• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BP eyes showdown with US govt on liability-BP source

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Link
BP eyes showdown with US govt on liability-BP source | Reuters

Quote(BP has said it will pay for the clean-up and direct damages to those affected by the spill, such as fisherman. But the source said the moratorium was a government decision, and so the costs related to it were a different matter.)

However one feels about the Oil Spill and BP actions and failures, admissions and denials.
They (BP) have admitted that they will pick up all the clean up costs and compensate genuine costs caused by the Oil Leaks.

However what the Obama administration is proposing that BP pick up the costs for decisions the Government makes.

Do you think this is fair?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Link
BP eyes showdown with US govt on liability-BP source | Reuters

Quote(BP has said it will pay for the clean-up and direct damages to those affected by the spill, such as fisherman. But the source said the moratorium was a government decision, and so the costs related to it were a different matter.)

However one feels about the Oil Spill and BP actions and failures, admissions and denials.
They (BP) have admitted that they will pick up all the clean up costs and compensate genuine costs caused by the Oil Leaks.

However what the Obama administration is proposing that BP pick up the costs for decisions the Government makes.

Do you think this is fair?
BP is doing what they are supposed to and now the White House wants them to pay for their policy choices regarding off shore drilling.

I'd tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Classic shtick of "oil companies are evil."
The populists will eat it up.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Link
BP eyes showdown with US govt on liability-BP source | Reuters

Quote(BP has said it will pay for the clean-up and direct damages to those affected by the spill, such as fisherman. But the source said the moratorium was a government decision, and so the costs related to it were a different matter.)

However one feels about the Oil Spill and BP actions and failures, admissions and denials.
They (BP) have admitted that they will pick up all the clean up costs and compensate genuine costs caused by the Oil Leaks.

However what the Obama administration is proposing that BP pick up the costs for decisions the Government makes.

Do you think this is fair?
Yes, it's fair. When there is a major environmental crisis, obviously the government is going to have to make some decisions. The people who caused the oil spill are ultimately responsible for the costs of those decisions. It is not reasonable to expect the government to consult with BP to minimize costs before taking any action. The government's priority should be to protect the American people and American industry, not to minimize BP's expenses stemming from their own ****up.


How logical would you find this argument: "Yes, I burned down the Acme Widget Factory...but it was their decision to lay off all those workers afterwards. Therefore, I'm not responsible for their costs."
 
Last edited:

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, it's fair. When there is a major environmental crisis, obviously the government is going to have to make some decisions. The people who caused the oil spill are ultimately responsible for the costs of those decisions. It is not reasonable to expect the government to consult with BP to minimize costs before taking any action. The government's priority should be to protect the American people and American industry, not to minimize BP's expenses stemming from their own ****up.


How logical would you find this argument: "Yes, I burned down the Acme Widget Factory...but it was their decision to lay off all those workers afterwards. Therefore, I'm not responsible for their costs."
Uhh, the government called the moretoriam on drilling and you think BP should compensate the workers who lost out on that income.

What the hell is this world coming to...
 

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,100
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
BP should and has acknowledged it will pay for the spill and are doing everything possible to try and contain the leak. That is where its responsibility finishes imo.

I am getting fed up of Obama's continuing attacks on the company as if it helps dragging down its shares and threatening to prevent dividends, he must be the only person who keeps on calling it British Petroleum.
His use of this spill to try and divert attention from his failures domestically fails and sooner or later UK Government will respond to this due to the importance of BP to British taxpayers and pensioners.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
10,133
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No.

BP should pay for the costs of clean-up, direct damages, and costs concerning rehabilitation of the damaged environment. Costs that are avoidable e.g., post-leak policy choices should not be BP's responsibility, even if the policy choices make regulatory sense. The policy choices should rest on their own merits. Expecting BP to pay the economic costs of others for policy choices would be little different from expecting a driver's insurance to pay not just for the accident he caused, but other accidents that resulted on another street after the police chose to divert traffic to that street on a temporary basis.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,127
Reaction score
12,044
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
BP should and has acknowledged it will pay for the spill and are doing everything possible to try and contain the leak. That is where its responsibility finishes imo.

