Oil Spill

[Texas Proud]

One more item.... I think I am going to put in a claim to BP... we are going to go to the beach here in Texas for a vacation.... and I am sure the rental rates are going up since the supply for the whole gulf has been reduced due to BP...


I am DUE I tell ya... DUE...

[RonBoyd]

And the news keeps getting worse:

BP Spill: Gulf Is Primed To Heal, But . . . - Science News_._._._

Quote:

This microbial feasting is a good thing, in terms of mopping up spill-related hydrocarbons, Joye acknowledged. But the bugs’ recruitment comes at a price. They use up oxygen as they break down oil and gas. And in some spill-associated undersea plumes that her team sampled, the water showed sharp reductions in dissolved oxygen — drops approaching those that could stress out fish and other oxygen-breathing sea life. However, she worries that people are focusing only on the oil they can see floating on the surface or the newly reported plumes hovering at great depths beneath the waves. In testimony before the House Science subcommittee on energy and the environment, Joye noted that her new cruise data turned up “substantial” evidence of microbes eating oil and gas from the surface to the seafloor, “so the entire water column is being impacted by the oil and gas . . . from this well.” And any way you look at it, she said, that's not a good thing.

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies Here's an interesting twist; from the Wall Street Journal- might make the hue and cry for BP suspending dividends a bit of a problem for the ER crowd... BP Is 39% American Owned - Iain Martin - WSJ

I have looked up my BP holdings from my index funds. 0.27% of my overall portfolio. It is a significant holding in Vanguard's European index, Total International index, and the International Value fund.

I think a lot of the general public likes to get up in arms about these things and hate these evil-doer companies du jour, but if you were to ask them if they would be ok with losing a thousand or a few thousand dollars from their retirement accounts if BP went bankrupt, they just may change their opinion.

[Leonidas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire You are correct all you need is probable cause. With that in mind if a full investigation is not completed prior to making an arrest then your probable cause is not present. All you have is suspicions, maybe even reasonable suspicion, but nothing even remotely near probable cause.

I would have to disagree with you here. Probable cause either exists or it doesn't. But there are plenty of instances in which arrests are made and charges brought in which later investigation discloses that there is insufficient evidence to successfully prove that the defendant committed the crime for which he has been charged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus Nonsense. all kinds of arrests take place without statements of any kind. If the judge thinks there is probable cause the judge issues the warrant. We have stated, however, that the substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, and that the belief of guilt must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003)

And of course the judge's finding of probable cause is based primarily on the sworn statement of probable cause. So, there is always at least one sworn statement to start the ball rolling.

But, I think Let's Retire is right in that as no law enforcement officer was present to observe what happen (or even have the technical knowledge to understand who was at fault) when the rig blew up, nobody is going to be charged criminally until this thing has been thoroughly investigated. Unless, or course, there is a political push from someone on high to charge somebody, right now.

It seems that there are at least three corporate entities all laying the blame on the others for what happened. Some investigation is going to have to be done to determine if all three are to blame, just one, or a combination. Who knows at this point, maybe none of them are to blame. Perhaps Dick Cheney sent the Halliburton submarine out there to sabotage the whole thing.

Right now it's the equivalent of many a bar room killin' I've rolled up on. There's a dead body or two laying on the ground, shell casings all over the place, smoke still hovering in the air, 200 people standing around, and every one of them saying, "I don't know what happened, I was in the bathroom when I heard the shots." (It always amazed me how many people could fit into a little two-stall bathroom.) Eventually, after applying the right squeeze on the right parties, somebody will start talking, and them more start talking. Then it just becomes a matter of eliminating all of the lies, gathering the physical evidence, and going to trial.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud So are you saying that there is maritime law that specifically make BP liable for paying ALL laid off workers because the gvmt decides to stop deepwater offshore drilling Or, do you have to do some inventive reading (like lawyers do) to get there... It would be interesting if you could post something from the statues that you think would make them liable... kind of like a brief you might give a client...

you can start here
TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

CHAPTER 40--OIL POLLUTION

SUBCHAPTER I--OIL POLLUTION LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION


Sec. 2702. Elements of liability


(a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject to
the provisions of this Act, each responsible party for a vessel or a
facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial
threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone is liable for the
removal costs and damages specified in subsection (b) of this section
that result from such incident.

