Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The error with your question is that BP CANT be found liable... The law limits their damages to $75M.. which they have already exceeded in paying out..
I don't think it's as easy as you make it out to be...
There was a recent article written by Roger Parloff of Forbes that offers a lot of information about if BP is protected by the $75 million dollar cap on damages that was created by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, also known as OPA. The OPA was passed in 1990 and it states that the company responsible for the accident is limited to $75 million in economic lawsuit damages with several very large exceptions. One of those exceptions is if the company or any of its contractors acted with gross negligence or violated any federal or state safety law or regulation, the Company can not use the OPA limit. This means that if the BP, Transocean, Halliburton or Cameron violated a safety regulation, the OPA limit will not apply. Additionally, the OPA does not apply to any of BP’s federal or state cleanup costs. BP claims that they have already spent $990 million in cleanup costs as of early June.
The government is under long term contracts to provide access to BP to oil wells.. You couldnt stop buying their oil if you wanted to..
If they said no these contracts would have been gone over with a fine tooth comb to find even the slightest thing to tear up these contracts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
So did they, or did they not have a choice? Your all over the board on this...
Again, if they DIDNT have a choice, then I ask you why didnt they? Under what LEGAL authority did they NOT have a choice.. and if they did have a choice, but chose to do the right thing.. Why are you liberals all over them for holding up to their responsibilities when they didnt have to?
They likely knew that if they said no, the government would have made it very hard for them to conduct business in the US. Secondly, even putting aside that, them putting the $$$ in escrow has nothing to do with them meeting moral obligations, its about a PR disaster. They already have a massive public relations problem as a result of the disaster, if they would have refused it would have gotten FAR FAR worse
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
WRONG.. NO ONE has made such statements.. I often wonder whats in some of your heads. Is there a comprehension issue with liberals? There is a difference between BP NOT paying, and BP being FORCED to escrow money to pay, when they ALREADY WERE paying.
Excuse me for not believing in the good will of big oil to keep on paying every claim, they caused this disaster, they should be FORCED to pay for it.
The government is under long term contracts to provide access to BP to oil wells.. You couldnt stop buying their oil if you wanted to..
So did they, or did they not have a choice? Your all over the board on this...
Again, if they DIDNT have a choice, then I ask you why didnt they? Under what LEGAL authority did they NOT have a choice.. and if they did have a choice, but chose to do the right thing.. Why are you liberals all over them for holding up to their responsibilities when they didnt have to?
WRONG.. NO ONE has made such statements.. I often wonder whats in some of your heads. Is there a comprehension issue with liberals? There is a difference between BP NOT paying, and BP being FORCED to escrow money to pay, when they ALREADY WERE paying.
New Info Reveals BP Repeatedly Ignored Safety Issues
BP officials were warned repeatedly during the past decade that the company was disregarding safety and environmental rules and was in danger of causing a serious accident.
They seem to have not done what they were obliged to do or upheld their resonsibilities on this issue.
What runs thru your veins...crude? Seriously, are you that resentful of people that don't agree with you and are the right side of an issue? You dogggedly insist upon defending the culprits. Maybe you think that they should be given a medal of honor for paying for a mess that they negligently caused.
Would you excuse a surgeon for going into a surgery unprepared and ill equipped which ultimately cost the life of someone that you knew? You'd be the first to want to sue their a$$es off and see them punished. Admit it.
Last edited by sickofnyc; 06-17-2010 at 01:54 PM..
Any and all parties that are determined to be at fault, which MOST DEFINITELY includes the MMS (which is our Federal Government a.k.a Taxpayers)! BP is not the only company/agency at fault here. And they're stupid to not demand that all other potentially liable companies/agencies put up a like-amount of money into the fund.
So, ultimately, tax payers should pay. Cool, and typical "conservative", I must add. Next time, a person just might claim a road accident to be government's fault as well since the asphalt wasn't freshly laid.
Should we wait for all payments, and clean up costs until the amounts and proportion of fault is established? I guess BP should just pay and be done with $75 million. The rest... tax payers. Isn't that what you too are ultimately standing up for?
