and dear at heart. Webster defines conflict as follows:

(1) a fight, battle, or war, such as an armed conflict. Additionally, it could be:

2(a) competitive or opposing action of incompatibles; antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons);

(b) mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands; and

(3) the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction.

When it comes to mediation, one can say that conflict involves an emotion and dispute, or an emotional dispute. According to the cannons of mediation, there must be a conflict in progress for a mediator to get into the process. Once the mediator is a participant of solution, there is a conflict in progress according to the above definition of conflict. There are times when parties are nave enough to believe that people with long-standing relationships are not susceptible to conflict. They also feel that these individuals are less emotional than those of short-standing relationships-which is incorrect! The mediator must bridge this gap, make an appraisal, and achieve a positive realization, because emotions could be hidden and should not be prejudged.

When it comes to conflicts and disputes between parties, one must realize that the emotional state of the parties is not cast in stone and is not permanent. The emotion arising from any one party may be in the moment at that point in time; however, one's emotion is subject to change at any given time. The state of emotion may shift in a short moment. The mediator must be aware of this fact also the parties on either side. Furthermore, a dispute must involve more than one individual. Having an internal dispute within oneself is not a dispute which rises to the level of mediation-it takes more than one person!

Dispute is normally a negatively arising event and not one which is positively thought of. However, once the issue enters the mediation realms, the outcome is one with some positive options. Mediation will turn out positive in the end, because it is a process which helps a person learn some new and positive things, develop new modes of communication, and to think about options they normally wouldn't consider-thus erasing conflict! Conflict is normally a negative state of being for many; however, mediation helps people to smoothly shift to something more productive in the process.