The Montara Oil Spill: Whose Good Should be Served?

The Montara Oil Spill: Whose Good Should be Served?

TOPIC: The Montara Oil Spill

A number of resources have been provided for you in this package.
Use any/ all of the material to complete your analysis.
Your Task:
1. Choose one hot topic from those presented .
2. Describe the issue (150 words)
3. Explain why this is an issue of justice or the common good (150 words).
4. Identify the people or groups who have a stake in the issue and analyse
their perspectives on it. [You should analyse at least three perspectives.]
Why may some stakeholders not want the situation to change? (750
words)
5. Analyse the issue in terms of the co mmon good and the principles that
promote human flourishing. (750 words)
6. In light of your analysis, how might the common good best be served in
relation to this issue? (200 words).
Perspective: The Environment
x What belief is held by this group?
x What resolution would they opt for?
x Who would benefit?

Perspective: The Oil Company
x What belief is held by this group?
x What resolution would they opt for?
x Who would benefit?

Perspective: The Australian
Government
x What belief is held by this
group?
x What resolution would they
opt for?
x Who would benefit?
Can you think of any
other perspectives?

Perspective : A religious perspective
x What belief is held by this group?
x What resolution would they opt for?
x Who would benefit?

Perspective : The People of West
Timor
x What belief is held by this
group?
x What resolution would they
opt for?
x Who would benefit?

Introduction:
Sources of energy are of increasing importance in today’s world. One of the most significant ongoing sources of energy is oil. As the more readily accessible sources of oil
are becoming depleted, sources that are more difficult to access are now being exploited. This includes oil reserves from ben eath the sea floor, which necessitates the
buildin g of offshore oil rigs such as the Montara oil platform in the Timor Sea off the north coast of Western Australia. The company involved is a Thai- based company,
PTTEP (PTT Exploration and Production Public Company) Australasia (PTTEP AA) .
In this Hot Topic we will be exploring the consequences of the oil spill that occurred when the West Atlas Montara wellhead exploded on 21 August 2009. Despite several
attempts to cap the well “t he uncontrolled release continued for 74 days and an estimated 400 barrels of oil was lost per day. The well was killed on November 3, 2009 .”
1

Maps of the area are provided in the following documents:
“ Lessons of Montara ” (see pp. 3 and 10), and
“ Montara Environmental Monitoring Program” (see p. 9).
Fortunately no one working on the oil rig was seriously injured by the explosion; however, over two and a half years later, in March 2012, two workers who had been on the
rig at the time of the explosion were still “seeking compensation for mental and emotional trauma, and for loss of earnings”.
2
See “ Oil rig workers feeling compensation
frustration ” and “ Montara oil spill workers call for compensation settlement” .

1
PTTEP, “Our Response to Montara”, accessed 23 April 2014, http://www.au.pttep.com/our-response -to -montara/the-incident

For your weekly tutorial preparation and test you will need to cover the introductory and background information in each hot topic (and all the links within these
sections). These sections will be indicated by this symbol: Test questions may be drawn from this information.
In addition you will examine at least two perspectives, again identified with this symbol:
Within the identified perspectives, you need only read the general information and access particular resources which will be identified as the basis of possible test
questions. Look for this symbol: If you choose this hot topic for Assessment Task 2 you will need to explore ALL the resources presented here.

The en vironmental consequences of the oil spill have been the subject of much publicity and concern. The World Wildlife Fu nd (WWF) called it an “environmental disaster”
and reported on the effects on seabirds and marine animals in the area: “ Lessons from Australia’s worst oil spill ignored ” .
While the Montara oil platform is within the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the oil slick has been recorded as reaching the In donesian province of West Timor
and to have adversely affected the environment in a region where the economy and the livelihood of the p eople are heavily dependent on fishing and seaweed production.
It ha s also had adverse effects on the health and wellbeing of the people: “ Australia’s shame – the Timor Sea oil spill disaster in pictures ”.
The claims of serious environment al effects on wildlife and on fisheries and seaweed farming in West Timor have been disputed by the oil company, PTTEP AA , in a number
of their doc uments. In the “ Montara Environmental Monitoring Program Report of Research 2013,” for example, the company state that “o verall, the studies agree there
was little or no detectable impact on any marine ecosystem or species.”