I am getting fed up of Obama's continuing attacks on the company as if it helps dragging down its shares and threatening to prevent dividends, he must be the only person who keeps on calling it British Petroleum.
His use of this spill to try and divert attention from his failures domestically fails and sooner or later UK Government will respond to this due to the importance of BP to British taxpayers and pensioners.
It was not Obama that started the British Petroleum thing or the attacks against BP. That was politicians in the states involved, and that included floating ideas of nationalisation and worse.. and that more than anything drives down stock prices not Obama's comments. Obama has hardly hid behind this to divert attention from his supposed domestic failures.. if anything he has done the opposite. It is only when the pressure from local politicians and the media got too bad that he started to show more public hands on approach.

While Obama has a lot to answer for, just as BP has, blaming him for things others started and continue to promote is just not right.

As I stated before elsewhere.. BP should pay exactly the same as Exxon did with Valdez (relatively speaking). Since Exxon has gotten away with NOT paying in full the damages then so should BP also.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How logical would you find this argument: "Yes, I burned down the Acme Widget Factory...but it was their decision to lay off all those workers afterwards. Therefore, I'm not responsible for their costs."
Not quite the same. More like, I burned down Acme Widget Factory, but the workers at Emca Widget Factory were all laid off and Acme must pay those workers for their lost jobs...
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
As I stated before elsewhere.. BP should pay exactly the same as Exxon did with Valdez (relatively speaking). Since Exxon has gotten away with NOT paying in full the damages then so should BP also.
Where are you getting the idea that Exxon didn't pay for their oil spill? They paid for the entire cost of cleanup and hundreds of millions in actual damages. The thing that the courts were going back and forth on was punitive damages.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Link
BP eyes showdown with US govt on liability-BP source | Reuters

Quote(BP has said it will pay for the clean-up and direct damages to those affected by the spill, such as fisherman. But the source said the moratorium was a government decision, and so the costs related to it were a different matter.)

However one feels about the Oil Spill and BP actions and failures, admissions and denials.
They (BP) have admitted that they will pick up all the clean up costs and compensate genuine costs caused by the Oil Leaks.

However what the Obama administration is proposing that BP pick up the costs for decisions the Government makes.

Do you think this is fair?
If the government makes a stupid decision, then the government should have to pick up the tab that was run up because of that decision.

Example: BP started burning the oil on day 2 of the spill. The government made them stop. Now the oil is invading the marsh.

Ultimately, the government has to take responsibility for it's actions. ****ing up and passing it off on BP won't work. It's not only unfair, but it just ain't right.
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Where are you getting the idea that Exxon didn't pay for their oil spill? They paid for the entire cost of cleanup and hundreds of millions in actual damages. The thing that the courts were going back and forth on was punitive damages.
Punitive damages eventually paid were a minute fraction of the amount that was originally ordered.

In other words Exxon got off very lightly as regards punishment.

It is to be hoped that BP (with a far worse record of regulatory compliance) do not get the same degree of leniency that Exxon received.
I am not sure whether Exxon has either paid or assisted in cleaning up the area affected and continuing to be affected / polluted by the spill from the tanker.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Punitive damages eventually paid were a minute fraction of the amount that was originally ordered.

In other words Exxon got off very lightly as regards punishment.
Punitive damages are not actual damages. Exxon paid for every bit of the cleanup, just like BP will pay for every bit of the cleanup. Whether or not there are punitive damages has nothing to do with leniency.
 

The Uncola

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
718
Reaction score
255
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Link
BP eyes showdown with US govt on liability-BP source | Reuters

Quote(BP has said it will pay for the clean-up and direct damages to those affected by the spill, such as fisherman. But the source said the moratorium was a government decision, and so the costs related to it were a different matter.)

However one feels about the Oil Spill and BP actions and failures, admissions and denials.
They (BP) have admitted that they will pick up all the clean up costs and compensate genuine costs caused by the Oil Leaks.

However what the Obama administration is proposing that BP pick up the costs for decisions the Government makes.

Do you think this is fair?
I'll take on "what's fair about this," right after the big oil apologists answer as to:

What's fair about destroying large portions of OUR environment and destroying many thousands of people lives and causing irreparable destruction to the only Planet the human race has to live on for the foreseeable future, all in the name a little extra profit.

Screw being "fair" to them. I want their heads on sticks AND they and the descendants stripped of every penny, now and forever.
 
Last edited:

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'll take on "what's fair about this," right after the big oil apologists answer as to:

What's fair about destroying large portions of OUR envirornment and destroying many thousands of people lives and causing irrepairible destruction to the only Planet the human race has to live on for the forseeable future, all in the name a little extra profit.

