Reply With Quote
What a strange libertarianism that demands absolute obedience for individuals to the state and unbridled freedom, even from legal responsibility for major environmental disasters, for multinational corporations.
The sad truth it is takes time. We need to see how BP handles this before we accuse them of not taking responsibility.
What a strange libertarianism that demands absolute obedience for individuals to the state and unbridled freedom, even from legal responsibility for major environmental disasters, for multinational corporations.
Speaking of assumptive fail, the $20 billion was for claims. The fine, whatever it ends up being, is going to be money BP has to pay out on top of that.
Well, considering the US government will control who gets paid by that, and probably absorb 25%+ in administrative fees, i don't see it that way.
What system is in place to check if someone is making a claim through PB, and through the fund? I believe now, this will slow down legitimate payments as they have to make sure someone doesn't get paid twice.
Of all of the things to possibly be concerned about.
See it however you so choose, but BP is still going to end up paying a fine on top of the $20 billion they're putting into the claims pool.
Since the government is involved it's guaranteed that the system will be slow and inefficient.What system is in place to check if someone is making a claim through PB, and through the fund? I believe now, this will slow down legitimate payments as they have to make sure someone doesn't get paid twice.
Point of order…Those tar balls washing ashore are natural occurrences which take place in the gulf…And no gulf walruses have been injured due to the oil spill…Have some raw oysters & get a life people!
BP...Bringing oil to American shores...
If you say so. I was a little wrong about my earlier remarks.
Obama pushed to get the $20 billion. Then the agreement may hamper payment rather than help. It allowed PB to wash their hands of payments, because a man named Kenneth Feinberg is now responsible for who does and does not get paid. I would say Obama ended up being in BP's pocket by this arrangement, because now, they have no responsibility in this process, except make payments to the fund.
"Although BP is getting a tax refund on the billions of dollars spent to contain its toxic mess and burnish its image, the company will not be able to write off this fine against its profits. "
"BP's 2008 profit was $21.2 billion. During the global recession of 2009, BP's profit was $14 billion on $239 billion in sales."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/02/bp-oil-fine/
Complex Claims Process Confounds Spill Victims
Did I call it or what; 8/3/10:And so many people thought this was a good thing.Now everyone with a claim has to refile with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility -- the $20 billion fund run by Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg.
"It's as if BP never existed," said Feinberg. "We're starting over."
There are controversial new rules for refilling claims. For one, being farther from the Gulf could mean less money -- or none at all. Anne Stephens owns an RV park in Alabama seven miles from where oil washed ashore.
"All of our businesses are affected by the fact that our tourists are not here," said Stephens.
Those who agree to a final settlement with BP may have to waive their right to sue.
"There has been no decision made whatsoever, either by me or the facility, in terms of waiver of rights," said Feinberg. "Right now, we're talking about emergency payments."
"They want a 13 digit claims number and I only have a six digit number," said Jenny
The idea that BP would somehow be expediting claims payments under a different system is downright laughable.
I just hope most of the money gets to the people actually harmed -- instead of y lawyers.
BP is still responsible for putting in the $20B, and they haven't.
Let's see how long it takes the Feds to fine BP for 5M barrels spilled
I bet BP has spent more on greenwashing ads than it has on paying injured parties.
It's not BP's responsibilty to expidite claims anymore, thanks to the $20B fund Obama set up. All BP has to do is just keep making their quarterly contributions to the fund. The claims are handled by the independent adjustor.
Did I say something to the contrary?
Your statement gave me that impression. If you meant something different, my apologies for the misinterpretation.
My statement was meant to convey that I believe it to be ridiculous the notion that if BP was still managing things they would be going any faster.
How about because they are a company with a long history of putting safety behind profit and have now pretty much guaranteed that we won't be expanding coastal oil drilling.
^^^ (left a mark)
THURSDAY 26 AUGUST 2010
Here's What's Wrong With BP's Trust Fund
by: Robert Weissman and Tyson Slo , t r u t h o u t | News Analysis
President Barack Obama's forceful demand that BP accept liability for the damage it caused in the Gulf was a highlight of the administration's handling of the BP disaster. Yet, like virtually everything else connected with the BP catastrophe, it looks like the initial positive reports obscured troubling realities.
Yes, BP is creating a $20 billion trust fund. But with the trust fund terms now public, it is evident that there are serious problems that the administration must demand be fixed.
