Abstract Companies are moving away from expensive litigation and opting for more time and cost effective methods for resolving disputes, including my present employer, Marathon Oil Company (“Marathon”).
A recent incident and the resolution technique used by Marathon are presented along with an analysis of the effectiveness of the technique used. An Assessment of A dispute resolution at the Workplace On November 8, 1999, Marathon Ashland Petroleum (“MAP”), Catlettsburg, Kentucky refinery, owned 68% by my employer, Marathon Oil Company (“Marathon”), had a tank rupture incident submitted for investigation. On this day, water in the bottom of tank 845 reached the boiling point and expanded into steam causing a foam-over of gas oil.
The weld between the roof and top of the tank failed and allowed the foam mixture to erupt through openings in the top of the tank. The oil mist was sprayed into the air on and off the refinery’s property. The erupted oil made its way into the parking lot behind the control lab of the refinery where it contacted several parked cars. The liquid traveled down the road and into nearby storm sewers. This event was typical of a foam-over caused by water vaporizing in hot oil. The source of the water was not concluded due to limited availability of data.
The Business plan on Royal Dutch Shell Company Profile
The objectives of Royal Dutch Shell are to achieve efficiency, responsibility and profitability in oil, gas and other related businesses and to take part in research activities and developments of new sources of energy to meet the world’s demand for energy. They believe oil and gas will be important to meet that demand for energy for years to come, and most of their investments are directed to oil ...
The tank was removed from service and several in-house corrective actions were initiated. Refinery personnel were alerted to the potential hazards of water in a hot atmospheric storage tank. Production planning was revised to ensure all process limitations were incorporated into the plan. Finally, internal process limits were modified to comply with new post-incident guidelines set forth by Marathon. MAP’s Catlettsburg refinery received a notice of violation from the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Cabinet (“the Cabinet”) regarding the rupture of tank 845.
MAP has been involved in discussions with the Cabinet to resolve this issue. MAP and the Cabinet chose to pursue the mutual settlement program. The Mutual Settlement Program offered MAP and the Cabinet the opportunity to settle the alleged violation without expensive and time-consuming litigation. Once the violation was referred to the Mutual Settlement Program, MAP received a settlement offer asking for payment of a penalty of $150, 000.
Negotiations of the actual amount to pay regarding the penalty are still in progress and the final penalty accessed to MAP is expected to range from $90, 000 to $120, 000. MAP believes that the matter will be resolved in 2003. I feel that the decision to refer the settlement to a third party was effective. In this incident, the Mutual Settlement Program acts as a mediator between the Cabinet and MAP. The management and staff of MAP are not diverted from normal revenue-earning activities by choosing to forgo a trial and settle to have the matter negotiated through an independent party. Furthermore, the likelihood of the working relationship being damaged between the two parties is decreased by choosing this form of dispute resolution, and MAP is viewed as a complying organization attempting to rectify its errors, sending a positive image to the media concerning the environmental awareness and social responsibility of the company.
Choosing a mediator as an alternative dispute resolution can be advantageous and cost effective. A mediator remains neutral in the negotiation process, pressing both parties to examine the entire matter and proposed solutions. Only the process of the negotiation is controlled by the mediator and not the outcome. There is not a great deal of information regarding mediation available to the general public. Nothing said in mediation and none of the documents prepared specifically for mediation, with the exception of those that would have been disclosed in court in any case, can be disclosed outside the mediation process. Because the decision to participate is voluntary and the solution is negotiated rather than imposed, there is a greater chance for a win-win solution and both parties remain in control.
The Essay on Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) also known as additional dispute resolution, is a name given to the various methods employed to resolve disputes that do not involve a courtroom trial. Individuals and organizations recognize the financial cost and divisiveness of courtroom trials and hence resort to alternative dispute resolution as a means of solving disputes. Many times, lawyers discourage ...
The agreement reached by the parties is not binding until it is put in writing signed by both parties. In addition, the relationship between the two parties is usually preserved because each was actively involved in the resolution. In closing, companies are shunning lengthy trials for more cost and time effective alternative dispute resolution techniques. Mediation is one of the least expensive alternatives to litigation in which the parties arrive at a decision at a much faster rate than court trials and remain in control of the resolution process.
This alternative dispute resolution technique is a reasonable way for companies to minimize exposure to the public, save time and money, and salvage relationships with customers while being responsible for their actions. References Kentucky Emergency Management. (Available from the Marathon Ashland Petroleum website, P. O. Box 1, Findlay, Ohio, or online from https: // Kye m. dma.
state. ky. us / news /archives / po 1999 q 4. htm).