Screw being "fair" to them. I want the heads on sticks AND they and the desendants stripped of every penny, now and forever.
Why did the government refuse to allow measures to be taken to lessen the effects of the oil spill? You all cover for Obama, saying it's BP's responsibility to clean it up, but Obama still has the authority to tell BP what they can and can't do, to clean it up. How smart is that?

I hope Minnesota never gets another dime of oil revenue.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
17,166
Reaction score
10,032
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
BP is doing what they are supposed to and now the White House wants them to pay for their policy choices regarding off shore drilling.

I'd tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Classic shtick of "oil companies are evil."
The populists will eat it up.
BP is doing what they are suppose to be doing? Please bring some evidence to the table...

It is a principal of law if you borrow or lease something of mine you must return it to its pre-leased state. If you don't return it to its pre-leased state on your own and I incur costs to remedy the damages, you may be held liable for those damages. I believe prinicipal specifically extents to minerals extraction. BP has the right to drill, but the do not have the right to leave the property holder (the US government) with damaged goods as a result of their drilling. If the government incurs any costs to remedy the situation, it can collect those costs from the offender.

The government has hardly over-reached here. There has been no impounding of assets. They could have thrown BP-America into receivership until the matter was settled, frozen cash, demanded a performance bond... any number of things. Instead, the government has relied on the good faith and credit of BP. Many of thing the government as been far too trusting in the circumstance. After all, BP's obligations are to its shareholders and thus will seek to do the absolute minimum to fix this.

I can not believe the number of people that want to defend a foreign company and attack their own government. The government is the administrative arm of the people of the United States. It's the citizens of the United States, generally all of us, but very specifically those that live in or near the Gulf Coast that have been armed.... actually in an accident that probably will be as devastating as 911 when this is done. Yet, many wish to side with a British Company over their own fellow citizens. After 911 anyone that had anything to say contrary to US policy as challenged for their patriotism. So, obviously those the side with BP are un-American...
 
Last edited:

ADK_Forever

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,706
Reaction score
1,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BP is doing what they are suppose to be doing? Please bring some evidence to the table...

It is a principal of law if you borrow or lease something of mine you must return it to its pre-leased state. If you don't return it to its pre-leased state on your own and I incur costs to remedy the damages, you may be held liable for those damages. I believe prinicipal specifically extents to minerals extraction. BP has the right to drill, but the do not have the right to leave the property holder (the US government) with damaged goods as a result of their drilling. If the government incurs any costs to remedy the situation, it can collect those costs from the offender.

The government has hardly over-reached here. There has been no impounding of assets. They could have thrown BP-America into receivership until the matter was settled, frozen cash, demanded a performance bond... any number of things. Instead, the government has relied on the good faith and credit of BP. Many of thing the government as been far too trusting in the circumstance. After all, BP's obligations are to its shareholders and thus will seek to do the absolute minimum to fix this.

I can not believe the number of people that want to defend a foreign company and attack their own government. The government is the administrative arm of the people of the United States. It's the citizens of the United States, generally all of us, but very specifically those that live in or near the Gulf Coast that have been armed.... actually in an accident that probably will be as devastating as 911 when this is done. Yet, many wish to side with a British Company over their own fellow citizens. After 911 anyone that had anything to say contrary to US policy as challenged for their patriotism. So, obviously those the side with BP are un-American...

This is what rightees do. This is what they've been doing since before Obama was even sworn in. Any excuse to attack him, even if it's at the expense of their country. It's pathetic.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'll take on "what's fair about this," right after the big oil apologists answer as to:

What's fair about destroying large portions of OUR environment and destroying many thousands of people lives and causing irreparable destruction to the only Planet the human race has to live on for the foreseeable future, all in the name a little extra profit.

Screw being "fair" to them. I want their heads on sticks AND they and the descendants stripped of every penny, now and forever.
Oil is a vital part of our entire economy and way of life. As existing fields keep declining, we will be forced to develop even more of these deepwater sites. Will the companies that develop these sites do so to make a profit.. yes, however if they do not, we will all (including you) be forced to undergo a massive and abrupt transformation that will effect us in all aspects of our daily life, from medicine, to plastic, etc.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I'll take on "what's fair about this," right after the big oil apologists answer as to:

What's fair about destroying large portions of OUR environment and destroying many thousands of people lives and causing irreparable destruction to the only Planet the human race has to live on for the foreseeable future, all in the name a little extra profit.
I wasn't aware that anyone was saying it was "fair" to do so. I was under the impression that pretty much everyone agreed that BP was liable for the costs of cleanup. Have you been watching a different situation than I have?

