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_._._._

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Does ANYBODY think that BP wanted this spill to happen

Not me.

Does anybody think that BP does not want to stop it as soon as they can

Not me.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

in fact 65% of your 40 posts have been on this thread.

But who's counting?

 

[lets-retire]

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.

Your correct, either PC exists or it doesn't. If you only complete a partial investigation something that might look like decent PC turns out to be nothing. Which is why the investigation must be complete, especially in high profile cases like the one we are discussing. Typically the investigations I've done where this is the case, it turns out I was interviewing one side of the story then the other. If I stopped after finishing half of the investigation then it would appear to be great PC, when in fact none exists.

Having the charges dismissed after the investigation is complete would probably be more of a statement on the evidence not being sufficient to be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes (more often than I'd like to admit) it can also mean the prosecutor or investigator doesn't know what they are doing.

 

[TromboneAl]

World's biggest spill:

1. Kuwait - 1991 - 520 million gallons
   Iraqi forces opened the valves of several oil tankers in order to slow the invasion of American troops. The oil slick was four inches thick and covered 4000 square miles of ocean.

Anyone know what that area is like now?

 

[Emeritus]

Your correct, either PC exists or it doesn't. If you only complete a partial investigation something that might look like decent PC turns out to be nothing. Which is why the investigation must be complete, especially in high profile cases like the one we are discussing. Typically the investigations I've done where this is the case, it turns out I was interviewing one side of the story then the other. If I stopped after finishing half of the investigation then it would appear to be great PC, when in fact none exists.

Having the charges dismissed after the investigation is complete would probably be more of a statement on the evidence not being sufficient to be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes (more often than I'd like to admit) it can also mean the prosecutor or investigator doesn't know what they are doing.

OFGS you have to show probable cause to get a warrant to search a place as part of an investigation. It is usually a tactical prosecutorial decision whether you arrest a person early or late. . One other tactic is to arrest a person when you have probable cause in order to conduct a search incident to the arrest. Finally in the regulatory environment investigations are conducted using inspection warrants under the reduced standard of probable cause articulated in CAMARA and SEE
You are perhaps confusing probable cause for a warrantless arrest with the probable cause needed to secure an arrest warrant. But even on a warrantless arrest there is no need for a complete investigation. From a very recent case

1. False Arrest


Defendants contend that Wubnig had probable cause to arrest Johnson, and, therefore, that any claim for false arrest fails as a matter of law. The Court agrees. Probable cause to arrest exists "when the arresting officer has knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested." Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65, 69-70 (2d Cir. 2001) (quotations, citations omitted)......In evaluating probable cause, courts look to the information available to the law enforcement officer at the time of the arrest and consider the "totality of the circumstances." http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy-um....1&&citeString=25 F.3d 98, 102&countryCode=USA......
Here, Officer Wubnig arrested Johnson based on information she obtained through her interview of Deegan, who told her that he had seen Johnson in front of Deegan's open locker, holding Deegan's wallet, and thumbing through the cash section of it. Moreover, the record contains nothing--other than Johnson's own unsupported denials--to cast doubt on Deegan's account. Accordingly, Wubnig had "reasonably trustworthy information" that was "sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution" believing that "an offense"--specifically, larceny--"ha[d] been committed by the person to be arrested." See, e.g. Curley, 268 F.3d 65, 70 ("When information is received from a putative victim or an eyewitness, probable cause exists, unless the circumstances raise doubt as to the person's veracity."); http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy-um....&&citeString=63 F.3d 110, 119&countryCode=USA......
Plaintiff does not seriously dispute any of the above, arguing instead that because he was acquitted at his criminal trial, the City defendants should be precluded from "re-litigating" the issue of his guilt. ..... More importantly, an acquittal has no bearing on the issue of whether probable cause existed for the arrest which must determined based on the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest, including the information available to the arresting officer at that time. ...... once Wubnig, based on Deegan's statements, "ha[d] a reasonable basis for believing" that "probable cause existe[d]," she was "not required to explore and eliminate every theoretically plausible claim of innocence before making an arrest."........

JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK, COMMISSIONER OF THE NYPD o...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKJune 7, 2010, Decided

​

​

 

[Trek]

This thread is just like Law & Order.

 

[lets-retire]

OFGS you have to show probable cause to get a warrant to search a place as part of an investigation. It is usually a tactical prosecutorial decision whether you arrest a person early or late. . One other tactic is to arrest a person when you have probable cause in order to conduct a search incident to the arrest. Finally in the regulatory environment investigations are conducted using inspection warrants under the reduced standard of probable cause articulated in CAMARA and SEE

You are perhaps confusing probable cause for a warrantless arrest with the probable cause needed to secure an arrest warrant. But even on a warrantless arrest there is no need for a complete investigation. From a very recent case​

1. False Arrest​

Defendants contend that Wubnig had probable cause to arrest Johnson, and, therefore, that any claim for false arrest fails as a matter of law. The Court agrees. Probable cause to arrest exists "when the arresting officer has knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed by the person to be arrested." Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65, 69-70 (2d Cir. 2001) (quotations, citations omitted)......In evaluating probable cause, courts look to the information available to the law enforcement officer at the time of the arrest and consider the "totality of the circumstances." ......
Here, Officer Wubnig arrested Johnson based on information she obtained through her interview of Deegan, who told her that he had seen Johnson in front of Deegan's open locker, holding Deegan's wallet, and thumbing through the cash section of it. Moreover, the record contains nothing--other than Johnson's own unsupported denials--to cast doubt on Deegan's account. Accordingly, Wubnig had "reasonably trustworthy information" that was "sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution" believing that "an offense"--specifically, larceny--"ha[d] been committed by the person to be arrested." See, e.g. Curley, 268 F.3d 65, 70 ("When information is received from a putative victim or an eyewitness, probable cause exists, unless the circumstances raise doubt as to the person's veracity."); ......
Plaintiff does not seriously dispute any of the above, arguing instead that because he was acquitted at his criminal trial, the City defendants should be precluded from "re-litigating" the issue of his guilt. ..... More importantly, an acquittal has no bearing on the issue of whether probable cause existed for the arrest which must determined based on the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest, including the information available to the arresting officer at that time. ...... once Wubnig, based on Deegan's statements, "ha[d] a reasonable basis for believing" that "probable cause existe[d]," she was "not required to explore and eliminate every theoretically plausible claim of innocence before making an arrest."........​

JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK, COMMISSIONER OF THE NYPD o...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKJune 7, 2010, Decided​

​

If Deegan was the only witness then the investigation was complete and probable cause can be determined. If the officer was aware of two, three, 10, 30 other witnesses then the investigation was not complete. A reasonable person could not conclude that Johnson had committed the crime after interviewing only one person, if they are aware of the other witnesses. I've been through this ringer more than once, and my attorney has relayed to me the frustration of the plaintiff's lawyer at my ability to articulate the details and the manner in which I conduct my investigations. As stated in the case you quoted, a determination of probable cause can only be taken based on the totality of the circumstances. If the investigation is not complete then probable cause can not be determined, because the totality of the circumstances is not known. If all reasonable actions are taken to ensure the officer/agency knows all of the details, only then can probable cause be determined.