Background:
Australia is now heavily reliant on imported oil to fuel industry and for transport, both commercial and private. Local sourc es of oil are available in the ocean off the north
coast of Western Australia.
Drilling for oil is an expensive and complex engineering endeavour, requiring the huge capital resources of multinational companies. The company developing the oil at the
Montara oil platform in the Australia Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Timor Sea is the Thai- based company, PTTEP Australasia (PTTEP AA), operating as an Australian-registered company and subject to Australian regulations. Regulations require procedures to be in place to secure the safety of workers on the oil rig, and measures to deal
with the consequences for persons and the environment should there be an accident or an oil spill.
When the explosion at the Montara oil rig occurred on 21 August 2009, PTTEP AA, undertook measures to plug the well head and to disperse the oil slick which followed the
explosion. However, despite repeated attempts to seal the leak, oil continued to flow for over two months, until 3 November 2009.
The oil slick, together with the chemical dispersants used to break up the oil on the surface of the sea, reached the Indonesian island of West Timor and the small island of
Rote off the tip of West Timor.
Watch this 7.30 Report on the Montara oil spill: “ Judgement Day,” ABC News (Nov 24, 2010) (or read the transcript ) .
Some of i ssues raised by the Montara oil spill include:

2
ABC News, “Oil rig workers feeling compensation frustration” (3 March 2012), accessed 7 April 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012- 03- 12/montara -oil -rig- workers- seek -compensation/3883396

x The safety procedures that the company, PTTEP AA, have in place , their compl iance with Australian regulation s, and the company’s response to the explosion .
x The Australian Governments – Commonwealth, and, in this case, that of the Northern Territory which wa s responsible for the administration of the oil field in
which Montara is situated: the way in which regulations are drawn up and administered; determining the facts associated with the particular case; determining
responsibility for the harm caused; and addressing claims for compensation.
x Environmental concerns: the potential for harm to humans, wildlife and the environment inherent in such drilling operations.
x Relations between Australia and its neighbour, Indonesia, and the harm said to have been caused to its citizens and the environment.

Some questions to consider in relation to th ese issues include :
x Could the spill have been prevented? Has appropriate compensation been forthcoming?
x Are the regulations adequately drawn up and enforced? Who was responsible for the disaster? Who should be compensated for the damage and harm caused?
What steps can be taken to minimise accidents?
x What are the potential risks involved in drilling for oil at sea? How can they be minimised? What have been the environmental effects in this particular case?
x How have the people of West Timor been affected? Is responsibility for any harm to people and their livelihoods accepted and compensation provided?

The broader issue underlying this particular event is:
How are the economic benefits of oil exploration at sea balanced against the possibility of environmental damage and adverse effects on innocent victims, their health
and livelihood?

This question was highlighted in the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, when an explosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig caused loss of life to workers , extensive
environmental damage and har m to people in the United States. In this case, the chemical dispersants used were toxic and had serious consequences.
Watch this 60 Minutes program, “Crude Solution ”, 15 August 2 013 (or read the transcript ) . While the program focuses mainly on the Gulf of Mexico spill, there are brief
(and important) references to the earlier Montara spill .
The issues raised in the Gulf of Mexico spill resonated with those Australians concerned about the Montara oil spill in 2009, where the same chemical dispersant had been
used, and where there have been claims of the adverse effects on the health of the people in West Timor and on the environment.
The following links provide an overview of the Montara incident and the responses to it:
“ The spilling fields ” RN (4 July 2010) ( audio and transcript).
“ First Montara, then Deepwater Horizon – is Australia protected from catastrophic oil spills? ” The Conversation (21 June 2011).
The Australian Lawyers Alliance has been active in reporting on and supporting the claims of the people of West Timor for compensation for the harm to their health and to
their livelihood: ‘Oil firm should fund Indon study: lawyers ,’ The Australian, 13 June 2014 . (Accessed 18 June 2014).
Links to their documents, for example, “Living in Montara’s shadow: Reported impacts in East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia” (August 2013) , by Emily Mitchell , are included in
the relevant p erspectives below.

