# Current oil spill vs Exxon Valdez **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 1, 2010, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951 "2010-05-01T07:25:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951/41 "2010-06-09T16:28:36Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#): > > Then they can blame the crisis on Transocean and end up paying nothing at all! And there’s no way you can disprove that, because there’s been no investigation or legal hearings yet, right? I’m being facetious, but the point is, reading the raw text of the legislation doesn’t offer us much because neither of us is a legislative or legal expert. I’ve seen no evidence that BP will legally have to pay more than $75 million for non-containment and cleanup costs, and until I do I’m not going to buy it. You may be interested in [this](http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/04/news/companies/bp_legal.fortune/index.htm) link. [QUOTE=Fortune] Is BP really protected by a $75 million cap on damages? Probably not. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, known as OPA (pronounced like ‘Oprah’ without the ‘r’). For leaks from offshore oil rigs like this one, OPA limits the liability of the responsible party – BP in this instance – to $75 million in economic damages, but there are several mammoth exceptions. To begin with, the limitation does not apply to any of BP’s liability for state and federal cleanup costs, for which BP (BP) is 100% responsible. As of early June, these costs had already come to about $990 million, according to BP, and the company seems to be just getting started. (BP has also committed to spending another $360 million to fund the building of barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana.) But the key, ginormous loophole in the $75 million OPA limit is that BP isn’t allowed to take advantage of it if the company – or any of its contractors, Kende stresses – acted with gross negligence or violated any federal safety law or regulation. In other words, if either BP or rig-owner Transocean Ltd. (RIG), or cement contractor Halliburton Energy Services (HAL, Fortune 500), or the blowout preventer manufacturer Cameron International (CAM, Fortune 500) violated some safety rule – the limit vanishes. (If a subcontractor is the one responsible, BP might then be able to go after that company for contribution or indemnification.) “I think there are enough regulations in this area,” says Kende, “that something was probably done wrong” by someone, though he acknowledges that that’s speculation on his part. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951/42 "2010-06-11T05:47:30Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Earlier in the news I heard that in a week it could be worse than the Valdez. The _Exxon Valdez_ was carrying about 1,250,000 barrels of oil, most estimates are that about 1/5th (250,000 barrels) leaked from the ship. The _BP Deepwater Horizon_ well is leaking constantly; estimates vary: [ul][li]the original BP one (1,000 barrels per day) = matching _Exxon Valdez_ in 250 days (on Christmas Eve, 2010)[/li][li]the Coast Guard one a week later (5,000 barrels per day) = matching _Exxon Valdez_ in 50 days (tomorrow)[/li][li]the latest one BP admitted to in a closed session before Congress (60,000 barrels per day) = matching _Exxon Valdez_ every 4.16 days (100 hours), so back on April 25th, and 9 more times since then. [/li][/ul] It appears nobody really knows the details, just that it’s much, much worse. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951/43 "2010-06-11T05:56:07Z")
Well yeah. It was over a month ago that I posted the OP so I figured it’s gotten much worse since then. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951/44 "2010-06-11T15:14:03Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > The _Exxon Valdez_ was carrying about 1,250,000 barrels of oil, most estimates are that about 1/5th (250,000 barrels) leaked from the ship. > > The _BP Deepwater Horizon_ well is leaking constantly; estimates vary: > [ul][li]the original BP one (1,000 barrels per day) = matching _Exxon Valdez_ in 250 days (on Christmas Eve, 2010)[/li][li]the Coast Guard one a week later (5,000 barrels per day) = matching _Exxon Valdez_ in 50 days (tomorrow)[/li][li]the latest one BP admitted to in a closed session before Congress (60,000 barrels per day) = matching _Exxon Valdez_ every 4.16 days (100 hours), so back on April 25th, and 9 more times since then. [/li][/ul] > > It appears nobody really knows the details, just that it’s much, much worse. If BP admitted 60,000 then the government’s Spill Rate Technical Group is doing a really terrible job since just yesterday they put 40,000 as the high end of their estimates. Any cite for BP saying 60,000? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951/45 "2010-06-11T15:19:14Z")
From the NYT: [ > [@](#): > > **New Estimates Double Rate of Oil Flowing Into the Gulf** > A government panel on Thursday essentially doubled its estimate of how much oil has been spewing from the out-of-control BP well, with the new calculation suggesting that an amount equivalent to the Exxon Valdez disaster could be flowing into the Gulf of Mexico every 8 to 10 days. > > The new estimate is 25,000 to 30,000 barrels of oil a day. That range, still preliminary, is far above the previous estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day. ]([http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/us/11spill.html?hp](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/us/11spill.html?hp)) ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Hoodie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2acd7d/32.png) [@Red\_Hoodie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Hoodie)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2010, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951/46 "2010-06-12T06:36:50Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > The _Exxon Valdez_ was carrying about 1,250,000 barrels of oil, most estimates are that about 1/5th (250,000 barrels) leaked from the ship. > > The _BP Deepwater Horizon_ well is leaking constantly; estimates vary: > [ul][li]the original BP one (1,000 barrels per day) = matching _Exxon Valdez_ in 250 days (on Christmas Eve, 2010)[/li][li]the Coast Guard one a week later (5,000 barrels per day) = matching _Exxon Valdez_ in 50 days (tomorrow)[/li][li]the latest one BP admitted to in a closed session before Congress (60,000 barrels per day) = matching _Exxon Valdez_ every 4.16 days (100 hours), so back on April 25th, and 9 more times since then. [/li][/ul] > > It appears nobody really knows the details, just that it’s much, much worse. That last bulletpoint really makes me miss the days when all we had to b\*tch about was the volcanic ash cloud. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951/47 "2010-06-12T13:00:37Z")
Post 47 reported as spam. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2010, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951/48 "2010-06-12T13:30:49Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Post 47 reported as spam. [moderating] Post 47 removed and spammer dealt with, renumbering the posts and making yours the new 47. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951/49 "2010-06-12T14:10:28Z")
I wasn’t sure how the post numbering would work out after spammer was disappeared. Thanks for the prompt action. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951/50 "2010-06-12T17:50:24Z")
That’s one of the reasons we don’t like taking posts out like that. It blows the continuity of the thread and changes references to post numbers. But we have a system worked out that lets us extract spam posts, store them away for later research, and remove all evidence of the spam posts from the public board. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/current-oil-spill-vs-exxon-valdez/537951.md?page=2)