I fully support this BP policy!

[Dragon Down]

Flickr Photo Download: Spotted at BP station in Ohio

 

[DennisS]

Did you know those hoses have break-away fittings if you drive off. I did come back and lay the hose next to the pump before driving away.

 

[Wookie]

And oil rigs have breakaway fittings too. AUnfortunately, they don't always work....

 

[Hotpuppy]

And oil rigs have breakaway fittings too. AUnfortunately, they don't always work....

Probably cheaper to replace a hose than the rig.... Wonder how long it will be before they salvage the Deepwater Horizon.

 

[captain]

Probably cheaper to replace a hose than the rig.... Wonder how long it will be before they salvage the Deepwater Horizon.

Cheaper to build a new rig, just about impossible to salvage in 5000'

 

[Mike Boswell]

I have no doubt that BP will have to pay for some of the costs of this disaster. This will be the most devastating corporate mishap in history. BP should have to pay for environmental damage, cleanup and mitigation, loss of fishing income, loss of tourist industry income, and much more.

However, BP's liability is apparently limited. There is a cap on liability damages for oil companies drilling offshore. The cap is $75 million unless the government can show criminal negligence.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703303904575292210472764880.html?mod=mktw

 

[Wookie]

I have no doubt that BP will have to pay for some of the costs of this disaster. This will be the most devastating corporate mishap in history. BP should have to pay for environmental damage, cleanup and mitigation, loss of fishing income, loss of tourist industry income, and much more.

However, BP's liability is apparently limited. There is a cap on liability damages for oil companies drilling offshore. The cap is $75 million unless the government can show criminal negligence.

White House Pushes to Clear Way for Oil-Drilling Permits - WSJ.com

I've heard from friends in the deepwater business. Criminal negligence for both BP and the owner of the BOP shouldn't be too much of a problem. Is saving a buck at the expense of violating the regulations considered criminal? Remember, they will have to go up against a jury of pissed off unemployed New Orleanseans.

 

[Mike Boswell]

I've heard from friends in the deepwater business. Criminal negligence for both BP and the owner of the BOP shouldn't be too much of a problem. Is saving a buck at the expense of violating the regulations considered criminal? Remember, they will have to go up against a jury of pissed off unemployed New Orleanseans.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but it is arguable whether BP's actions amounted to criminal negligence, and my guess is that their appeals will reach the US Supreme Court in ten or twenty years and the judgement will be overturned, as it was in the Exxon Valdez case.

The oil industry has lots of money, a powerful lobby, and many sweethearts in Congress.

That is why they have the liability cap in the first place.


Excerpts from an article in Wikipedia:

"In the case of Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. The punitive damages amount was equal to a single year's profit by Exxon at that time.

Meanwhile, Exxon appealed the ruling, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge, Russel Holland, to reduce the punitive damages. On December 6, 2002, the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and was not grossly excessive.

Exxon appealed again and the case returned to court to be considered in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which caused Judge Holland to increase the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest.

After more appeals, and oral arguments heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on January 27, 2006, the damages award was cut to $2.5 billion on December 22, 2006. The court cited recent Supreme Court rulings relative to limits on punitive damages.

Exxon appealed again. On May 23, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied ExxonMobil's request for a third hearing and let stand its ruling that Exxon owes $2.5 billion in punitive damages.

Exxon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. In a decision issued June 25, 2008, Justice David Souter issued the judgment of the court, vacating the $2.5 billion award and remanding the case back to a lower court, finding that the damages were excessive with respect to maritime common law. The judgment limits punitive damages to the compensatory damages, which for this case were calculated as $507.5 million.

Exxon's official position is that punitive damages greater than $25 million are not justified because the spill resulted from an accident.

Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses through insurance claims associated with the grounding of the Exxon Valdez."

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

The oil industry has lots of money, a powerful lobby, and many sweethearts in Congress.

That is why they have the liability cap in the first place.

... not to mention that the people running the regulatory agencies are all former (or future) employees of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.

But since this isn't about diving, why is it in the Basic Scuba Discussions forum?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Diver0001]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

moved to the community area

---