Perspectives:
There are various groups (“stakeholders”) that are involved in this issue in some way. In this section, please reflect on the information from the previous section and from
the following resources. In reviewing the information from these sources, identify the perspectives and interests of each stakeholder group. Consider the questions
provided on the cover s heet of this task in order to guide your reading.

Perspective 1:

The Oil Company

Developing energy resources requires the investment of huge capital from large multinational companies in the expectation of accruing large profits
for their investors and shareholders.
It is in the interests of oil exploration companies, such as the Thai – based company PTTEP Australasia (PTTEP AA), that secured approval from the
Australian government to de velop the Montara oil field in the Timor Sea, that they succeed as a commercial enterpris e: at the most fundamental
level that means that they make a profit. To do so, however, they need to maintain their reputation, which incl udes complying with government
regulations and maintaining an excellent safety record. Should an accide nt occur, they need to be seen to be responding quickly and efficiently , by
cleaning up pollutant s and accepting responsibility, where appropriate, for the harm and damage caused to persons and the environment.
From the P erspective of the company, therefore, minimising the cost, including adverse international publicity, in an incident such as the explosion
that occurred on the West Atlas rig in the Montara oil field on 21 August 20 09, is of paramount importance.
A key question to consider in exploring the Montara oil spill from the perspective of PTTEP AA is the extent to which the interests of the company
and the common good coincide or diverge:
x What are the priorities for the company in the event of an oil spill?
x What are the competing and the shared interests of the company and those affected by an oil spill:
– The Australian Government, which is responsible for regulating the industry?
– Workers on the platform who may be killed or injured?
– Persons whose health and livelihoods are impacted upon by the consequences of the spill and the clean up?
– T he adverse effects on wildlife and the environment?
– How should any compensation be calculated? Who should pay?
– Are the interests of the less powerful in the community – local and international – secured in a just manner?
x What is the final outcome of the event: has a satisfactory resolution been reached? From whose Perspective is the outcome satisfactory?

Resources
David Twomey, “ Thai company’s Montara oil spill fines up to $1.7m,” Eco News (31 August 2012) .
PTTEP Australasia, “ Building on the Lessons of Montara” (we referred to this document earlier, when looking at maps of the affected area).
PTTEP Australasia, “Montara oil spill incident response ” .
PTTEP Australasia, “ Our Response to Montara”.
PTTEP Australasia, “ The Montara Incident ” .
PTTEP Australasia, “Montara Environmental Monitoring Program” (especially pp. 28, 29 and 36). ( Note: While it is not necessary to read this whole
document in detail, it is important that you skim through it, noting what the company is reporting on and considering why the y have undertaken
the research reported on. Use your skills of critical thinking “to read between the lines” and draw conclusions, weighing up their response with
other versions of the consequences of the spill. Be careful that you don’t “jump to conclusions” , though : che ck the available facts and consider
how they may be interpreted from different perspectives.)
Finally, read this Media Release from PTTEP AA on 20 June 2013 : “ Oil production begins from PTTEP AA’s Montara field.”

