Oil Spill

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronocnikral so are you suggesting we throw them all in jail and have the gov't work it out? or do we need their expertise? you could seize all my assets, but when it comes to making me work, i'd let you pull the trigger if i had no livelihood left. ironically, the fed gov't doesn't know their butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to this stuff. and i agree with L-R. the investigation has yet to be done.

If a police officer witnessed you selling drugs on a street corner...or dumping toxic waste in a pond...you could be arrested immediately. Your assets could be seized. That is BEFORE a trial. Those are not punitive actions. That is done to prevent you from fleeing, doing additional damage, or,in the case of financial crimes, from disposing of assets.

Dumping oil in the ocean is a crime. There might be a defense that it was unintentional. The equivalent CAN be done to BP for essentially the same reasons that an individual is arrested. Seize their US assets and put everything to work on the cleanup. If a BP ship comes into US waters with oil, seize the ship and sell the oil. If they are not convicted of a crime then use the proceeds to offset the cleanup costs and return any excess to the company in 50 years after the extent of the damage is truly quantified.

I would not put the government in charge of the cleanup per se. I'd let a bunch of experienced people, possibly like yourself, take over the effort under the direction of the military or CG - Thad Allen seems to be doing ok. Because I think the BP response has been nothing but pathetic. They have clearly been far more concerned with covering their ASSets than cleaning things up and making things right.

I completely understand that they are paying the bills and their duty is to their shareholders. But that is the problem. Cleaning up the mess trumps the shareholders' interests, morally and legally. It's pretty clear from their record and the statements being made from the rig workers that there was criminal negligence that led to the explosion, IMO.

I really do understand that accidents occur. I am not anti-oil-company. Heck, I owned stock in BP for many years and loved the money I made. I only sold years ago when it reached a high water mark. I do like my gas guzzling SUV and can make the obvious connection. But it is becoming increasingly clear to me that this company had behaved recklessly recently and their reckless actions have now led to consequences that I believe do cross the line into criminal behavior.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework If a police officer witnessed you selling drugs on a street corner.. you could be arrested immediately. Your assets could be seized. That is BEFORE a trial. Those are not punitive actions. That is done to prevent you from fleeing, doing additional damage, or,in the case of financial crimes, from disposing of assets.

OK, but the the next step is not to let every Tom, Dick and Henrietta demand money from the person with no proof of what/if they are owed.

You seem to be skipping an important step - the legal process. Though I am not a lawyer.

-ERD50

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework If a police officer witnessed you selling drugs on a street corner...or dumping toxic waste in a pond...you could be arrested immediately. Your assets could be seized. That is BEFORE a trial. Those are not punitive actions. That is done to prevent you from fleeing, doing additional damage, or,in the case of financial crimes, from disposing of assets. Dumping oil in the ocean is a crime. There might be a defense that it was unintentional. The equivalent CAN be done to BP for essentially the same reasons that an individual is arrested. Seize their US assets and put everything to work on the cleanup. If a BP ship comes into US waters with oil, seize the ship and sell the oil. If they are not convicted of a crime then use the proceeds to offset the cleanup costs and return any excess to the company in 50 years after the extent of the damage is truly quantified. I would not put the government in charge of the cleanup per se. I'd let a bunch of experienced people, possibly like yourself, take over the effort under the direction of the military or CG - Thad Allen seems to be doing ok. Because I think the BP response has been nothing but pathetic. They have clearly been far more concerned with covering their ASSets than cleaning things up and making things right. I completely understand that they are paying the bills and their duty is to their shareholders. But that is the problem. Cleaning up the mess trumps the shareholders' interests, morally and legally. It's pretty clear from their record and the statements being made from the rig workers that there was criminal negligence that led to the explosion, IMO. I really do understand that accidents occur. I am not anti-oil-company. Heck, I owned stock in BP for many years and loved the money I made. I only sold years ago when it reached a high water mark. I do like my gas guzzling SUV and can make the obvious connection. But it is becoming increasingly clear to me that this company had behaved recklessly recently and their reckless actions have now led to consequences that I believe do cross the line into criminal behavior.

