Oil Spill

[DoingHomework]

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.

This is a single event. It will not lead to a trade war or retaliatory action bu the UK. It could very well be a UK court that orders them to pay or to suspend the dividend.

I think BP should be punished, possibly criminally for the spill and their subsequent actions.

But I do not think they should have to pay the workers idled by the moratoriam. Anyone who works in the oil industry subjects themselves to risks including getting laid off because of production disruptions, refinery shutdowns, or the government not approving or delaying drilling leases/permits for many reasons. Often it is the companies that absorb these risks. Each of us subjects ourselves to similar risks in our own industry (and in ER even). I don't think BP should have to pay for what is a government action whether it is a necessary action or not.

[Purron]

YouTube - David Letterman - BP Headquarters Top Ten

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud 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. proximate cause legal definition of proximate cause. proximate cause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. intervening cause legal definition of intervening cause. intervening cause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

you are hung on definitions of negligence. This iis a Statutory /maritime area .. Different rules.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework But I do not think they should have to pay the workers idled by the moratoriam. Anyone who works in the oil industry subjects themselves to risks including getting laid off because of production disruptions, refinery shutdowns, or the government not approving or delaying drilling leases/permits for many reasons. Often it is the companies that absorb these risks. Each of us subjects ourselves to similar risks in our own industry (and in ER even). I don't think BP should have to pay for what is a government action whether it is a necessary action or not.

This is actually an issue of maritime law and the specific statute. Do not introduce conventional concepts of negligence or fault.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud 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.

It was Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, a case in the New York state court. As you have described, the issue was proximate causation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgra...nd_Railroad_Co.

[kumquat]

Quote:

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

If BP "sort of" followed the "rules" and g'mnt inspectors said "ok" to a lot of "stuff" hoping to get a BP job in a year or two, then who (if anyone) should pay those salaries?

Or, if BP screwed up, why aren't the other compamies' workers still working? Those companies have not screwed up. BP or the government did it?

[lets-retire]

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.

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. Since there were no law enforcement officers aboard the Deep Horizon no officer witnessed the crime, so that means an investigation must be conducted. If a law enforcement officer only interviews one person and determines wrong doing might have occurred, and during the course of that interview discovers there were 10 other people witness to the incident, but does not conduct follow-up interviews, there is no probable cause. All there the officer has is one statement. There is other evidence that must be considered. If only six or seven of the witnesses can be located then that is all that can be located and an arrest can be made. If after the arrest the other three or four people are located then their testimony can be taken into consideration. If the presence of other evidence is determined prior to an arrest it must be tracked down and evaluated. failure to follow these procedure will lead to the successful suing of both the agency and officer, especially in such a charged situation as we have here.

[ronocnikral]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework This is a single event. It will not lead to a trade war or retaliatory action bu the UK. It could very well be a UK court that orders them to pay or to suspend the dividend. I think BP should be punished, possibly criminally for the spill and their subsequent actions. But I do not think they should have to pay the workers idled by the moratoriam. Anyone who works in the oil industry subjects themselves to risks including getting laid off because of production disruptions, refinery shutdowns, or the government not approving or delaying drilling leases/permits for many reasons. Often it is the companies that absorb these risks. Each of us subjects ourselves to similar risks in our own industry (and in ER even). I don't think BP should have to pay for what is a government action whether it is a necessary action or not.

you say we should all accept risks of our careers and financial choices, but you seem to think drilling with any risk is the only acceptable way. in addition, shouldn't we all accept the risks of where we live?

drilling without any risk is not possible. i have been on well's that have blown out, and if someone made one little mistake, we would have been the ones on the news. i think instead of hucking accusations of negligence and criminal behavior, you should maybe be a little more grateful for those who take on risks so you can enjoy your life style. i'm not saying you have to praise and thank them, but giving them the benefit of the doubt wouldn't hurt.

[Gumby]

There are very few unpreventable "acts of God" in life. Most "accidents" can be traced to human failure at one or more points in the process. We certainly don't have all the facts right now, and we should be focused on stopping the leak and cleaning up before we assign blame, but I think it unlikely that someone, somewhere in BP did not screw up.