Ethical Questions for Reflection
Ethical questions related to this perspective revolve aroun d the response of PTTEP AA to the findings with regard to the cause of the explosion and
their response to the oil spill, including questions of accepting responsibility and providing compensation.
¾ Has the company, PTTEP AA, accepted responsibility for their role in the incident?
¾ Has there been compensation for those said to have been adversely affected by the incident?
¾ What are the “facts” of the case: what data have been forthcoming? How has that data been interpreted?
¾ What responses are required if the common good is given consideration (priority?) and justice done?
Perspective 2:

The Australian
Government

When considering this Perspective, it is necessary to consider the broad er issue noted in the Background section (above ): the balancing of
Australia’s economic needs – and the need to develop Australian oil resources and not be totally reliant on imported oil – and the risks associated
with oil exploration and extraction.
How does one understand the common good in assessing the competing benefits and risks of economic development and of harm to the
environment? This is a theoretical question .
However, it is necessary to ask how the Australian Government responded to a specific situation. The explosion that occurred at the Montara oil
platform was within the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and therefore comes within the jurisdiction of the Australia n Government which is
responsible, under Australian law, for drawing up regulations relating to the exploration and ext raction of oil by commercial companies. The location
of Montara meant that the administration of the regulations was the responsibility of the government of the Northern Territory.
What were the responsibilities of the Australian Government in regard to th e disaster that occurred on 21 August 2009 and for the human and
environmental consequences of the resulting oil spill? Who was affected by this event? Should there be compensation and for w hom? Who should
pay? How does one understand the common good in th is particular case?
The then Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson, announced the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry on 5 November 2009. The
Commission was headed by Commissioner David Borthwick and was given very wide powers (close to t he powers of a Royal Commission). A call for
submissions to the Inquiry was announced on 24 November 2009.
The following document provides a summary of the Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry, the Government’s response to the report, and
actions that have arisen out of the report (see only pages 5 – 11): Final Government Response to the Report of the Mont ara Commission of Inquiry
T he following questions provide one approach to considering this topic from the perspective of the Australian government:
x the effectiveness of the regulations with regard to the development of offshore oil resources; the administr ation of these regulations
regarding safety of personnel and protection of the environment
x establishing responsibility for the Montara explosion and oil spill
x the setting up of the Commission of Inquiry: its powers; the opportunity for stakeholders to have input to the Inquiry
x the timely release of the findings of the Inquiry; the government’s response to the recommendations in the report
x the response to those affected and claims for compensation , including those in West Timor
x the attribution of blame or re sponsibility for the incident
x the way in which Australia’s economic needs and the common good are engaged and reconciled
x Australia’s relations with Indonesia
Resources
In addition to those resources already noted above, and those listed in the Introduction and Background to this Hot Topic (particularly the 7.30
Report “ Judgement Day”, which we saw above), please see the following more specific resources:
Australian Embassy Indonesia: Media Release – “ Indonesia: Montara Oil Spill” (2 November 2009).
ABC, “ Video: Oil and gas industry facing regulation shakeup” RN Breakfast, (25 November 2010 ) (or read the transcript ).
ABC, “Minister releases Montara findings” The World Today (24 November, 2010) .
ABC, “2009 Montara oil spill still not resolved ” RN Breakfast (2 July 20 10) (or read the transcript ).
ABC, “Oil spill: response and responsibility,” RN Late Night Live (10 November, 2009) (or read the transcript ). (Note: t he first 10 minutes is on the
environmental issues; reference to Government starts about 10 minutes in).
The issue has been raised again recently with “calls for the federal government” to re -examine the Montara oil spill: ‘ Momentum behind push for
new Montara study,’ Daily Mail, 12 June 2014. (Accessed 18 June 2014).

A further aspect of the issue (which some may wish to consider) is the broader context of Australia’s external relations with the Indonesian
government and with the people in Indonesian West Timor. These include the following: Australian maritime law and fishing by Indonesians in the
Australian Fishing Zone; the loss of livelihood by West Timorese as a result of the oil spill; the claim that West Timorese h ave subsequently had
recourse to people smuggling; and relations between the governments of Australia and Indonesia which, it could be argued, neglects the needs of
the people in the outlying region of West Timor. Consider the following article, as well as those presented in Perspective 3 and 4:
Brooke Nolan and Philip Vincent, “ Australian law on Rote? ”, Inside Indonesia 102 ( Oct-Dec 2010).

