Oil Spill

[ronocnikral]

BP eyes showdown with US govt on liability-BP source | Reuters

interesting...i'm torn on this.

the gov't shuts down activity in the gulf and then demands that BP pay all the salaries. what if the gov't said no more activity ever? where is the line?

in my mind there is a breaking point somewhere. if you screw BP too much, they just walk, leave 10's of thousands unemployed, the US gov't seizes their US assets, they kick all the US companies out of the UK and seize their assets. then there is a huge pissing match back and forth. this is one end of the spectrum...and unlikely to happen. but some form of it could happen. like they pull out of the US and 10's of thousands are unemployed...

to think the law will dictate what happens is naive. politics is the main driver.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire You can not "arrest" anybody in this country without conducting a complete investigation, period. A corporation is considered a person here. Violating this can result in monetary damages being paid to BP not the other way around.

This is not the law, period. All you need to arrest someone is probable cause. Lots of investigations come later.

[winger]

I'd like to see BP cap the well in some manner. There will be years- maybe decades- to unwind the mess.

First things first............................

[TromboneAl]

Let's say that you could magically determine the total cost of the spill. That is, total cleanup (not possible of course), lost wages, damage to the Florida economy, damage to national economy, all ripple effects, etc.

How would that figure compare with BP's assets and revenue stream?

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by winger I'd like to see BP cap the well in some manner. There will be years- maybe decades- to unwind the mess. First things first............................

The solution is obvious- why didn't someone think of this before?

[TromboneAl]

I know it's hard to judge, but it still looks like more oil is leaking now that before the top hat installation.

YouTube - oil spill

YouTube - BP oil spill cap in action: New underwater video of Gulf leak

[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

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronocnikral BP eyes showdown with US govt on liability-BP source | Reuters interesting...i'm torn on this. the gov't shuts down activity in the gulf and then demands that BP pay all the salaries. what if the gov't said no more activity ever? where is the line? in my mind there is a breaking point somewhere. if you screw BP too much, they just walk, leave 10's of thousands unemployed, the US gov't seizes their US assets, they kick all the US companies out of the UK and seize their assets. then there is a huge pissing match back and forth. this is one end of the spectrum...and unlikely to happen. but some form of it could happen. like they pull out of the US and 10's of thousands are unemployed... to think the law will dictate what happens is naive. politics is the main driver.

I did not read your article, but read another... if this is where they are saying BP has to pay for the 6 months of all the workers that will not get work because of the 6 months moretorium (sp).... I completely disagree that BP should pay... this is a decision by the gvmt... if someone should pay (and I am not saying someone should)... it should be the gvmt...

They do not have to shut down ALL drilling like they are... it is a political decision. Since the likelyhood of another problem like this is slim because it seems most people have learned their lesson... I don't see where the 6 months really helps..

And you can probably do anything you come up with later IF there is anything to come up with... (ie, new blow out preventor or something similar)...

[ronocnikral]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I did not read your article, but read another... if this is where they are saying BP has to pay for the 6 months of all the workers that will not get work because of the 6 months moretorium (sp).... I completely disagree that BP should pay... this is a decision by the gvmt... if someone should pay (and I am not saying someone should)... it should be the gvmt... They do not have to shut down ALL drilling like they are... it is a political decision. Since the likelyhood of another problem like this is slim because it seems most people have learned their lesson... I don't see where the 6 months really helps.. And you can probably do anything you come up with later IF there is anything to come up with... (ie, new blow out preventor or something similar)...

I tend to agree about BP not having to pay for wages of oil workers. If I get laid off, I might have some words and opinion to give about BP, but I don't think I would think BP should have to cover my salary. Methinks I would chalk it up to the risk I took when I choose to go into the oilfield. of course...i say this now. Thankfully, 95% of my work is international.

While this is purely speculation, I think you find it wasn't a failure of the BOP system. One of the first things you do when you take a kick is to space out. depending on the type of pipe rams, they sometimes can't seal (ok, the hydril can, but it is usually rated for a lower pressure) around a tool joint. And the shear/blind rams certainly aren't designed to shear a tool joint, especially not drill collars. if they were doing what many have speculated they were doing, they most likely had their drill collars across the BOP's. which meant they were screwed come a kick. this is, again, purely my opinion and speculation, i think it will come out that it was a process thing - displacing when they shouldn't have, improper casing design and/or cementing. this is all politics aside...

either way...time will tell.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud They do not have to shut down ALL drilling like they are... it is a political decision. Since the likelyhood of another problem like this is slim because it seems most people have learned their lesson... I don't see where the 6 months really helps.. .

The problem is whether you can keep drilling if all your public response assets are tied up responding to BP? Its a factual question. If you can only cope with one problem at a time, yes, the first spill "causes" the other to shut down if they dont have adequate separate response facilities. Alternatively you charge BP for the extra cost of providing more response facilities.

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronocnikral Quote: Originally Posted by TromboneAl I've been curious about this. How are the beaches different? Whiter sand? Bluer water? Are they naturally different, or is it related to industry near the Mississippi? one is swamp land, the other is...a beach. one has brown silty water from swamp and the mississippi (as pointed out) the other is clear water. one is a major port for industry, the other is for tourism. this might be hard to fathom, but it's worse than galveston. not to mention the butt end of the mississippi has worse than just silt.

