Pay Baby, Pay! Obama says that BP's going to pick up the tab for the oil spill

Valdez was a tanker- clearly the responsibility of the ship owner. The feds own the deposit and lease it to BP, it seems to be an entirely different situation...
 
Topspin said:
It's common knowledge in the industry, that and I was a logistics section chief on our response team. No, junior law student I don't. But if you want to look it up start with Opa 90.:good4u:
Click to expand...

it wasn't that i did not believe you, i just wanted to read what the law specifically says senior bingo player
 
Topspin said:
It's common knowledge in the industry, that and I was a logistics section chief on our response team. No, junior law student I don't. But if you want to look it up start with Opa 90.:good4u:
Click to expand...

this is why i wanted to read it, i wondered if there were limitations and there are...so, until we know exactly what happened, isn't it premature to say they will have to pay under the law?

SEC. 1003. DEFENSES TO LIABILITY.
(a) COMPLETE DEFENSES.—A responsible party is not liable for
removal costs or damages under section 1002 if the responsible
party establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the discharge
or substantial threat of a discharge of oil and the resulting
damages or removal costs were caused solely by—
(1) an act of God;
Q:\COMP\WATER2\OPA90
December 29, 2000
243 OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 Sec. 1004
(2) an act of war;
(3) an act or omission of a third party, other than an employee
or agent of the responsible party or a third party whose
act or omission occurs in connection with any contractual relationship
with the responsible party (except where the sole contractual
arrangement arises in connection with carriage by a
common carrier by rail), if the responsible party establishes, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the responsible party—
(A) exercised due care with respect to the oil concerned,
taking into consideration the characteristics of the oil and
in light of all relevant facts and circumstances; and
(B) took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions
of any such third party and the foreseeable consequences
of those acts or omissions; or
(4) any combination of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
Click to expand...
 
read it again, it limits thier liability to claims. There is no limit on cleaning up the spill and containment.
 
evince said:
wanna bet they never pay the bill?
Click to expand...

I'll bet you vote the people who will bailout BP after they claim to be too big to fail. You'll agree that they are needed because without the energy they bring to market, the whole economy will be disrupted. So, you are correct.
WE'LL end up paying for it thanks to the bailers in office.
 
NigelTufnel said:
BP is already crawfishing, saying that they only leased the rig, they don't own it.
Click to expand...

Nigel, your my boy and all. I wouldn't call it crawfishing at all. Nobody drills thier own wells anymore. Transocean the contractor drilled it, it doesn't remove BP's cleanup responsibility but the fault unless the planning was unsafe lies with Transocean or what is now though Cameron's failed BOP. They have said all along they will pay to clean up and they will. Let's hope it's cleaner than Price William Sound when Exxon left.:clink:
 
No way, responsible party was a term that was put in place in OPA 90 to identify the Company footing the bill. BP will pay, I'm not saying tat fund won't cover the shrimpers lost revenue etc. or that some cost may go back to BP.
Any Coast guard ordered response equipment will be paid by BP. I done it way more times than I'd like to admit as an RP.
 
tinfoil said:
THIS

It seems we've already paid for this if they passed the tax onto consumers.
I bet we'll pay a couple more times.
Click to expand...
Obviously we have. This is just more Chicago style politics, kicking BP for something that the feds have already taken responsibility for.
 
Topspin said:
Nigel, your my boy and all. I wouldn't call it crawfishing at all. Nobody drills thier own wells anymore. Transocean the contractor drilled it, it doesn't remove BP's cleanup responsibility but the fault unless the planning was unsafe lies with Transocean or what is now though Cameron's failed BOP. They have said all along they will pay to clean up and they will. Let's hope it's cleaner than Price William Sound when Exxon left.:clink:
Click to expand...


Check out the language in the law posted above about third parties. BP looks to be setting the stage for the crawfish.

In all likelihood, BP pays and tries to recover from Transocean. You know full well that BP's legal team is devising a plan to take a chunk out of Transocean.

And this, from BP, is reprehensible:

Alabama Attorney General Troy King said tonight that he has told representatives of BP Plc. that they should stop circulating settlement agreements among coastal Alabamians.

The agreements, King said, essentially require that people give up the right to sue in exchange for payment of up to $5,000.

King said BP's efforts were particularly strong in Bayou La Batre.
Click to expand...

Dicks.



http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/bp_told_to_stop_circulating_se.html
 
Southern Man said:
Obviously we have. This is just more Chicago style politics, kicking BP for something that the feds have already taken responsibility for.
Click to expand...


The fund exists so that the cash is available when the shit hits the fan so we don't have to wait around for BP to cut checks. It doesn't exist so that BP never has to pay a penny and doesn't have to pay the fund back for costs incurred.
 
Oh yeah, I think I pointed out early but maybe didn't make it clear. OPA 90 instituted the responsible party language so the clean up would happen post haste instead of finger pointing. Of course after BP pay's up they should point at TransOcean or Cameron if in fact thier BOP failed. And all I'm referencing is the cleaning of the oil. Liabilities from third party claim are another ballgame out of my area of expertise.
 
Topspin said:
Oh yeah, I think I pointed out early but maybe didn't make it clear. OPA 90 instituted the responsible party language so the clean up would happen post haste instead of finger pointing. Of course after BP pay's up they should point at TransOcean or Cameron if in fact thier BOP failed. And all I'm referencing is the cleaning of the oil. Liabilities from third party claim are another ballgame out of my area of expertise.
Click to expand...

ah...got it
 
NigelTufnel said:
Check out the language in the law posted above about third parties. BP looks to be setting the stage for the crawfish.

In all likelihood, BP pays and tries to recover from Transocean. You know full well that BP's legal team is devising a plan to take a chunk out of Transocean.

And this, from BP, is reprehensible:



Dicks.



http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/bp_told_to_stop_circulating_se.html
Click to expand...

why? what is wrong with allowing people the choice to settle for 5K now? as long as the letter informs them to seek independent legal counsel, this is how the justice system should work. it streamlines justices. maybe someone doesn't want to wait for a possible settlement, maybe they need the money now. its their choice.
 
Yurt said:
why? what is wrong with allowing people the choice to settle for 5K now? as long as the letter informs them to seek independent legal counsel, this is how the justice system should work. it streamlines justices. maybe someone doesn't want to wait for a possible settlement, maybe they need the money now. its their choice.
Click to expand...


You've got to be kidding me. If you don't see anything wrong with what BP was doing you're a dick, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top