(b) Covered removal costs and damages

(1) Removal costs

(E) Profits and earning capacity

Damages equal to the loss of profits or impairment of
earning capacity due to the injury, destruction, or loss of real
property, personal property, or natural resources, which shall
be recoverable by any claimant.

Now , an issue is whether "injury, destruction or loss" are words of specific or general meaning. But clearly impairment of earning capacity is covered.

the only issue is the meaning of "due to" Congress specifically DID NOT use the phrase "caused by" . The effect was to take it out of the narrow tort concepts of causation including foreseeability and proximate cause. My own interpretation is that "Due to" tracks the concept of "cause in fact" .
Technical glitch.

This is why the rationale for stopping drilling is critical. If its operational i.e. we don't have enough response capability to deal with a another spill
its clealry "due to" the spill. If it s a change in teh political acceptance of teh risk of drilling its not "due to"

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO I have looked up my BP holdings from my index funds. 0.27% of my overall portfolio. It is a significant holding in Vanguard's European index, Total International index, and the International Value fund. I think a lot of the general public likes to get up in arms about these things and hate these evil-doer companies du jour, but if you were to ask them if they would be ok with losing a thousand or a few thousand dollars from their retirement accounts if BP went bankrupt, they just may change their opinion.

Lots of people are also happy to profit from criminal activity as long as nobody knows

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I am just curious here.... Does ANYBODY think that BP wanted this spill to happen Does anybody think that BP does not want to stop it as soon as they can A lot of the comments that keep coming out seem to indicate that BP is just sitting around doing nothing... that they know how to stop this, but just wants it to keep flowing... I really don't care about the wrong statements... it does not change what has happened and more than likely has not changed the response...

...Well, there were those ubiquitous black helicopters seen racing around the Gulf just before the explosion.

... and the entire oil industry is benefitting from the change in the supply/demand curve.

...and the largest consumer of oil is getting affected the most.

....and BP is secretly controlled by a Chinese Tong gangster.

....and the US Government is helplesss to intervene.

...the only hope for salvation is oil- eating microbes produced only in a top-secret Chinese laboratory...controlled by the Tong.

Yep, I think this entire plot was conceived by:

Clive Cussler

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus Lots of people are also happy to profit from criminal activity as long as nobody knows

If you are, in fact, a real live attorney (and don't just play one on an internet message board), surely you understand the distinction in our legal system between civil and criminal liability, civil wrongs and criminal activity, etc.

And even if there has been a breach of the criminal law, based on strict liability laws or other theories of criminal law culpability, this does not imply a breach of ethical or moral duties. (Il)Legality doesn't imply (im)morality.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Does ANYBODY think that BP wanted this spill to happen

Not me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Does anybody think that BP does not want to stop it as soon as they can

Not me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud A lot of the comments that keep coming out seem to indicate that BP is just sitting around doing nothing... that they know how to stop this, but just wants it to keep flowing...

Personally I cannot think of any possible reason BP would not want to get this fixed and behind them as soon as possible. I think there are a lot of good people working very hard to stop the well and clean up the mess.

But that does not preclude thinking that BEFORE the explosion BP took risks in the name of making money. Those risks led to the explosion, the deaths, and now the environmental and economic mess. I personally think their actions should be criminal. If we do not have laws that can be used to hold them criminally responsible then we should. It's like shooting a gun in the air in a city. The risk of hitting someone is negligible but the consequence is catastrophic. In this case millions of Americans are going to live with the consequences for a generation. (I don't think that is an overstatement. The consequences may not be "that bad" over time but the GOM will never be the same.)

And now AFTER the explosion I think there is an effort in parallel to the cleanup that is focused on paying as little as possible, controlling their costs, and laying a foundation to fight everything in court like Exxon did. And I don't doubt for a second that there are folks "sanitizing" records at this very moment. I can understand why they might want to do that but I still say it is tantamount to letting Madoff wind up his own firm. Fortunately at least one state is trying to get some of their cash impounded so I guess my thinking is not too far off base.

If you're out in your boat and toss a bail of oily bilge water overboard you can be fined and possibly prosecuted. But release a few hundred million gallons of raw crude and it's just an accident with no consequences except the need to clean it up to your own satisfaction?

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonidas It seems that there are at least three corporate entities all laying the blame on the others for what happened. Some investigation is going to have to be done to determine if all three are to blame, just one, or a combination. Who knows at this point, maybe none of them are to blame. Perhaps Dick Cheney sent the Halliburton submarine out there to sabotage the whole thing.

