BP has closed down its operations in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Up to 400,000 barrels of oil are pumped out of the oil field every day, and after learning that there are corroded components, BP determined that opposed to risking a major Oil Spill it would shut down its operations. Some oil has spilled in the area; however, BP claims that if it did not shut down the operations, a larger oil spill could have occurred. Now, BP is conducting maintenance on its equipment and trying to prevent any spillage from occurring, so it can restart its drilling operations.

The State of Alaska heavily taxes the oil that comes out of the ground. Nearly 80% of the State’s revenue is generated by oil tax. Losing a tax on 400,000 barrels of oil per day for who knows how long results in Alaska losing a lot of money - billions of dollars. Due to this loss of revenue, the Governor of Alaska is having his Attorney General investigate whether there is any liability which BP may have to the State for this lost revenue.

So BP is put in a bad spot. It could shut down the oil fields and prevent a larger oil spill than that which has already occurred and face liability to the State for its lost revenue. Alternatively, it could have continued operations, tried to make the repairs while active drilling continued and risked an oil spill for which it would have had to pay an environmental penalty and the cost of clean-up. Either way it was losing money. So at this point BP was in a no win situation. Should it protect its coffers or the environment. Oil companies are not known for being too concerned with the environmental impact of their operations. Thus, it would be more likely that facing this dilemma, the environment would be expendable in its opinion. Considering the alternatives, maybe BP should be commended for have protected the environment from more significant damage.

Then again, maybe BP has been delinquent up to this point and should be penalized through fines by the State and Federal Governments. BP did not engage in the preventative maintenance to ensure that the equipment was not corroded and dilapidated in the first place until it was already in a failing state. By failing to ensure that the pipes were in proper condition, BP placed itself in a position whereby it faced the option of causing a major oil spill or being sued by the State for lost tax revenue. This decision to not perform preventative maintenance placed the environment and the company at risk, yet BP did nothing until it was too late.

Corporations failing to ensure that its equipment is was not in proper condition seems to be habitual. The northeast blackout was caused because an electrical company chose to not maintain electrical lines. There was no profit in maintaining the electrical lines so it was a low priority. This low priority cost the nation billions of dollars in lost revenue when the lights went out for several days in the entire northeast.

BP has committed the same crime. It chose to not maintain essential equipment and risk the consequences regardless of what they may be. Deregulation allowed for the Ohio electrical company to not properly maintain the electrical lines, and lack of government oversight of the oil fields allowed BP to not maintain its equipment properly. In both cases, the public has been harmed as a result of a lack of government oversight.