We don't need to wait for the facts, ladies and gentlemen, we have a self-appointed judge, jury and executioner executor, all rolled into one. Seize BP's assets and hand them out to every Tom Dick, and Harriet who feels like filing a claim, no proof of loss required! That'll show 'em! What's next, privatize all the BP filling stations and turn them over to Greenpeace to run? BP is responding appropriately IMO, and will continue to do so- because they are in the business of extracting, refining and distributing oil- and their livelihood depends on them being able to continue doing it. Legitimate claims need to be paid, unsubstantiated claims denied, and fraudulent claim prosecuted. I agree that this is a tragedy, but disagree that it is criminal behavior- it wasn't premeditated, it wasn't planned, it wasn't prolonged, there was no conspiracy to cover it up. This was was an accident- remember those, from the good old days before the contingency-fee lawyers were allowed to buy the back page of the phone book? Oil comes from wells. Wells are drilled by man. No one is perfect. Accidents happen. They will continue to happen. We need to do what we can to minimize the severity and frequency, and mitigate damage when it does occur.

Maybe if BP were drilling onshore (ANWR) instead of being forced into 5000' of water to feed the fuel demand for your gas-guzzler SUV this would have been wrapped up by now...

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 And the longer all of this goes on and the more extensive the drilling moratorium and the more expensive the incremental permit/regulatory requirements, the more upward pressure there will be on oil and gas prices.

It's an ill wind that blows no one any good.

Ha

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework I do like my gas guzzling SUV and can make the obvious connection.

Well that's encouraging anyway.

[Leonidas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha It's an ill wind that blows no one any good.

Some shenanigans is being perpetrated methinks.

Quote:

When the Deepwater Horizon exploded and started spewing millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama gave the U.S. Department of the Interior 30 days to come up with a report detailing how the government could prevent this from happening again. In turn, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar turned to the top minds in petroleum engineering for help in compiling the report.

Sounds okay so far, I mean you get the top boffins to give you the skinny on what the situation is and how to fix it. Good plan, so far.

Quote:

"There was a major problem with this well," Houston engineer Ken Arnold said. "It cannot be brushed under the rug. We have to address it. We have to face it straight up and down."

No argument from me, and I'm a shareholder of BP. Somebody out there screwed the pooch, no doubt about it.

Quote:

Arnold said he was the last person to review the report before it was sent to the Obama Administration.Arnold said after the report was submitted, he and his colleagues were blindsided by the inclusion of a broad moratorium in the Department of Interior's report entitled, "Increased Safety Measures For Energy Development On The Outer Continental Shelf."

What would the motivation for the addition be, especially since it was appended after the experts had completed, or though they had completed, their report?

Quote:

"The decision on the moratorium is a political decision," said Arnold. "I don't think it's warranted. Not only that, I think it has long-term implications the government may not have fully understood."Arnold said the original report he and his colleagues reviewed and sent to the Obama administration called for changes in safety, training and government oversight. Arnold said the original report only called for a six-month moratorium on issuing new permits for exploratory wells drilled by floating rigs in water depths greater than 1,000 feet.Arnold said the report also called for a "temporary pause" to those rigs already drilling in deepwater until critical safety devices were inspected and recertified."That subsequently was changed after we had seen it," said Arnold.

Full story here Expert: Our Names Used To Justify Drilling Ban - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston

[Trek]

This isn't the only leaking well in the gulf apparently.

Another Gulf oil spill: Well near Deepwater Horizon has leaked since at least April 30 | al.com

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha It's an ill wind that blows no one any good. Ha

Oh, I don't know about that. Makes onshore nat gas, crude tankers, and possibly even product tankers look pretty good to me.