Don't be silly. He was on the platform. His shotgun blast set off the gas.

With regard to the three entities trying the blame each other - that's true. But it's also why we have conspiracy statues, RICO, and the felony murder rule. If they were all engaged in a similar reckless action they are all responsible.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO If you are, in fact, a real live attorney (and don't just play one on an internet message board), surely you understand the distinction in our legal system between civil and criminal liability, civil wrongs and criminal activity, etc. And even if there has been a breach of the criminal law, based on strict liability laws or other theories of criminal law culpability, this does not imply a breach of ethical or moral duties. (Il)Legality doesn't imply (im)morality.

I certainly teach the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum. I also teach engineering ethics in comparison to legal and medical ethics.

[Texas Proud]

Hmmm... seems that federal law would seem to limit the amount owed...

"Federal law caps liability at $75 million for economic damages beyond direct [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]cleanup [COLOR=#366388 !important]costs[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. Pelosi said at a news conference that she supports legislation eliminating the cap as part of a series of bills Congress is working on in response to the spill."


SOOO, if they don't want to pay for laid off oil workers... they don't have to BY LAW...

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Hmmm... seems that federal law would seem to limit the amount owed... "Federal law caps liability at $75 million for economic damages beyond direct [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]cleanup [COLOR=#366388 !important]costs[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. Pelosi said at a news conference that she supports legislation eliminating the cap as part of a series of bills Congress is working on in response to the spill." SOOO, if they don't want to pay for laid off oil workers... they don't have to BY LAW...

Tony Hayward supposedly signed documents recently agreeing to waive the application of the cap. Of course that will put BP in the driver's seat with regard to what they actually pay. There is also talk of retroactively changing the law. As much as I want to hold BP accountable and make them pay, I am not comfortable with changing the law retroactively and do not understand how that can even be done.

[DoingHomework]

With the latest estimate of the flow this spill is going to surpass Ixtoc in about a month.

[Westernskies]

DH, you seem obsessed with this topic, in fact 65% of your 40 posts have been on this thread. I'm beginning to think you are a professional blogger on a campaign to discredit BP. But, maybe that's just me.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies I'm beginning to think you are a professional blogger on a campaign to discredit BP.

Based on what I've seen BP needs absolutely no help when it comes discrediting themselves.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Hmmm... seems that federal law would seem to limit the amount owed... "Federal law caps liability at $75 million for economic damages beyond direct [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]cleanup [COLOR=#366388 !important]costs[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. Pelosi said at a news conference that she supports legislation eliminating the cap as part of a series of bills Congress is working on in response to the spill." SOOO, if they don't want to pay for laid off oil workers... they don't have to BY LAW...

even caps don't mean you don't have to pay
they are simple statutes
It also doesn't preempt state law
plus keep reading
(c) Exceptions

(1) Acts of responsible party

Subsection (a) of this section does not apply if the incident
was proximately caused by--
(A) gross negligence or willful misconduct of, or

[[Page 648]]

(B) the violation of an applicable Federal safety,
construction, or operating regulation by, the responsible party, an agent or employee of the responsible
party, or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship
with the responsible party (except where the sole contractual
arrangement arises in connection with carriage by a common carrier
by rail).

(2) Failure or refusal of responsible party

Subsection (a) of this section does not apply if the responsible
party fails or refuses--
(A) to report the incident as required by law and the
responsible party knows or has reason to know of the incident;
(B) to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance
requested by a responsible official in connection with removal
activities; or
(C) without sufficient cause, to comply with an order issued
under subsection (c) or (e) of section 1321 of this title or the
Intervention on the High Seas Act (33 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.).
Finding gross negligence or willful misconduct in this case may simple
Also if it is shown that they did not have the assets required by their permit
no cap

It is complicated

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Based on what I've seen BP needs absolutely no help when it comes discrediting themselves.

No, the media and the politicians are giving them all the help they need.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies DH, you seem obsessed with this topic, in fact 65% of your 40 posts have been on this thread. I'm beginning to think you are a professional blogger on a campaign to discredit BP. But, maybe that's just me.

Nope, not a pro. Just new here and find the discussion interesting.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies in fact 65% of your 40 posts have been on this thread.

But who's counting?