MGT437

Business Ethics

CASE STUDY
 GROUP-1

Maryam Fuad Sayed Adnan 20191825

Husain Mohamed Hasan Shabib 20196730

Hawra isa alaali 20191551

Husain Ahmed 20181926

Ali Ebrahim Hasan 20197653

Muhannad Abdullah 20184486

Isa Aqeel Isa 20192425

Jalal Ali 202007959

Reem Sayed 20174488

Our group point of view is “Not to drill” action due to several reasons. If an oil
spill occurs due to drilling in the Arctic waters, it will start a chain of unfortunate
events. An oil spill would have a huge negative effects on the environment as it
causes the intensification of the greenhouse effect and leads to the formation of
acid rain which would eventually harm the human wellness and daily life routines.
In addition to that, drilling would have a negative effect on the marine environment
and the habitat of the animals living under the ocean, it would lead to the demise of
sea animals such as sea otters, whales, dolphins, and seals, keeping in mind that
some of the species living in the Arctic waters are endangered and need preserving.
Moreover, the use of sound waves or sonar waves to detect oil deposits would have
a negative impact on the endangered wildlife populations. Last but not the least,
since the nearest rescue teams are hundreds of miles away from the Arctic,
cleaning up an oil spill and preventing any damage, or saving an employee would
be challenging and difficult to handle.

Determine the facts:

The drilling will raise the economy of Point Hope, Alaska which is much needed,
and it would also create a lot of job opportunities, plus the huge financial boost
for Shell as we would lots of oil barrels, nearly 30 billion barrels. On the other
hand, it is a dangerous mission, the sea life under the Arctic waters is not yet
known, we do not know what type of creatures are living under there and
whether they are endangered or not, therefore, a proper research has to be
executed. Another fact that could determine a lot is that there is a huge
possibility that an oil spill would occur if we started drilling, which would result in
the demise of millions of the sea creatures as well as enormous water pollution
and contamination which could lead to the intensification of the greenhouse
effect and the formation of acid rain which would threaten our health and well-
being as human beings as well. Also, the ocean is the way of life of the Point Hope
community, as the Mayor of Point Hope said, “the ocean is our garden, and the
animals are our identity as people”. Moreover, if any person falls into the Arctic
waters while performing the job, he or she would not be able to stay alive for
more than three minutes. One of the huge negative points is that there are no
rescue teams anywhere near the location, the closest rescue team is hundreds of
miles away, saving an employee who possibly could encounter an accident while
performing the job would be impossible, also reacting fast and saving the
creatures in case of an oil spill looks impossible.
Identify the ethical issues involved:
The drilling of the arctic water will cause a danger to animals who live in it, in
terms of ethical issues, this ultimately ends in their death and is a violation of
their rights. Human beings should not hurt animals in any way, no matter how
humane they may be, and should not do to them, regardless of what the cost
may be to humanity.
The issue of animal cruelty is unethical as a matter of principle, and certain things
that are done to animals are unethical.
People don't think about moral problems or their negative effects. They only think
about their economic interests and their country's economy. Drilling is unfriendly
to the environment.
Identify stakeholders and consider the situation from their point of view:
The question of whether to drill the Arctic is a very complex issue, including the
impact of several key stakeholders, each with conflicting interests and priorities.
Stakeholders have expressed clear concern about Arctic drilling and are lobbying
government agencies on this issue.

1. Oil and Gas Companies:

Companies that produce, refine, ship, and sell oil, such as shell companies,
will clearly benefit from being able to produce oil from more reserves.
According to the US Department of Marine Energy Management, the
Chukchi Sea region could contain 30 billion barrels of oil and gas. It is clear
that these companies are involved in the expansion of oil and gas
exploration in the Arctic Circle and will advocate and lobby for policies that
make such projects more feasible.