But you can rent a cottage on the water on Grande Island much cheaper and you can eat fresh caught shrimp cheaply at the local restaurant.

[frayne]

Who in their right minds vacations on the beach in La, Ms. or Alabama ? Gimie a break here.

[DblDoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud They do not have to shut down ALL drilling like they are... it is a political decision. Since the likelyhood of another problem like this is slim because it seems most people have learned their lesson... I don't see where the 6 months really helps.. And you can probably do anything you come up with later IF there is anything to come up with... (ie, new blow out preventor or something similar)...

Of course it is a political decision as it has become a political problem, but it is also the prudent thing to do. I strongly disagree with the premise that we can continue to drill and pump oil from extreme depths at this time. From what I have read the systems, processes and oversight are completely inadequate for dealing with the issues and forces involved, let alone for dealing with a blow out as is clearly demonstrated by the inability of both BP and the gov't to stop the current leak and clean up the mess. Our reach has exceeded our grasp.

DD

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblDoc ...From what I have read the systems, processes and oversight are completely inadequate for dealing with the issues and forces involved, let alone for dealing with a blow out as is clearly demonstrated by the inability of both BP and the gov't to stop the current leak and clean up the mess. Our reach has exceeded our grasp. DD

What about north sea drilling?

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus The problem is whether you can keep drilling if all your public response assets are tied up responding to BP? Its a factual question. If you can only cope with one problem at a time, yes, the first spill "causes" the other to shut down if they dont have adequate separate response facilities. Alternatively you charge BP for the extra cost of providing more response facilities.

I don't see that as BP's problem...

I remember in college about one case of fault in business law... (and there is a possibility that it has been overturned with some other case or law... but who knows... maybe a lawyer here knows about this... IIRC it was a Supreme Court decision, but it has been 35 ish years since I had this class)...

It involved an explosion at a train station... the explosion rippled throw the platform and caused a clock to fall over and hit someone... was the train owner that exploded responsible From what I learned.. no... the falling clock was not a direct result of the explosion... it was a secondary result and so they were not liable.

To me, the workers who lose their jobs because the gvmt made a decision to stop offshore drilling is a secondary result of the leak... not a primary one. The people who can not fish, rent out their condos or feed people in their resturants (well, maybe this is a stretch) are primarily because of BP oil...



OK... did some research... the quick research shows that they can use intervening or proximate cause as a defense to pay the other workers... the gvmt is the intervening cause.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...roximate+cause
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ervening+cause

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblDoc Of course it is a political decision as it has become a political problem, but it is also the prudent thing to do. I strongly disagree with the premise that we can continue to drill and pump oil from extreme depths at this time. From what I have read the systems, processes and oversight are completely inadequate for dealing with the issues and forces involved, let alone for dealing with a blow out as is clearly demonstrated by the inability of both BP and the gov't to stop the current leak and clean up the mess. Our reach has exceeded our grasp. DD

As mentioned... we have drilled at colder climates, deeper depth and not exceeded our grasp..

I am also not arguing if there should or should not be a hold on drilling... I do have an opinon, but what I am saying is that it is not BPs fault that there is a hold... using what you say... BP showed the problem exists.. but did not CREATE the problem... the problem was there for all operator and all operators should have to pay for the solution... not just BP...

[winger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frayne Who in their right minds vacations on the beach in La, Ms. or Alabama ? Gimie a break here.

There are casinos there. The kids need something to do.

[BTravlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frayne Who in their right minds vacations on the beach in La, Ms. or Alabama ? Gimie a break here.

Having lived at one time in the panhandle of Florida for eight years I can tell you there are pristine white beaches along the south Alabama coast and many people do vacation there. And my accountant owns a condo in Orange Beach, AL. He's not too happy right now.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus This is not the law, period. All you need to arrest someone is probable cause. Lots of investigations come later.

Yes, especially if the crime is witnessed by a police officer or if there is a confession...which is the case here if we aren't too picky about the words "witnessed" and "confession"

And asset seizure before trial is not that unusual either. Though seizure is probably the wrong word. Assets can be frozen at the time of arrest but rarely actually seized.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud As mentioned... we have drilled at colder climates, deeper depth and not exceeded our grasp.. I am also not arguing if there should or should not be a hold on drilling... I do have an opinon, but what I am saying is that it is not BPs fault that there is a hold... using what you say... BP showed the problem exists.. but did not CREATE the problem... the problem was there for all operator and all operators should have to pay for the solution... not just BP...

There is some problematic logic here, not on the part of Texas Proud but in thinking about this in general.

If BP screwed up and the moratoriam is their fault then perhaps they should pay all the salaries.

If BP did not screw up and this is the kind of thing that can happen with any deepwater drilling then perhaps the moratoriam should be permanent.

If this incident revealed a risk that was previous unknown then perhaps we need a moratoriam until we can reliably avoid the risk...which is likely years.

I am not philosophically opposed to drilling. But I think if this was anything but a screwup by BP then we need to seriously rethink the risks and procedures. If I were another offshore drilling company I think I'd be pushing hard to make BP the scapegoat. The competitors and industry groups are oddly silent.

The fact is the cleanup costs will be enormous and would bankrupt most companies. And in the end the cleanup will be incomplete and there will be massive environmental damage. We saw that with the Valdez spill and others. I don't think we can take those kinds of risks without requiring seriously expensive insurance and contingency plans. But those costs would make most drilling unprofitable.