So, ultimately, tax payers should pay. Cool, and typical "conservative", I must add. Next time, a person just might claim a road accident to be government's fault as well since the asphalt wasn't freshly laid.
Should we wait for all payments, and clean up costs until the amounts and proportion of fault is established?
They ***** and moan endlessly about tax payer picking up the tab for this and that and then switch feet when it's convenient. Big surprise.
That's not necessarily true, but nevertheless forget about the limit and answer the question...
Question: If you had an accident in which you (and other parties) could be found liable - would you provide money to be put into a fund to help cleanup damaged property and/or to provide financial aid to people that may have been damaged by the accident before it was determined legally who [all] is liable?
That depends...
If you had a car accident, and did $50,000 worth of damage to someone else, would you pay the $50K, or turn it over to your auto insurance company to pay? In the current situation, the GOVERNMENT is the oil companies insurance company.. THATS THE LAW
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Who should pay?
Again, UNDER WHAT LEGAL OBLIGATION WOULD THE OIL COMPANIES BE FORCED TO PAY? This is like saying.. Hey, you have insurance, but who cares.. YOU have to pay..
The Dems have to..they have to yell loud and clear and it has to be all, 100% BP's fault. No one in the government did anything wrong..got it ?
I also believe that BP is getting an unfair deal here...they did what the government allowed them to do. 50-50 blame.
BP is being equated to blaming Bush for all that is wrong in America today.
I get it, no such thing as personal responsibility when it comes to corporations and rich people. Responsibility only counts when you're poor or black. I don't personally blame the CEO of BP for the leak unless he knew about how all of his rigs down to the last washer are being run. Thats impossible for him to know, but if its his employees that bypassed a safety system because it wasn't working right, or the old "Time is money" bull$h!t motto, then he is responsible. Just because a police officer doesn't pull me over for driving 70 doesn't mean its his fault when I cause a collision doing 71.
There was a recent article written by Roger Parloff of Forbes that offers a lot of information about if BP is protected by the $75 million dollar cap on damages that was created by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, also known as OPA. The OPA was passed in 1990 and it states that the company responsible for the accident is limited to $75 million in economic lawsuit damages with several very large exceptions. One of those exceptions is if the company or any of its contractors acted with gross negligence or violated any federal or state safety law or regulation, the Company can not use the OPA limit. This means that if the BP, Transocean, Halliburton or Cameron violated a safety regulation, the OPA limit will not apply. Additionally, the OPA does not apply to any of BP’s federal or state cleanup costs. BP claims that they have already spent $990 million in cleanup costs as of early June.
Yes, we got into a discussion here last week with posters who told me, when I said that BP wasnt covered by the $75M cap, they told me I was wrong.. Which is why I'm asking these very people why BP is VOLUNTARILY paying, when THEY told me that a $75M cap existed..
So, ultimately, tax payers should pay. Cool, and typical "conservative", I must add. Next time, a person just might claim a road accident to be government's fault as well since the asphalt wasn't freshly laid.
Should we wait for all payments, and clean up costs until the amounts and proportion of fault is established? I guess BP should just pay and be done with $75 million. The rest... tax payers. Isn't that what you too are ultimately standing up for?
That seems to be what repugs want! Our taxes to go to BP's responsibility!
So are the Repugs all set to raise taxes??!!! Looks like it!
But that's is what repugs are all about, scream when some poor person gets a few bucks but LOVE it if their taxes go to Corporations....what sick, sick, degenerate America hating jerks!
If they said no these contracts would have been gone over with a fine tooth comb to find even the slightest thing to tear up these contracts
They likely knew that if they said no, the government would have made it very hard for them to conduct business in the US. Secondly, even putting aside that, them putting the $$$ in escrow has nothing to do with them meeting moral obligations, its about a PR disaster. They already have a massive public relations problem as a result of the disaster, if they would have refused it would have gotten FAR FAR worse
Excuse me for not believing in the good will of big oil to keep on paying every claim, they caused this disaster, they should be FORCED to pay for it.
So you admit BP was "forced" to pay? Then why are you arguing with me over using the terminology?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the current situation, the GOVERNMENT is the oil companies insurance company.. THATS THE LAW
