It will be garbage, not evil. But, please proceed. Somebody has to erect their defense. I nominate Bricker.
Seriously dude. You’ll lose, but still get rich. Think of it like a derivatives investment.
Its a common misunderstanding, centered around a brand of watery, tasteless mead, the Coors of its time.
I take it back. BP is probably going to attempt to transfer their wealth to lawyers… who happen to be BP employees. Effectively keeping their dough.
They ought to have publicly appointed defense, charging only the going rate. This will keep more assets free for claimants.
There should be no cap. They should fix what they broke.
I saw the BP exec being asked about the suits and damage. They mentioned the liability cap. He of course said, he was too busy trying to save the Gulf to think about that question. BS. That has been on his mind from the beginning. They sent lawyers offering up to 5 thousand dollar for people on the gulf to work for them, if they agreed not to sue later. They are out of work and in trouble. So he nicely offers them to sell their right to sue for a short term job and a pittance.
I think we can all agree that the use of the term “bail out” has now lost all meaning with the “Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act”.
I’m having trouble figuring out what the original justification for the 75 million dollar cap was. Articles mention that it shifts large claims onto a federal fund paid into by the oil companies, but googling the fund in question, its main purpose seems to have been to pay for federal costs of dealing with big spills (so paying for the Cost guard to track the spill and similar things). Capping damages seems to have an obvious downside and no obvious up side.
Here’s how an oil company caps their damages:
Cap the god-damned blowout within 3 days of the rig touching bottom.
The bill for the public defense goes on BP’s tab.
Y’know, 'luci, sometimes you step forward with a post that well and truly justifies the high esteem in which I hold you.
Of course, it goes without saying that the above wasn’t one of them…
What I would like to no is how much hookers and blow were handed out by industry when the last legislation was written to get a 75 million dollar cap in the first place. 75 mill won’t even cover dental floss for the cleanup crew.
The clean-up still has to be covered by the oil company. The cap is on damages. So if I run a wedding venue on Lousiana coast beach, and the oil slick comes in and turns my beach into a hellhole, BP will still have to suck down the cost of having clean-up crews come and clean it up. But if I try and sue them for the businesses I lost due to couples not wanting to be married on a beach with a black colored ocean and piles of tar-coated dead fish in the background (maybe there’s a market for Goth-themed weddings?), the money from the settlement would fall under the cap.
Obviously, the cost of such damages will probably go way over 75 million, at which point its covered by a fund set up after the Exxon Valdez, I think its safe to say that fund will also get over-drawn since it also has to cover the cost to the federal government for their response to the spill. I assume that at that point the government will still pay out, but then recoup the costs by raising a tax on oil (which is how the fund was raised in the first place).
So I guess the end result is that rather then a single oil company paying for the damages, the industry as a whole (and their customers) will pay via a future tax on oil. I’m not sure why this was seen desirable when the law was passed, but I’m hoping someone can tell us what the original justification was (I’m skeptical of the “hookers and blow” explanation though, since its not that great a deal for the oil industry, and because it was passed in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, and so I suspect came under a decent amount of scrutiny at the time).
Oddly enough, I never specifically mentioned BP in the post you are replying to here.
And the part of my post you take issue with was really just there to emphasize my support for removing damage caps by indicating my belief that the public would be better served by additional punitive measures being place for companies convicted of wrong-doing.
You did see that I said
right?
RIGHT?
Right Mr. Big-Brain-In-My-Ass Lawyer? You fucking saw that I explained why I said something, and that it really had nothing at all to do with BP, right?
And then you came in here anyway in another one of your they-taught-me-this-trick-in-law-school attempts to derail yet another thread. When you were immediately called on it you tried to dance, but it must have been hard what with that one foot in your fucking mouth.
But yeah, I read the news, asswipe, and I know that polluting, having inadequate safety apparatus, inadequate training, oh and getting your fucking employees blown up and killed are potentially criminal acts, and if convicted, I’d like to see BP go to jail for their crimes.
You’lll notice, fuckwit, that I said “crimes” and “if convicted”. That would seem to repudiate your notion that I am as fascistic as those of your ilk and just want to lock up people I don’t like.
Go fuck yourself, Bricker. You no longer have any credibility here.
ETA: If I ever need a lawyer, Richard Parker is going to be him. Consistently intelligent, logical posts. I don’t even have him on retainer yet, and he tore down Bricker’s shitty sophomoric attempts at diatribe down like they were crepe paper piñatas.
How did you come to that conclusion?
I read a right-leaning article about the spill which downplayed the effects. One of the points the author was celebrating was the fact that ecosystems generally bounce back from a spill like this in 30 years or so. A multi-billion dollar fishing industry x 30 years= 50+ billion. That is just the fishing costs. Imagine what this can do to private property.
Reminder:
No warning issued.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
There’s also the $20 billion dollar tourism industry. Who wants to spend their precious vacation days an oil-covered beach?
Bleeding-heart liberal photographers?
Answered above, theres money to be had by Lousiana advertizing its beaches as a weddng venue for couples that want Goth themed weddings. A black sea, the smell of rotting flesh from the piles of washed up sealife, black-stained sea-birds desperately trying to hang on to life. Its perfect.
For reference, the non-punative damages in the Exxon Valdez spill were around half a billion. Obviously Alaska is much less populated then Lousiana’s coast line so the two cases are only vagully comparable, but just for reference.
Greasers.
How the fuck is it arguing technicalities for Bricker to wonder what laws BP is accused of breaking?
Except Bo didn’t accuse them of breaking any laws, at least not in this thread.