2. Non-Partisan Environmental Groups:

 Drilling within the Arctic is rejected by non-partisan conservation
organizations like the planet Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. Their concern
isn't just for the immediate environmental harm caused by drilling but also
for the danger of an oil spill. "The Arctic drilling season is restricted to a
narrow window of a couple of months during the summer. during this short
period of your time, completing the large logistical response needed to cap
a leaking well would be almost impossible”. as Greenpeace continues to
talk out against the Arctic drilling, their message has begun to devour
momentum following these events. As popular opinion shifts faraway from
endorsing oil drilling ventures, elected officials would be forced to precise
their views so as to please their supporters.

3. Native Groups:
Native Alaskans are directly suffering from the results of oil exploration and
their needs. as stakeholders are often ignored. The Gwich'in Indians are a
major example of a native community against drilling, arguing that such a
drastic change to the environment (on which their society depended)
would cause the erasure of their cultural identity. Despite the very fact that
some people oppose oil exploration because it affects their way of life,
others embrace it due to the economic benefits. we will see that the Native
peoples of Alaska's way of life is both dependent and endangered by oil
exploration by watching political, environmental, and economic factors.

Consider the available alternatives:

In this case, when you consider all the situations it falls under two main available
alternatives to solve this dilemma:
1- Drilling:
It is straightforward to justify drilling. Using Alaskan oil would help reduce
U.S. dependence on foreign oil like the Middle East, and it can make the U.S
one of the leading countries in this field and make the U.S economy reach a
significant level that they don't even dream about it, which will lead to
improving the Citizen's living. Furthermore, the bulk of the infrastructure
required for transportation of oil from the arctic to major U.S. markets is
 already in place. Moreover, the knowledge gained through experience at
the arctic has already been applied to mitigating the risks associated with
obtaining oil in an Arctic environment.

2- No Drilling:
No one disagrees with the environmental risks of drilling oil in the Arctic
Circle. No matter how careful the oil companies are, accidents that are at
least temporarily damaging to the environment can occur. Environmental
groups consider such risks unacceptable. She claims that the value of
wilderness and natural beauty that would be destroyed by drilling in the
Arctic far exceeds the value of extracted oil. For example, opening up for oil
drilling is a threat to "destroy" the shelter of the animals in the arctic. All
that and we didn't even talk about the consequences of this discussion on
the human being, like the air pollution that can happen from the drilling
operations

So, what's more valuable by drilling oil in the Arctic or protecting it as an

untouched wilderness or wildlife refuge? Are the benefits of excess oil really less
than the cost of the environmental risks of recovering that oil?
Compare and weight the alternatives:
If its drill
If shell company drill its success for the company sense the company said they
had invested in the process. The first thing the company should do is to make sure
they keep their promises where they wouldn't hurt the environment and that
they will take high portion to not distorted the natural life and to make sure they
are prepared to any leakage that will occur during their process of drilling so no
population can happen and to make sure everyone know their job so they can
have great working environment.

The government  must do some inspection to make sure wildlife is not disturbed
also to make sure shell report all their process to make sure they are in the right
path so the internal environment and external environment is okay.

Non partisan environmental groups and native groups will not be happy with the
decision and they will try to use legal action ways to stop the process or they
actual will take the matter on them self's which attack to sabotage the drilling
process.

Make a decision:
We analyzed that after studying all the possible data and outcomes from this
case, that not digging is the most rational and correct decision, and it will be the
most beneficial decision for all concerned parties. Because There is negative
Drilling for oil in the Arctic Circle poses serious risks to the environment, no
matter how careful the oil companies are, accidents can occur.
Monitor and learn from the outcomes:
In the end, taking a decision against drilling is the right decision from our point of
view, and there are many marine organisms such as starfish in this place and this
drilling will cause the death of many marine creatures, and from our point of view
that in the future we will gradually move away from using oil and start using
sources New energy, and the evidence for some of the developments that
happened. Tesla company made electric cars and moved away from using oil in
the car, and their cars became electric. I think that this decision, if implemented,
would be the best ever.