Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Legal/Ethical Analysis and Public Relations’ Critique of 1988 Ashland Oil Fuel Spill Accident. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 7 page paper that is subdivided into three sections with the first analyzing the legal and ethical issues of the case, critiques the two proposed press releases to be delivered by CEO and Board Chairman John Hall, and creates a press release that would best address the immediate crisis situation with minimal damage (and legal liability). Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
7 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TG15_TGashland.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
its Floreffe, Pennsylvania (a Pittsburgh suburb) terminal. The spillage of 39 million gallons of diesel fuel into the surrounding areas and nearly three-quarters of a million gallons into the
Monongahela River required the evacuation of neighboring communities and threatened the drinking water of residents in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. During the three-day clean-up effort, a power struggle
ensued between AOI officials, local law enforcement, and environmental/hazardous waste agencies, which predictably resulted in widespread chaos and conflicting information. When the media arrived to cover the story and
demand answers to public safety questions, numerous contradictions in AOIs initial explanation of the events that transpired. It became increasingly evident that serious mistakes and legal violations had occurred,
which would invariably result in subsequent civil, criminal, and class action lawsuits. Not surprisingly, AOI was interested in news management in the form of damage control to protect a
multibillion-dollar business. John Hall, Ashlands Chief Executive Officer and Board Chairman, attempted to coordinate the situation from behind the scenes, and did not arrive in Pittsburgh to publicly address
the media until Tuesday, January 5. The media interpreted this delay as an attempt to hastily arrange a cover-up. The legal issues that pertain to Ashland are as follows.
First, Ashland had failed to obtain a building permit for the construction of the tank (Goodpaster and Delehunt, 1990). The construction had commenced on authorization expressed through verbal
communications only. Second, despite assurances that the tank had been subjected to hydrostatic testing in accordance with American Petroleum Industry standard guideline 650, an alternative test had been performed
instead. This failed to reveal critical information including the fact that while the tank had been constructed in 1986 as Ashland officials claimed, it had been rebuilt from
...