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 link.
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.
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: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.
Nobody
June 11, 2010, 5:56am
43
Well yeah. It was over a month ago that I posted the OP so I figured it’s gotten much worse since then.
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: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?
From the NYT:
[
New Estimates Double Rate of Oil Flowing Into the Gulf
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 )
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: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.
LSLGuy
June 12, 2010, 1:00pm
47
Post 47 reported as spam.
[moderating]
LSLGuy
June 12, 2010, 2:10pm
49
I wasn’t sure how the post numbering would work out after spammer was disappeared. Thanks for the prompt action.
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.