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westernskies We don't need to wait for the facts, ladies and gentlemen, we have a self-appointed judge, jury and executioner executor, all rolled into one. Seize BP's assets and hand them out to every Tom Dick, and Harriet who feels like filing a claim, no proof of loss required! That'll show 'em! What's next, privatize all the BP filling stations and turn them over to Greenpeace to run? BP is responding appropriately IMO, and will continue to do so- because they are in the business of extracting, refining and distributing oil- and their livelihood depends on them being able to continue doing it. Legitimate claims need to be paid, unsubstantiated claims denied, and fraudulent claim prosecuted. I agree that this is a tragedy, but disagree that it is criminal behavior- it wasn't premeditated, it wasn't planned, it wasn't prolonged, there was no conspiracy to cover it up. This was was an accident- remember those, from the good old days before the contingency-fee lawyers were allowed to buy the back page of the phone book? Oil comes from wells. Wells are drilled by man. No one is perfect. Accidents happen. They will continue to happen. We need to do what we can to minimize the severity and frequency, and mitigate damage when it does occur. Maybe if BP were drilling onshore (ANWR) instead of being forced into 5000' of water to feed the fuel demand for your gas-guzzler SUV this would have been wrapped up by now...

It's not that we don't need to wait for the facts. We have SOME facts. BP spilled oil into the Gulf (no one has suggested it is anything but accidental). The spill has caused many businesses and individuals to lose money. I don't think it is a stretch to say that there is "probable cause" to "arrest" BP until the legal process can run its course. The alternative is to allow them to construct a legal and financial firewall that delays payment and potentially makes it impossible to collect. (They have publicly announced their intention to form a separate company to insulate BP from the cleanup process and future liability and they have announced their intent to give away billions of dollars to shareholders that may rightfully belong to the harmed parties. Did we allow Bernie Madoff to oversee the forensic accounting while he was only accused? I don't see much difference here.

It's apparent that some in power and more familiar with the situation agree with me. Several states are demanding BP fix the claims process, the feds are demanding BP state their criteria and streamline things, and they now have a deadline to get moving or have the feds take over.

BP has withheld information and disseminated disinformation from the start. That fits in the definition of conspiracy after the fact. So, the fact is they have engaged in conspiracy. If the statements from surviving crew are true, which I agree we need to wait before judging, BP and many company officials could be guilty of homicide.

The point is, the evidence of actions that do cross the line into criminal behavior is overwhelming. If it were you or I we would not be allowed to control the crime scene and decide how victims are compensated. I am not suggesting they be "convicted" without a trial, only that they be treated like any other accused criminal.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework The point is, the evidence of actions that do cross the line into criminal behavior is overwhelming. If it were you or I we would not be allowed to control the crime scene and decide how victims are compensated. I am not suggesting they be "convicted" without a trial, only that they be treated like any other accused criminal.

The criminal law is not the issue. What is suitable is a "receivership" i.e. you appoint a trustee to supervise the firm make sure that the company pays its obligations and does what it is supposed to do. After the Hartford Circus fire the circus was in receivership for 5 years to pay its obligations and operate safely

[RonBoyd]

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Volunteer or Donate

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus The criminal law is not the issue. What is suitable is a "receivership" i.e. you appoint a trustee to supervise the firm make sure that the company pays its obligations and does what it is supposed to do. After the Hartford Circus fire the circus was in receivership for 5 years to pay its obligations and operate safely

Sure, that's basically my point. We can call it whatever we want. I'm familiar with receivership...but I also think this is a unique situation. It would also be complicated by the fact the BP PLC is a British company. An action under criminal law might give the authorities sharper teeth. I can't say though what the details of that action might be.