Ethical Questions for Reflection
¾ What is the ethical dimension of the risks associated with offshore oil exploration?
¾ How does the Australian Government interpret the common good in offshore oil exploration?
¾ Have steps been taken to review regulations to provide greater protection in the future?
¾ Has the Australian Government taken appropriate steps to ensure that the common good and justice prevail in ameliorating the negative
consequences of the Montara oil spill?
¾ Have the Australian and Indonesian governments given due consideration to the situation of the people of West Timor?
Perspective 3:

The People of West
Timor

The oil slick in the Timor Sea resulting from the August 21, 2009 Montara oil spill spread to the waters around West Timor and Rote Ndao, a small
island which is off the tip of West Timor. The people of this Indonesian province of East Nusa Tenggara rel y on fishing and seaweed farming for their
livelihood. There have been claims of environmental damage and harm to the health and livelihood of the people of this region . The West Timor
Care Foundation, and its spokesperson, Ferdi Tanoni, has been active in pressing the claims of the people of West Timor.
Questions of fact involve the event and its consequences: whether environment damage was caused by the original oil spill and by the dispersant s
used on the slick; the extent of the damage caused to the env ironment, to the health of the people and the loss of earnings as a result of the effects

on fishing and seaweed production.
Resources
The following resources provide information and opinion on the questions raised when one considers the impact of the oil spill on the environment
and on the people of West Timor, the responses to the oil spill and the question of compensation for the people.
Bob Gosford, “ Australia’s shame – the Timor Sea oil spill disaster in pictures ” Crikey (October 26, 2009).
Antara News Agency, ” Indonesian Fishermen Said Ignored, Australians Compensated in Montara Oil Field .” BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific, Dec 22,
2009.
ABC, “ Indonesian fishermen still suffering from oil spill ” ABC News AM (November 12, 2010).
ABC, “Montara Spill: Fishermen in West Timor…” ABC News NT ( July 28, 2012) (or read the transcript ).
“ Declaration From West Timor (NTT) Related Oil Spill Disaster Montara In Timor Sea On August 21, 2009,” Indigenous Peoples Issues and Resources
(Aug 21, 2010).
ABC, “ Forgotten tragedy: Timor Sea oil spill ” ANC News AM (28 July 2012).
That this situation is still unresolved several years later is clear from these recent materials:
Ferdi Tanoni, “ We Will Not Give Up” New Matilda.com (October 30, 2013)
Senator Rachel Siewert, “The ongoing impact of the Montara oil spill,” (March 5, 2 014) (or read the transcript ).
“ Montara leaves questions across Timor Sea,” SBS 13 June 2014. (Accessed 18 June 2014)
Recent statements from the Australian Lawyers Alliance, which has taken up the cause of the people of West Timor, include the following:
Emily Mitchell, “ Living in Montara’s shadow: Reported impacts in East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia,” Precedent 120 (Jan/Feb 2014). (See
especially pp. 35-36) .
Anne Susskind, “ Civil justice award for Timorese ,” Law Society Journal 51, no. 11 (Dec 2013)

Ethical Questions for Reflection
Ethical questions revolve around the response of those whose drilling operations caused the oil spill, PTTEP Australasia, and the Australian
Government, who is responsible for the regulations concerning drilling in Australian waters.
¾ Has the extent of the damage been ascertained, acknowledged, and compensation provided?
¾ Has the oil company PTTEP AA responded to the requirements of the common good, for example, accepting responsibility for the consequences
of the Montara oil spill on the people and environment of West Timor?
¾ Has the Australian government accepted its responsibility and supported the common good and justice for the people of West Timor?
¾ Have the Indonesian authorities – provincial and national governments – supported the people of West Timor?
¾ Relate the stance taken by Australian Lawyers Alliance to the issues of the common good and human flourishing.
Perspective 4:

