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.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.
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."
Are you suggesting that they had a plan to murder 11 people?
Oh, I don't know about that. Makes onshore nat gas, crude tankers, and possibly even product tankers look pretty good to me.
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.
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............................
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)...
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..
.
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.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.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?
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)...
What about north sea drilling?...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
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.