Did anybody watch this? Sounds like BP's $75 million cap on economic damages may not hold up because of an exemption for willful negligence which BP is on the verge of getting charged with.
If enough oil workers blow whistles, then maybe "willful" will stick.
That's the reason the BP's lawyers were crawling up the crew's asses, waiving, affidaviting, before the crew was allowed onshore to see their families and anybody else.
I'd like to see BPs assets seized and their corporate US license revoked, and all their investors wiped out.
I expect the business-friendly US court system will not hold BP or anybody else accountable for anything. The MMS, EPA, Interior all skate free, too.
Sadly, I believe you.
What's more sad is that BP's economic model is highly sustainable. The fines and fees BP will collect are just a drop in the bucket compared to what they're making, so there really is no incentive to try and prevent these reckless spills. They can also just pay off the congress with campaign contributions, and the courts won't do anything either.
Welcome to the United States of BP.
Pretty much.
I would be surprised if the company that has suffered a string of deaths/explosions etc in the last decade or so culminating in this disaster doesn't face some charges of negligence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/business/09bp.html
and i would even expect bp to stay happily in business off our shores.
It's exactly the same story with BigPharma.
Rushing drugs THEY TEST (they only get positive results) to market, killing a few 10s of 1000s, sickening or/and maiming a few 100K people, then paying a $100M or couple $B in fines, "out of court", etc, etc. is just a cost of business for BigPhara, paid for easily out of their exorbitant, govt-protected profits.
$30B/year for "research", $60B/year for drug marketing.
They ING LAUGH at $2B fines and 1000s dead from the toxic, worthless .
You people don't believe how ed American is, you ridicule me for my anti-corporate, anti-capitalists stances, but AMERICA IS TOTALLY ED and BEYOND SAVING.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-17-2010 at 03:35 PM.
Bingo.
We'll see. I would hope that they get their feet held to the fire and cough up on paying for the true extent of the damage they have done.
BP needs to seal the hole and leave it for dead. I can't believe Obama has not ordered that yet.
Easier said than done.
That's already BP's plan, but they don't know how to do it:
"BP says it will permanently cap leaking well"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...SxVPAD9FOPP102
That is now their plan and it's a smart one.
BP Chose More Toxic, Less Effective Oil Dispersant — Guess Why …
Posted By Alex Seitz-Wald On May 17, 2010 @ 12:48 pm In Uncategorized | No Comments
As BP believes it has finally made progress plugging the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, it has managed to prevent much of the oil already released from washing onshore by using huge quan ies of oil dispersants. BP rounded up a “third of the world’s available supply of dispersants” and has been deploying them aggressively. But Greenwire reports that the chemical BP is using is more toxic and perhaps even less effective than other available dispersents:
So far, BP has told federal agencies that it has applied more than 400,000 gallons of a dispersant sold under the trade name Corexit and manufactured by Nalco Co., a company that was once part of Exxon Mobil Corp. and whose current leadership includes executives at both BP and Exxon. And another 805,000 gallons of Corexit are on order, the company said, with the possibility that hundreds of thousands of more gallons may be needed if the well continues spewing oil for weeks or months.
But according to EPA data, Corexit ranks far above dispersants made by compe ors in toxicity and far below them in effectiveness in handling southern Louisiana crude.
Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.
BP “shares close ties” with Nalco. A BP board member who served as an executive at the company for 43 years also sits on Nalco’s board, and critics suggest there may be a conflict of interest in BP’s choice of Corexit. “It’s a chemical that the oil industry makes to sell to itself, basically,” said Defenders of Wildlife’s Richard Charter. While use of dispersants helps keep oil off beaches and out of wetlands, “[s]cientists warn that the dispersed oil, as well as the dispersants themselves, might cause long-term harm to marine life.” Even Nalco admits the chemicals pose “moderate” environmental hazard, but Pro Publica noted that dispersant ingredients are kept secret under trade laws, so it’s difficult to know the potential fallout from using them. A Corexit product was used to cleanup the Exxon Valdez spill, and workers suffered health problems “including blood in their urine and assorted kidney and liver disorder.”
UPDATE
Climate Progress’ Joe Romm notes that as toxic as Corexit is, dispersed oil is more toxic.
Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy
URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...ant-guess-why/
I voted for Obama, but I invested in BP before the spill for the high dividend yield and sustainable business model/large amount of cash on the balance sheet. Transocean owned the rig. BP rented and operated it. BP has taken full financial responsibility for an explosion caused by faulty Transocean property. Now of course they could have/should have done more to inspect the valve system, but this type of accident has never happened in history, so they were caught unaware.
It's painfully obvious that simply because the company in this case is named BRITISH Petroleum, Obama's administration went on full slander attack with this case to set an example using a non-American company. And of course people will repeat populist rhetoric seen on CNN without looking into the issue for themselves. Transocean owned the rig. Both BP and Transocean stock took massive (30%) hits on this tragedy. But only one company, the non-American one, has been flamed for the disaster. Why?
nicely done boutons_deux
For the love of God did you watch the 60 minutes expose?
Meanwhile, on FAUX News...
What's funny is that BP has already spent far more than $75 million, and you guys are worried about a cap they already spent more than? Unbelievable.
Is Wild Cobra mouse just trolling?
No one is that stupid.
please.
so... you want the government to tell the private company what to do?
Well blowouts happen all the time. This one is different only because of its depth.
BP pretty much owned the well. It isn't a "slander attack" to hold the company responsible. Transocean execs were right beside BP's in front of congress, and their name is in the news splashed right beside Haliburton and BP's.
I don't get the "waaaah, they are picking on BP" bit.
Does anybody think BP WANTED this to happen?
I don't want to get in car accidents, but if I get drunk and drive into someone else it doesn't really matter does it?
BP was negligent with safety standards and they've been ing up all over the place with the clean up
Nice ownage.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