BP's scheme enlists the government as a virtual partner in its Gulf oil and gas production, and the company uses that partnership to shield itself from punishment. It is likely to give the government a financial incentive to become an even bigger booster of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf - the Minerals Management Service's fatal flaw at the time of the BP disaster. BP seems to have structured the fund largely to limit its liability in civil cases and escape accountability.
First, the trust fund appears to be capped at $20 billion - contrary to what fund administrator Ken Feinberg has said was his understanding of BP's plans.
Even worse, the $20 billion is to be drawn down not just by Feinberg-ordered payments to those suffering economic harm from the oil gusher, but by reimbursements for state and local response, natural resource harms and payments pursuant to class action and other civil action awards.
This arrangement leaves substantially less than $20 billion to compensate individuals and businesses for their economic losses - most likely leaving them shortchanged.
Second, BP aims to make a subsidiary with no apparent assets other than Gulf oil leases the party responsible for paying all costs of the oil gusher. The company making payments to the trust fund is BP Exploration & Production, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of BP America Production, which in turn is a subsidiary of BP Company North America, which is a subsidiary of BP Corporation North America, a subsidiary of BP America, Inc., which is a subsidiary of the ultimate parent company BP p.l.c.
Our research indicates that BP Exploration & Production, Inc. is involved only in Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and gas exploration and production. In other words, BP proposes to pay off its liabilities from the Gulf disaster exclusively with revenue from Gulf oil and gas production.
BP Exploration & Production Inc. is the subsidiary that was operating the Deepwater Horizon exploration rig. The Justice Department and other federal and state agencies are most likely to focus criminal and civil proceedings against this unit. Now, those criminal probes could be inhibited by the fact that this same subsidiary is responsible for paying into the trust fund.
The government will be reluctant to mete out harsh sanctions to BP - like banning it from all federal leases in the Gulf - if the victims' fund relies on BP's Gulf revenue.
In addition, the arrangement creates a conflict of interest with the government's obligation for tough enforcement of safety rules at BP wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Whistleblowers have already identified serious safety problems at other BP wells in the region. But cracking down on BP's recklessness may imperil the ability of BP Exploration & Production Inc. to make payments into the trust fund.
Third, the trust fund is due to expire on April 30, 2016, and its trustees have only limited opportunities to extend the deadline. Such a short expiration date is likely to preclude adequate assessment of long-term health, economic and natural resource damages. Victims shouldn't be coerced to take a deal before they know how badly they have been harmed.
Fourth, the trust agreement lacks any disclosure requirements. In fact, it specifically states that trustees "shall not be required to render any annual or other periodic accounts" other than those mandated by Delaware trust law. Feinberg can partially address this problem by being transparent about his actions.
But Feinberg is not likely to have some relevant information - including data on payments made for purposes other than satisfying the claims he resolves.
There's no excuse not to build a high degree of transparency into the trust agreement. There has been more than enough secrecy around BP's mismanagement of this crisis.
BP has sought to maintain control over the crisis response at every stage. Though it seems to have spared no expense congratulating itself with TV advertisements about its good efforts and deep concern for the Gulf ecosystem and the people who rely on it, BP has bungled just about everything it has touched here.
Things improved only when the government insisted that it supervise what's going on.
Now, BP aims to control the terms of payout and penalty. Like everything that came before, this is a public problem. It demands engagement by the administration.
There's no easy way to clean up the Gulf. But it's easy enough to clean up the trust agreement mess.
It's time for the administration to act.
http://www.truth-out.org/heres-whats...und62691?print
=============
BP will win, will escape, and the people, the environment will be ed over again. yawn
Infinite strikes, but Corporate-Americans never strike out.
Alyeska, Federal Regulators Probing Employee's "Cover-Up" Claims Related to May Oil Spill
Thursday 26 August 2010
by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report
An Alyeska Pipeline Service Company engineer sent a letter to federal regulators and BP's Office of the Ombudsman claiming internal company do ents were altered following a 4,500-barrel oil spill May 25 to cover up the fact that Alyeska allegedly failed to perform maintenance on a key piece of equipment.
http://www.truth-out.org/alyeska-fed...ill62677?print
False as stated. Corporate America ain't Perry Mason: yr link in fact revealed its hand in the cookie jar.Infinite strikes, but Corporate-Americans never strike out.
BP would just raise its prices at the pump, fkn benefits no one
WTF? Corporate-Americans aren't prosecutor, they are the perpetrators, the batsmen who never strike out, because they control the game, own the umpires, get the rules written they want written.
You're delusional. Corporations don't control nearly as much as you think.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions