Ways of Recording Cost of Harm Associate

Question: List the various ways that KGC Ltd. Could record the cost of the harm associated with the sludge spill in its GPFS, discuss the pros-and-cons of each method, choose a method and defend your choice. Answer: Ways of recording cost of harm associated with the sludge spill in GPFS The sludge of the tailing ponds of mines is very acidic. It contains high levels of mercury, arsenic and other detrimental metals. Toxicity can be low, but long term exposure to the same can be detrimental creating chronic health issues (UOE, 2016). The methods for recording information sludge spill in GPFS (General Parallel File system) are: The location and time and date of spill The volume of sludge in wet tons, bio solids of class A or B, spilling of short paper fiber and quantity recovered in wet tons. The permit number of transporter Distance from spill to land water (Hazen Drive , 2007) The details of the spill should be recorded in the GPFS. The GPFS is a high performance clustered file used in the large organizations (IBM, 2012). The cost of harm can be identified by the following methods given below: In terms of loss to the people In terms of loss to the resources In terms of financial loss (Yale, 2010) The loss to people can be due to not getting access to the clean water. The loss of resources is due to spill of sludge in ocean, river and ponds. The financial loss can be due to incurring of clean-up costs (GDC, 2016). Pros and cons of the methods It is necessary to know about the pros and cons of the methods to select the best method among the all three. The method having highest benefits will be chosen for recording the cost of harm associated with the spill of sludge. Following can be the pros and cons of the methods: In terms of loss to people Using this method, the spill of sludge can be determined on the basis of loss to people. This method would be appropriate as it is considering the impact on people and their inconvenience. The drawback of this method is that it does not consider the loss to resources and financial loss (Hazen Drive , 2007). In terms of loss to resources The loss to resources is suitable as it will include the cost of harm to resources. The cost of harm to resources is very important from the point of view of society. The drawback is that it does not include cost to people and financial losses (UOE, 2016). In terms of financial loss The financial loss will be taken into account on the basis of cost incurred in cleaning the mess after spill of sludge. It is very important to clean the mess for mitigating the impact of spill. Cons of the method are that it will not consider the people and loss to resources (Yale, 2010). Best Method and Justification for Choosing Best Method The best method among all can be the loss to resources. The loss to resources is important among the all methods. The loss to resources method is considering the losses to the resources which indirectly will also be including the cost of people and financial losses as well. The method is overcoming the cons of both the methods. It is necessary to find the cost incurred in loss of resources rather than to people and financial loss. The financial loss of cleaning up is not much important when it comes to measuring the loss to resources. Similarly the cost to people can also be mitigated. The second best method to record the cost will be people. Least important among all is loss of financial losses (Hazen Drive , 2007). Therefore, it can be stated that loss to resources is more in comparison to the loss to people and financial loss. The loss to resources includes both loss to people and financial loss. References GDC, 2016. Chapter 15 Cost Tracking and Accounting. GDC. Hazen Drive , 2007. Responding to a Sludge Spill. New Hemisphere Department of Environmental Science. IBM, 2012. Technologies that enable the management of big data.. IBM. UOE, 2016. accounting theory and standards. UOE. Yale, 2010. Hungarys Red Sludge Spill: The Media and the Eco-Disaster. Yale.