Screw being "fair" to them. I want their heads on sticks AND they and the descendants stripped of every penny, now and forever.
:lol:

Do you support the death penalty in non-oil related situations?
Do you support punishing the children of non-oil related criminals?

BP is doing what they are suppose to be doing? Please bring some evidence to the table...

It is a principal of law if you borrow or lease something of mine you must return it to its pre-leased state. If you don't return it to its pre-leased state on your own and I incur costs to remedy the damages, you may be held liable for those damages. I believe prinicipal specifically extents to minerals extraction. BP has the right to drill, but the do not have the right to leave the property holder (the US government) with damaged goods as a result of their drilling. If the government incurs any costs to remedy the situation, it can collect those costs from the offender.
Again, where is anyone disputing this? BP is entirely liable for the costs of cleanup.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
17,166
Reaction score
10,032
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I
Again, where is anyone disputing this? BP is entirely liable for the costs of cleanup.

This is not a question of intent, its a question of means.... If the direct and indirect costs and government fines get to be too onerous, BP, as a matter of survival, will go Chapter XI. Moveover, BP has ONLY pledged to remedy direct costs. There too, direct costs have a degree of subjectivity to them.

Jim Cramer actually thinks they are toast. http://www.thestreet.com/story/10777966/bp-is-toast.html
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is not a question of intent, its a question of means.... If the direct and indirect costs and government fines get to be too onerous, BP, as a matter of survival, will go Chapter XI.

Jim Cramer actually thinks they are toast. BP Is Toast! - TheStreet
Jim Cramer is a moron, so that doesn't really sway me. I would be absolutely astonished if BP was forced to enter bankruptcy, and it looks like the vast majority of the market agrees.

Moveover, BP has ONLY pledged to remedy direct costs. There too, direct costs have a degree of subjectivity to them.
Again, you have to be clear about the distinction between cleanup costs and secondary costs. BP is paying all cleanup costs, which was what I was referring to. They've said that since the beginning, and there's no question about whether they will fall through on that. For secondary costs (e.g. lost wages/tourism revenue), BP has remained noncommittal on exactly how far beyond their obligations they will go, but they will likely end up paying out most of that amount anyways, whether voluntarily or through lawsuits.
 

TBone

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
673
Reaction score
153
Location
Phoenix
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If the government makes a stupid decision, then the government should have to pick up the tab that was run up because of that decision.

Example: BP started burning the oil on day 2 of the spill. The government made them stop. Now the oil is invading the marsh.

Ultimately, the government has to take responsibility for it's actions. ****ing up and passing it off on BP won't work. It's not only unfair, but it just ain't right.
So, BP is the Victim here? That dog don't hunt. The reason the right and the pundits are up in arms is soley because Obama's name is on it.

Honest question, should Obama just stand back and let BP not pay anything. I ain't no lawyer, but if you cannot do business or you cannot work because some company f+++ up, then they need to pay.

BP cut corners, they went against suggestions from Haliburton (sic), this was not an honest fu.
 

TBone

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
673
Reaction score
153
Location
Phoenix
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
BP is doing what they are supposed to and now the White House wants them to pay for their policy choices regarding off shore drilling.

I'd tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Classic shtick of "oil companies are evil."
The populists will eat it up.
Sorry, this is more than that. The oil companies are not victims.
 

TBone

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
673
Reaction score
153
Location
Phoenix
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Again, you have to be clear about the distinction between cleanup costs and secondary costs. BP is paying all cleanup costs, which was what I was referring to. They've said that since the beginning, and there's no question about whether they will fall through on that. For secondary costs (e.g. lost wages/tourism revenue), BP has remained noncommittal on exactly how far beyond their obligations they will go, but they will likely end up paying out most of that amount anyways, whether voluntarily or through lawsuits.
And they should pay up the ye yang for punitive costs. This was not a simple mistake, this was due and wilful neglect on their part. I ain't feeling no sorrow for BP.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
And they should pay up the ye yang for punitive costs. This was not a simple mistake, this was due and wilful neglect on their part. I ain't feeling no sorrow for BP.
I don't think we have anywhere near enough information to arrive at that conclusion, selective Congressional disclosure not withstanding.
 
Top Bottom