Wondering: Is the BP limit of 75 million in effect NO MATTER WHAT BP DOES? Does

[wiggs]

the language of the limit require that BP performs in a normal, honest, way consistent with industry standards?

If a company, say BP, takes shortcuts in order to appear ready for executive visits.....or ignores standard practices....or ignores warnings....or covers up wrongdoing....or falsifies information in order to get waivers....or doesn't conduct required inspections...or doesn't install required safeguards that work

then

Are they/should they be on the hook for damage caused by their negligence regardless of an agreement or waiver otherwise limiting their non-cleanup liability to an amount equal to their annual paper clip expenses?

[Turbineguy]

1. Criminal liability is on top of that.

[wiggs]

15. Criminality might be hard to get; negligence probably has a lower bar. nt

[Duer 157099]

2. I would guess that if criminal behavior is involved, then

the limits should not apply.

But that's just a guess based on common sense, not what the greedy mofos might say/do.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Like it or not

negligence has yet to be proven.

[northernlights]

4. sounds like there is some pretty strong evidence for negligence

coming out in the hearings, pulled from their own documentation of the incident.

[gateley]

6. Hope you're right. I'm not usually vengeful, but they need to pay for absolutely

everything this has caused (and also the other companies, too) -- it's only just and right.

[northernlights]

12. and the rest of the industry needs to get the message

if they are allowed to walk on this, miniscule penalties, 11 people killed outright, millions of people's health likely to be damaged, millions of people's livelihoods destroyed, ecological catastrophe...then we'll be doomed for sure. all of us.

[dipsydoodle]

10. I'm not disputing that

just saying it does however remain to be proven.

[northernlights]

11. that's what the courts are for

hopefully someone will decide to file criminal charges. Maybe the state attorney's general for each impacted state. I'm not holding out a lot of hope for Holder. :(

[white cloud]

7. First attempt to boost BP liability gets shut down in Senate

First attempt to boost BP liability gets shut down in Senate
Republicans thwarted Senate Democrats' first attempt to force a speedy vote on a plan to raise the liability cap on what BP and other oil companies have to pay in economic damages for offshore spills, like the one now spreading across the Gulf of Mexico.

The bid, by Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, as well as Bill Nelson of Florida, was shut down when Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, this afternoon objected to their request for a voice vote on the proposal. The measure would dramatically raise the liability cap on economic damages -- such as lost profits and tax revenue -- that any "responsible party" in an oil spill can be required to pay affected residents, businesses and communities.

Under a 20-year-old law, enacted after the Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground near Alaska, the cap is $75 million for spills from offshore platforms and rigs. But the Menendez bill would retroactively raise that limit to $10 billion.


http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/05/push_to_boost_b.html

[wiggs]

16. Hard to get support for retroactive application I would guess. I was hoping that

there wouldn't be a need for congress to do something in order for BP to be on the hook...I think the jist of the post further down is that if there's negligence, BP's limit is gone even without legislative action.

Best if this doesn't have to hit the courts for decades....best if negligence is admitted and a deal struck to take care of the damages out of the tens of billions of dollars of profit (profit, not revenues) that BP will collect just this year.

[Scurrilous]

5. Forget That $75 Million Liability Cap: Criminal Charges IN BP Spill Are "Very Likely"

Full Title: Forget That $75 Million Liability Cap: Criminal Charges IN BP Spill Are "Very Likely" Says Former DOJ Official

<snip>

"As Deepwater investigations turn up evidence of negligence -- including a blowout preventer that was out of batteries and hadn't been properly tested -- it's becoming obvious that someone will face criminal charges.

McClatchy quotes the former head of environmental crimes at the Justice Department, David M. Uhlmann: "There is no question there'll be an enforcement action, and it's very likely that there will be at least some criminal charges brought."

Criminal charges would put an axe through a $75 million cap on civil charges for oil pollution. The cap was already looking flimsy as Obama asked Congress to set a higher limit.

Prosecutors in criminal cases can seek twice the cost of environmental and economic damages resulting from the spill, according to McClatchy."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/criminal-charges-are-very-likely-in-oil-case-so-you-can-forget-about-the-75-million-liabilities-cap-2010-5#ixzz0nqrAzDrF

[gateley]

8. This deserves its own thread -- thanks for posting! nt

[wiggs]

14. Thanks! That's probably good news although the more we ask BP and others to

share in the costs the more likely it is that it will take decades to resolve.

And in 20 years when the new neo-republican party rises out of the ashes of the old party and gets to appoint judges again, those judges will cut the award in half.

[wiggs]

17. Another link to criminality issue

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100513/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2057

[jimshoes]

9. Perhaps in addition to no cap on liability,

they could spend the rest of their natural lives cleaning that shit off the beaches, marshes, bays, inlets, rivers and shorelines and help bury the sea, air and land life they helped kill off.

[ladywnch]

13. ok.....75mill from ALL of them......BP, Halliburton, Transocean......

and ALL their executives....


I know, I know.......execs are protected from prosecution (the 'corporate veil' and all....) but they SHOULD be held accountable. If they are allowed to reap the benefits of their 'leadership' with obscene salaries and bonuses then they should pay the price for the disasters their 'leadership'. How they are allowed to get away with the 'if it is successful I get credit for it and if it fails, I'm absolved of all responsibility' BS I'll never understand.