The Environment

Developing oil resources, especially in offshore locations, is a highly complex engineering enterprise. Regulatory frameworks are set in place and the
undertaking monitored to minimise the chances of a mishap that can threaten the lives of those working on the rigs and cause environmental
damage. The explosion on the Montara oil rig on 21 August 2009 did not lead to loss of life or serious injury; however, there are claims that the
resulting oil slick caused environmental harm to seabirds and sea animals. F urthermore the oil, and the chemicals used as dispersants, reached West
Timor, causing environmental damage that resulted in the loss of livelihood by many people of West Timor (as considered in Pe rspective 3). The oil
company, however, disputes claims of extensive environmental damage.
Discussion of the risks associated with offshore oil exploration became more heightened with the explosion on the Deepwater H orizon rig in the Gulf
of Mexico in 2010. The 60 Minutes program, “ Crude Solution” (which we linked above, in the Background section of this Hot Topic), explored the
harm caused to people and the environment by the spill and especially by the chemicals used to disperse the oil. These same chemicals had been
used to “clean up” the Montara spill in 2009.
Resources
Note : Many of the resources here have been used in other areas of this Hot Topic. They are worth revising here, as they provide substant ial
background for a discussion of the environmental impacts of the oil spill.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF): “ Lessons from Australia’s worst oil spill ignored ” ( 21 August 2012).
Bob Gosford, “ Australia’s shame – the Timor Sea oil spill disaster in pictures ” Crikey (26 October 2009) .
WWF Media release: “One year after Montara spill Indonesia advancing claims ” (26 August 2010) .
This ABC RN Background Briefing program (audio and transcript) starts with the Gulf of Mexico disaster, then moves on to the Montara oil spill in
2009: “ The Spilli ng Fields ” (4 July 2010) .
RH Pryambodo, “ Indonesia, Australia urged to discuss Timor Sea pollution ” Antara News (July 5, 2013).
ABC, “Montara Spill: Fishermen in West Timor…” ABC News NT ( July 28, 2012) (or read the transcript ).
Senator Rachel Siewert, “ The ongoing impact of the Montara oil spill,” (March 5, 2014) (or read the transcript ).
Mark Day, “Time to Draw a Line in the Sand ,” Weekend Australian ( Apr 21, 2012 ).
As noted in the Introduction to this Hot Topic, the oil company, PTTEP Aust ralasia has disputed claims that there has been extensive environmental
damage to wildlife and to fisheries and seaweed farming in West Timor: “Overall, the studies agree there was little or no detectable impact on any
marine ecosystem or species.”
3
See pa ges 28, 29 and 36 of this document: “Montara Environmental Monitoring Program”.

Ethical Questions for Reflection
The ethical questions here relate to the broader issue noted in the Background to this Hot Topic: the need to balance the economic benefits of oil
exploration at sea (the issue is much broader, but our focus is on the oil spill at sea) with the possibility of accidents oc curring and the consequent
environmental damage.
¾ How ca n the economic needs of the industrialised societies be reconciled with protection of the environment?
¾ How does consideration of the common good influence the way we proceed in the development of energy resources ?
¾ If it is not possible to return to a state where the environment is left in its pristine condition, what steps need to be taken to ensure that damage
to the environment – and to those who depend on environmental resources, such as fishing stocks – is min imised?
Perspective 5 :

A Religious
Perspective
Key issues raised in this Hot Topic involve balancing the economic need of industrialised societies for oil with the need to protect the environment
and to further the wellbeing of the poor, especially in developing societies. The Montara oil spill resulte d in environmental damage that adversely
affected the livelihoods of the people of West Timor whose wellbeing depends on fishing and seaweed farming.
Modules 1 and 2 of this Unit focussed on human flourishing and the common good respectively. The principle s of Catholic social teaching provided a
lens through which we have considered what promotes justice and human flourishing. You are now asked to consider how these principles may be
applied to the Montara oil spill.
For a quick review of the principles of Catholic social you may use the following link: Caritas Australia : “ Our values: Catholic Social Teaching”.
Resources
The response of Catholic University students in Indonesia to the Montara oil spill is reported here : “ Students slam NTT govt over montara oil spill
case handling ,” Antara News (9 September 2011).
The following resources provide a range of examples of how organisations coming from a religious perspective put into practice their concern for the

