B.P.'s Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Thread (it's all here).....

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Let me ask you a question Anna... If it was CP rail that was transporting the oil and the tanker car derailed and spilled the oil, who'd be responsible?

That question is impossible to answer. If the car derailed because of CP negligence then it's CP responsibility for the accident. But we don't know that, it could have been some kids playing with explosives. Your hypothetical doesn't contain enough information to say who is responsible for the accident.

It's the same in reality. Nobody knows yet.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
~~~ in free enterprise ~~~

Or so they claim. But they will not engage in oil ventures unless and until they are subsidized by the government to the tune of multiples of billions of taxpayer dollars. And, contrary to the ideals of free enterprise, they do not believe in strict liability.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Let me ask you a question Anna... If it was CP rail that was transporting the oil and the tanker car derailed and spilled the oil, who'd be responsible?

BP is just another corporation that had a terrible accident, exactly what happened will come out in a few weeks if they get it capped off. Then they will begin paying for the damage up to about 78billion at what point their liability would be capped.. Time it right and you may make a little stock profit from them. BP will be held for the liability.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
The drilling goes on. only slowed down when safety checks were done on the rigs around the one on fire. Drill Baby Drill
 
Last edited:

Slim Chance

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2009
475
13
18
What I'm driving at ironsides has to do with the shinning some perspective on the issue of "fault" and responsibility. The railway example was solely intended to serve in illustrating a relationship. In effect, if it was BP's oil that was in that rail tanker, would BP be the sole bearer of responsibility in terms of damages.
 

Slim Chance

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2009
475
13
18
That question is impossible to answer. If the car derailed because of CP negligence then it's CP responsibility for the accident. But we don't know that, it could have been some kids playing with explosives. Your hypothetical doesn't contain enough information to say who is responsible for the accident.

It's the same in reality. Nobody knows yet.


But there is enough information to absolve the multitude of "owners" of the different products/items that were paying CP Rail (as a contractor) to transport their goods.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
What I'm driving at ironsides has to do with the shinning some perspective on the issue of "fault" and responsibility. The railway example was solely intended to serve in illustrating a relationship. In effect, if it was BP's oil that was in that rail tanker, would BP be the sole bearer of responsibility in terms of damages.
BP will and is taking full responsibility for the spill. This was their fault and so far they are doing the right thing trying to fix it up. These tankers will be leased by BP, flying BP's flag, carrying BP oil and if something happed to that ship with BP's oil, BP would be responsible. BP I think has a liability cap of 78 billion dollars.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
In the end, oil companies do what they do because we consume their products. In the end we all have to take responsibility for this disaster because we are to addicted to our automobiles.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Drilling may still go on (and it will go on), but we haven't seen a vigorous defense of drilling, demands for more drilling, in Alaskan wilderness etc, from conservatives, since the BP fiasco started.

It would be interesting to see if conservatives still enthusiastically demand unrestricted drilling seeing that public sentiment may have shifted on the issue by now.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Drilling is not a political issue, it's a greed issue a problem equally as repugnant among all political parties.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Drilling may still go on (and it will go on), but we haven't seen a vigorous defense of drilling, demands for more drilling, in Alaskan wilderness etc, from conservatives, since the BP fiasco started.

It would be interesting to see if conservatives still enthusiastically demand unrestricted drilling seeing that public sentiment may have shifted on the issue by now.
Looks like they might reconsider the enthusiastic drilling policy they proposed before. Could this be leading to other conspiracy theories from some.

Bid to enact energy bill might survive Gulf spill - Yahoo! News
 
Last edited:

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Drilling is not a political issue, it's a greed issue a problem equally as repugnant among all political parties.
If BP did take shortcuts and didn't install safety equipment, it was indeed a greed issue and equally repugnant among all political parties as well as it should be for everyone..
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
In the end, oil companies do what they do because we consume their products. In the end we all have to take responsibility for this disaster because we are to addicted to our automobiles.
We are addicted to oil, harder than any drug to get away from. Till another just as efficient alternate energy source becomes available this love affair will continue.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Odd thread, when Obama himself opened up more areas to drilling just recently, although he has called for a moratorium until someone actually understands the risks involved.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
If BP did take shortcuts and didn't install safety equipment, it was indeed a greed issue and equally repugnant among all political parties as well as it should be for everyone..

If BP took shortcuts, I am sure no politician will support that. The problem comes when a political party puts blind faith in anything, whether it is in the stock market to bail out Social Security or in the big business, free enterprise to always do the right thing.

The slogan ‘drill, baby, drill!’ was predicated on the assumption that oil companies are not motivated by greed, and will always take sufficient precautions and safeguards when they drill. Blind faith in any cause can have harmful consequences.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Nobody even had time to start any new drilling, this well that blew up was 2 year old. Just that it did so at a convenient time for those who are against oil drilling in pristine areas and would like to see it all stopped. Maybe Obama was hoping for just something like this to happen in order to do what he really wants to do and that is get us off oil sooner than what other would like. He would like to stop oil consumption today.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
BP will and is taking full responsibility for the spill. This was their fault and so far they are doing the right thing trying to fix it up. These tankers will be leased by BP, flying BP's flag, carrying BP oil and if something happed to that ship with BP's oil, BP would be responsible. BP I think has a liability cap of 78 billion dollars.
Somewhat less than 75 Billion according to this.
(in part)
Tuesday, May 4, 2010

"BP Says It’ll Pay For This Mess. Baloney." BP Liability Currently Capped at Only $75 MILLION ... Menendez Bill Would Raise Liability to $10 Billion

As the New York Times reported Saturday, BP's liability for is capped at $75 million:


Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in
liability
for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the
government.

The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.
***
Companies that lose business — fishermen who cannot fish, or hotel owners who cannot rent out rooms — can seek damages. So can governments that see tax revenues decline.

***
Money can be sought by the states for expenses like restoration of a damaged wetland or compensation for loss of use of a resource.
In other words, fishermen, businesses hit by loss of tourism and states that lose tax revenue or have to pay for repair to or loss of resources can only seek $75 million from BP under current law.

But Congressmen Menendez, Lautenberg and Nelson have introduced legislation they're calling the "Big Oil Company Bailout Prevention Act" to raise the limit from $75 million to $10 billion.
Washington's Blog

As for being financially responsible it's bull, like any business they will say and do anything to minimize their monetary losses, like the action already taken even without knowing how damaged the area will be. lol It is at the 2:30 mark.

EclippTV :: Video :: BP Offering 5000 Dollars To Gulf Residents If They Agree Not To Sue!
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
The cap of $75 million applies to damages claimed by individuals and governments. Lost wages by fishermen, etc etc.

It has nothing to do with cleanup costs, which BP is on the hook for.