Welcome to PatsFans.com

BP Liability

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, May 27, 2010.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,527
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    Should BP be liable for the full cost of the environmental damage caused by the gulf disaster?

    I think they should.

    What do you think?

    PFnV
  2. MrSparkle

    MrSparkle Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Ethically, yes.

    Legally, IDK. From what I understand there is some ridiculously low amount of money they are responsible for. 75 million or so, seems to me they are well beyond that already.

    What are you suggesting?
  3. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Yes

    (I believe mrsparkles is right about the law, but I'm assuming you're not asking for interpretation of current law. That law is yet another example if the myriad subsidies and loopholes that our government offers certain companies, to go along with the myriad unnecessary regulations it imposes on other companies.

    It is, imo, garbage. But, hey, drill baby drill!)
  4. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,505
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I think BP should pay for the entire cost of the cleanup.

    I also think it is about time Obama stops sitting on his hands and does
    something to address this issue. A second tour of the spill get's
    nothing done.

    Find the best way to stop the leak and do it.
    Send the bill to BP.

    If they don't want to pay.... tell them we will no longer allow them
    to do business in America, until they pay for the entire cleanup.

    If my suggestion is not legal.... Change the law, the constitution or
    whatever needs to be changed.

    I am tired of picking up the tab for business mistakes.
  5. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    It's a double edged sword. On one hand we scream and cry to these comapnies for cheap oil, in order to give us that they need protection in the form of liability caps to deliver that cheap oil.

    If we were to put BP out of business with lawsuits, were looking at 10.00 a gallon.

    They should have to pay for 100% of the cleanup, and restoration, and the 75 million dollar cap should be applied solely to the lawsuits brought forth to them do to destruction of property.
  6. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Unequivocally yes. To the extent that BP ceases to exist as a profit-making entity, if necessary. Sue them to Bolivia!
  7. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    How so? Sounds like one of those fear tactics that businesses throw out there.
  8. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Supply and Demand...

    One of the largest producers of Oil is removed from the Market... demand will exceed supply.

    Basic economics.

    You could then say other companies would then purchase those wells and equipment used to transport... which is true, but you would have a logistical transition period where the supply chain isn't as efficient as it once was, causing an increase in price.
  9. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    It doesn't add up - other oil companies will gobble up all the BP properties as eagerly as if Saudi Arabia was selling all of its oil fields. The supply might see a dip, but then it would continue apace. Come on. Also, BP would be producing throughout the duration of any and all lawsuits.
    Last edited: May 27, 2010
  10. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Whatever you want to pretend the result would be doesn't make it true.

    It would take months to sell off the refineries, and transition all the massive factories and ships, and everything else to other companies.

    Your correct that eventually the price would settle back to normal levels once the supply chain is restored to today's current levels.
    Last edited: May 27, 2010
  11. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    So you're saying that any increase would be temporary and that you just made up the $10 a gallon number. Good to know. (Kind of minimizes the argument, you know.)
  12. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I assumed we were debating based on the fact that price is never a consistent thing.
  13. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Prices obviously fluctuate, but you also see stretches of long term stability. BP going out of business has no impact on the total supply of oil available to oil companies, no permanent impact on companies' overall ability to extract the oil, and only a short term impact on supply during any transition period. As a result, BP going out of business should not have a catastrophic long term impact on oil prices. So it's not really much of a problem. (And that's not even taking into account OPEC's ability to influence prices by increasing production.)
  14. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    McGraw, there's no reason BP wouldn't continue to operate normally during an asset sale and/or bankruptcy

    if anything, I would think the timing issue wrt supply would be reversed -- if offshore drilling in the US makes up any substantial amount of the oil supply (I doubt it does, but I don't know), that component could decrease due to the increased risks from removing a cap on liability

    As for your proposal, why should a fisherman whose livelihood goes away not be fully compensated by BP? Should our government compensate that fisherman? If so, we're essentially back to another corporate bailout, right?
  15. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    No one promises me today, a job that will always be there. Who do I sue when corporations send my job overseas? Who do the fisherman sue when they themselves over fish and there are no fish left? Who do they sue when a Hurricane destroys 14 oil rigs and the entire Gulf is oil?

    I don't think you should be able to sue becuase you can't do your job anymore, when everyone else has that same fear, and their is no ability to sue.
  16. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Anyone who thinks there should be a cap on liability in this or any corporate case is just carrying water for the ultra-rich and needs to take some time to think about what they're saying.

    BP or, as they used to be known as "British Petroleum" is a foreign-based multinational company and they should pay the price or not be allowed to operate in the US anymore. They are the fourth largest corporation on the planet and the largest one in Britain. Exactly when does our debt to England begin and end here? What do we owe BP? Haven't they profited plenty from our natural resources? What are we?...a third-world colonial beetch?

    Politics will play into how this gets paid, and I don't want to be the ones who bail out England or her corporations AGAIN. If this rig was operated by a Chinese company, could you imagine the outrage?

    I say fu(k BP and make them pay every dime that came out of American pockets because they decided to (and we let them) drill on the cheap.
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:

    If they followed the law and regulations they should pay according to what the law requires.

    I don't think you can change the law (ie the rules) after the fact to punish someone or company.
  18. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    none of those examples is at all comparable.

    This isn't about fear or any "right" to do a job -- it's 3rd parties being damaged by another party doing their job, and possibly being negligent in doing so.

    BP is causing myriad 3rd parties damages. A cap not only is arbitrary but also frees them from their responsibility for those damages. What happened to individual responsibility -- even though corporations are "citizens," they should exempt from responsibility for their actions?
  19. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,371
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    agreed -- but the law should now be changed
  20. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Pretty much.
  21. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    You should be able to sue when your livelihood id damaged by the actions of others. It's called the Law of Commons and it's one of the oldest tenets of civilized society. Fishermen and others who harvest the sea have common access to the US territorial waters and it is assumed that they shouls have unfettered use and access unless otherwise specified by regulation. When a sea is overfished, fishermen have no one else to blame but themselves unless the government does not allow them to fish because they failed to manage the fishing rate in the first place. Either the government is allowed to manage stocks or not. Either they can limit the fishing or not. Todfay, they can do both.

    In the case of the BP Spill, they are violating the Nuisance law which has been codified since the 15th century. They have violated the rights of others who use the "common" property of the Gulf of Mexico.

    In Duck Soup, Groucho is president of Freedonia, and one day while in his office, he hears a noisy peanut vendor (Chico) out in the street.
    Groucho: "Do you want to be a public nuisance?"
    Chico: "Sure, how much does the job pay?"
  22. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Well then, have at them... Again, I think the 75million cap should be applied to property damage and personal loss.

    And the cleanup is an uncapped expense, that they will pay until it's 100% cleaned up.


    What I don't want to see is Shrimp Fisherman becoming overnight millionaires becuase they were lucky enough to have a shrimp boat during this disaster.
  23. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,280
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I don't know what the law is, but they should ABSOLUTELY pay. I mean, who else should? It abject lunacy to think that someone else should pick up the tab here.

    This $75 million cap is news to me. I never knew it even existed. If this is indeed the law, then that makes the federal response all the more tragic. If we taxpayers are ultimately responsible ($75 million is peanuts with respect to the end cost), then the fed should have stepped in ASAP, and shot a torpedo into the well, and caved it in on itself. This accident is certain to cost tens of billions of dollars IMO. Does anyone know why there's $75 million cap?
  24. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I've heard of a guy who used to bullseye womp rats in his T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters...
  25. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Yeah because trial lawyers, who I guess you believe aren't ultra-rich, take 50% of the settlement and their fees. Maybe you should think about what your saying. Are you carrying water for the poor lawyers?
  26. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Right.....and do what, hope that it didn't just make the hole bigger and allow even more oil to escape?
  27. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    There are ways to limit lawyers' fees without limiting corporate liability. That is, if that's what you're really interested in.
  28. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Torpedo is not nearly enough - according to the Russians you'd need a nuke, and even then it's only 80% successful, only been tried 5 times, and has a whole sh1tload of other associated problems.
  29. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,482
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    The $75 million liability cap was enacted in 1990 as part of the Oil Pollution Act following the Exxon Valdez spill - that would be under Poppy Bush - you could ask him, perhaps he'd know.

    Oil spill liability cap under fire - May. 25, 2010

    They're also trying to raise the cap - but certain senators keep refusing to consider the idea - you could ask them why. That would be Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) in case you're wondering.

    Republicans Block Proposals to Raise Cap on Oil Spill Liability - Roll Call

    Gulf oil spill: Alaska senator blocks move to raise oil spill liability | Greenspace | Los Angeles Times
  30. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,225
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -2

    My Jersey:





    Apparently you haven't seen how much the trial lawyers contribute to dems to prevent caps on their fees. ;)

Share This Page