3
PTTEP Australasia, “Montara Environmental Monitoring Program Report of Research 2013”, accessed 23 April 2014, http://www.au.pttep.com/our- response -to -montara/environmental -report -of -research .
common good, for promoting human flourishing , and for protecting the environment.
(Hint: Focus on the underlying principles applied in the situations discussed, not the details of each case. Use your skills of critical thinking to identify
the principles of social justice and conservation of the environme nt and how they are applied in a range of situation s.)
Caritas Australia :
Concern for “Food security and sustainable agriculture ” is applicable to the hardships in West Timor following the oil spill.
“ Our development approach” includes reference to being “stewards of creations” and “ sustainable development”.
Global issues: “ Caritas Australia tackles the causes and the effects of poverty and injustice” in marginalised communities .
St Columban’s Mission Society: “Peace, Ecology and Justice .”
The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference each year presents a Social Justice Statement. Here are two examples with themes relevant to this issue :
Australian Catholic Bishops, 2007 Social Justice Sunday Statement, “Who Is My Neighbour?: Australia’s Role as a Global Citizen ”.
Australian Catholic Bishops, 2002 Social Justice Sunday Statement, “A New Earth – the Environmental Challenge .”
The religious Sisters of Mercy :
A brief glance at the items in this Online Newsletter of the Mercy International Association, Mercy E-News 562 (April 23, 2014) shows how
Catholic social principles are app lied to ecological issues .

Ethical Questions for Reflection
¾ How does the application of a religious perspective to issues such as those raised in an exploration of the Montara oil spill affect one’s
perception of the impact on human flourishing and the c ommon good?
¾ What role do religious organisations, and people coming from a religious perspective, have in furthering the cause of the common good?
¾ What might be the outcome if a social justice perspective, based on the religious principles contained in the above documents, were applied to
the Montara oil spill, especially in relation to the environment and to the people of West Timor?

Ethical Questions:
There are numerous questions we need to ask, from an ethical point of view, in relation to the Montara oil spill. Many of these questions have been asked through the
examination of the various perspectives. A few more are listed here. Can you think of any others?

x When considering economic issues, how readily do issues of social justice come to mind and receive consideration?
x How significant is the common good in deliberations on political and economic issues?
x How does one define the common good in practical situations?
x How much focus should there be on the environment in making political and economic decisions?
x How important is it to negotiate a balance between development and social justice, and between development and environmentally sustainable development?
x Why has the issue of the Montara oil spill received little ongoing publicity and public concern?

Which approach or combination of approaches would most effectively promote the common good?
Consider all that you have read in this module. Think about the history and background to the issue, and the diversity of perspectives and interests among the various
stakeholders. Think about the ethical questions, and how the different positions dispose us to thinking differently about what the stakeholders should or should not do.
Now ask yourself what the best course of action would be for securing the common good . What should the Australian Government do to bring about the common good?
What should the Oil Company do? How will the common good be realized in this situation, and who must contribute?

And what about us? What should we do?

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂

Click the button below to order this paper.

The post The Montara Oil Spill: Whose Good Should be Served? appeared first on Speed Essays.

Welcome to originalessaywriters.com, our friendly and experienced essay writers are available 24/7 to complete all your assignments. We offer high-quality academic essays written from scratch to guarantee top grades to all students. All our papers are 100% plagiarism-free and come with a plagiarism report, upon request

Tell Us “Write My Essay for Me” and Relax! You will get an original essay well before your submission deadline.