To this day BP is not acting responsibly. BP itself has a "worst case" estimate that there might be as much as 250,000 barrels a day flowing (no, there was not an extra zero). At that rate they should have all of their FPSOs steaming toward the Gulf just in case. I doubt they do.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework Sure, that's basically my point. We can call it whatever we want. I'm familiar with receivership...but I also think this is a unique situation. It would also be complicated by the fact the BP PLC is a British company. An action under criminal law might give the authorities sharper teeth. I can't say though what the details of that action might be. To this day BP is not acting responsibly. BP itself has a "worst case" estimate that there might be as much as 250,000 barrels a day flowing (no, there was not an extra zero). At that rate they should have all of their FPSOs steaming toward the Gulf just in case. I doubt they do.

BP never acted responsibly

Rig survivors: BP ordered shortcut on day of blast - CNN.com

If they don't cooperate with the receivership you seize their assets. In this case worth far more than the damages.

[ronocnikral]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoingHomework If the statements from surviving crew are true, which I agree we need to wait before judging, BP and many company officials could be guilty of homicide. The point is, the evidence of actions that do cross the line into criminal behavior is overwhelming. If it were you or I we would not be allowed to control the crime scene and decide how victims are compensated. I am not suggesting they be "convicted" without a trial, only that they be treated like any other accused criminal.

Are you suggesting that they had a plan to murder 11 people?

i was once on a rig and it blew out (Sour gas). once we got it settled down the engineer asked how many bbls blew out. no one knew. the engineer told us all the managers in the office wanted to know. i told them to come out and they can count next time.

it's so easy to cast blame from a comfortable position and with hindsight.

my suggestion would be to continue enjoying the luxuries oil provides you and let the president find his "ass to kick."

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronocnikral Are you suggesting that they had a plan to murder 11 people? i was once on a rig and it blew out (Sour gas). once we got it settled down the engineer asked how many bbls blew out. no one knew. the engineer told us all the managers in the office wanted to know. i told them to come out and they can count next time. it's so easy to cast blame from a comfortable position and with hindsight. my suggestion would be to continue enjoying the luxuries oil provides you and let the president find his "ass to kick."

OFGS homicide is not the only crime in the World
Intent (mens rea ) may not even be an issue
Many environmental crimes have no mens rea requirement.

[calmloki]

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/4320458...spill+sign.jpg

[DoingHomework]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronocnikral Are you suggesting that they had a plan to murder 11 people?

Of course not. But there are several levels of murder. Reckless behavior that leads to death may be manslaughter. Even accidents may sometimes stretch that far if proper cautions were not taken. BP has a pattern of past problems that is unique among oil companies.

I'm not out there saying we should stop drilling. I'm just saying that this company has a miserable record that has caught up to it. And their behavior since the spill has been inappropriate.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Oh, I don't know about that. Makes onshore nat gas, crude tankers, and possibly even product tankers look pretty good to me.

I think that is what the saying means. In other words, one has to look hard to find any event no matter how apparently negative that someone can't benefit from.

ill wind that blows no one any good, it's an: Information from Answers.com

Ha

[DoingHomework]

Simmons says BP is a month from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Not sure I believe that.

Matt Simmons, Dr. Doom of the Gulf Coast spill - Jun. 9, 2010

[lets-retire]

Yeah I can agree that BP is acting irresponsibly when it comes to reimbursing businesses affected by this spill. They are requesting proof of loss, then not really examining it extensively. They are using the plan of a state government as a frame work for how they do things, since BP never wrote up one. They are having a very difficult time getting businesses in some areas to go fill out the paperwork to receive compensation. So much so that they asked the state to provide assistance getting the word out to those people.

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. If it really comes push to shove then what would keep BP from simply leaving the country? So what if a US court decides that BP owes 150 trillion dollars. If they don't have a presence in the country, there is little that can be done. Contrary to what is being reported in the national media, BP is doing fairly well by the people who have been affected. Yes they are requiring people to jump through some hoops, but that is in response to what happened after Katrina and is considered a "best practice" by the state program they are imitating.

There was a CNN report I read today that was saying some of the workers reported they had been worked 24 hours straight recently. In a court everything must be backed up. There was nothing backing these reports up. This does not mean it did not happen only that it can not be proved. It also calls into question the creditability of the sources.