[Westernskies]

Facts? Facts? We don't need no steeeenking facts. BP is guillty! guilty! guilty!, I tell you. Kick their asses! Hang the scurvy dogs from the yardarm, argggh!

It's the ad-nauseum knee-jerk emotional rhetoric from the media and politicians (they need to pay anyone and everyone, someone needs to go to jail, suspend drilling, suspend dividends, do something quick, even if it's wrong.. mentality) that is making a bad situation even worse, fanning the flames of hate and discontent and trying to spin everything for political gain at every opportunity.

BP has the resources to get this leak stopped, and mitigate the damage. They are in a better position to do so then 99.9 % of the talking heads that have descended on the gulf to castigate, excoriate and flagellate them in the absence of facts or even a completed investigation. They have a difficult job to do and trying to do it with a microphone shoved in their face (or elsewhere) 24/7 isn't making it any easier.

This is a political travesty first and an environmental tragedy second.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies It's the ad-nauseum knee-jerk emotional rehetoric from the media and politicians (they need to pay anyone and everyone, someone needs to go to jail, suspend drilling, suspend dividends, do something quick, even if it's wrong.. mentality) that is making a bad situation even worse, fanning the flames of hate and discontent and trying to spin everything for political gain at every opportunity. BP has the resources to get this leak stopped, and mitigate the damage. They are in a better position to do so then 99.9 % of the talking heads that have descended on the gulf

Good points all. I would add that BP also is probably better able to stop the leak than the government would be if it took over (which I believe some have suggested). It seems to me that there will be plenty of opportunity to keelhaul the guilty parties (whoever they turn out to be) after the leak is stopped.

[Emeritus]

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. Since there were no law enforcement officers aboard the Deep Horizon no officer witnessed the crime, so that means an investigation must be conducted. If a law enforcement officer only interviews one person and determines wrong doing might have occurred, and during the course of that interview discovers there were 10 other people witness to the incident, but does not conduct follow-up interviews, there is no probable cause. All there the officer has is one statement. There is other evidence that must be considered. If only six or seven of the witnesses can be located then that is all that can be located and an arrest can be made. If after the arrest the other three or four people are located then their testimony can be taken into consideration. If the presence of other evidence is determined prior to an arrest it must be tracked down and evaluated. failure to follow these procedure will lead to the successful suing of both the agency and officer, especially in such a charged situation as we have here.

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)

[Trek]

BP spills coffee

YouTube - BP Spills Coffee

[lets-retire]

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.

Yeah, I guess after almost 20 years doing the job and conducting investigations for several different agencies I really don't know what the hell probable cause is or how to get it. I have never lost a criminal case, so I seriously doubt I am the idiot who doesn't know it.

[Rustic23]

Deepwater Information

Interesting site. It looks like they are shilling for the oil companies.... oh.... it is a Department of the Interior site.

As far as a single act starting a trade war, the assignation of Arch Duke Ferdinand, started World War I, or so we have been taught.

Put BP in Jail? Yea, and then let's say the walk. Sell their American interest to China, and say 'Sue Us', and clean the darn mess up yourself! Let's see if I start to cut my nose off here.... yea, that will show my face a thing or two.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire Yeah, I guess after almost 20 years doing the job and conducting investigations for several different agencies I really don't know what the hell probable cause is or how to get it. I have never lost a criminal case, so I seriously doubt I am the idiot who doesn't know it.

I've been an attorney for 34 years and trained a lot of investigators and regulators.

[Rustic23]

Emeritus,
Are you an academic, as in previous post, or a practicing attorney, or what? The two do not rule each other out, but it does get confusing.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 Emeritus, Are you an academic, as in previous post, or a practicing attorney, or what? The two do not rule each other out, but it does get confusing.

I am an attorney by training and Professor Emeritus in an Engineering school where I still teach law and ethics and design safety to engineers. I have also been a visiting prof. in law and Technology in Universities in the UK and Germany. I have been adjunct prof of Law and Technology in a major law school

[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...

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus This is actually an issue of maritime law and the specific statute. Do not introduce conventional concepts of negligence or fault.

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...