I don't think we have anywhere near enough information to arrive at that conclusion, selective Congressional disclosure not withstanding.
Honest question, why are you defending BP?
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.
lol
Why not just cut to the chase and ask me why I support terrorists and hate freedom?
I'm not "defending BP" so much as I am pointing out the problems with the populist "omg lets bomb the british for this outrage" zeitgeist.
Good diverson. Quacks like a duck and sounds like a duck, must be a duck. You are defending BP and the right is defending BP. My assumption is because it is the popular position for the right to take now.
Good diverson. Quacks like a duck and sounds like a duck, must be a duck. You are defending BP and the right is defending BP. My assumption is because it is the popular position for the right to take now.
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.
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.
QFT
This phony outrage is really starting to irk me. BP hasn't got the money to properly compensate the Gulf coast for the loses in tourism that this massive spill is generating. Not to mention the shrimping industry.
And I'm fed up with people thinking that British Petroleum's "promise" to pay only "legitmate" claims is somehow to solution to the problem. Don't you see how they snuck that "legitmate" in there? That's execuspeak for, "We're going to litigate any real claims into nonexistence and you can't do anything to stop us." I can only hope that Obama has the strength of will to truly go after British Petroleum for the money they owe. Sorry about your pension, but we need to gut this company like a fish.
Sorry, this is more than that. The oil companies are not victims.
Do you have a link for this?
Perhaps there is some confusion, but whether or not Obama "goes after" BP for secondary costs is not dispositive of whether or not people who suffer losses due to the spill will be able to recover those expenses from BP. That's what the court system is there for.
Here you go, the first three links from "florida tourism oil spill."
Oil spill puts Florida's tourism industry on edge - St. Petersburg Times
Gulf oil spill influences Southwest Florida tourism | news-press.com | The News-Press
Florida Tourism Playground Braces for Oil Slick's Arrival
You said:BP hasn't got the money to properly compensate the Gulf coast for the loses in tourism that this massive spill is generating.
You may not be aware, NYC, but the Gulf Coast is famous for its "white sand" beaches, and the whole millions of gallons of gushing oil thing have been kind of messing that up lately. And it's not over. It's impossible to estimate how much damage this oil spill is going to do in the long run, especially since there is no foreseeable plan to stop it.
I'm no expert, but I know that there is plenty a US president can do to make life difficult for a multinational company, and make sure that it is in their best financial interest to pay what they owe without making the innocent people they injured jump through the hoops of litigation.
And by the way, it sure sounds like you're defending BP to me...
I think you're the one who isn't understanding what I'm saying, NYC, or perhaps you're doing it deliberately. Anyway, doesn't matter, I just looked it up:
For Q1 2010 (3/31/2010), BP had a net income of $6.079billion, with cash and equivalents of $6.841billion, total assets of $240.637 billion, total liabilities of $136.558 billion, and total cash from operations of $7.693 billion. taken from here and here.
The tourism industry has an economic impact of $57 billion on Florida’s economy.
So BP's total assets minus total liabilities will be enough to cover Florida's tourism for a little under two years, which doesn't factor in all other sources of state income that the beaches draw, like retirees. And thats not counting Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama. And that is assuming they sell all their assets and liquidate the entire company to pay for the damage they have done. So no, British Pertroleum doesn't have enough money to make the Gulf Coast all better.
Moreover, you seem to be egregiously and/or naively overestimating the ability of the courts to make people whole again after being injured. Let me tell you, it ain't that easy. There is a tremendous burden of proof for plaintiffs in tort cases, not to mention the sheer cost of litigating. It's not like BP is just going to roll over and open its pockets, they have to be forced.
Frankly, I think you are being disingenuous about this, NYC. You'd definitely be singing a different tune if this disaster happened in the Long Island Sound.
So your theory is that because of the oil spill, the travel industry in Florida will take in zero revenue for the next two years?
Beyond the already ongoing compensation process, there will be various class actions, almost all of which will result in settlements. Burdens of proof only come into play when cases go to trial, and there's no chance in hell BP is letting this get in front of a jury.
I don't think that's true.
Honestly, I have no idea. I hope not. But that was just to illustrate the figures we're talking about. The damage caused by this spill is going to last decades, not just two years. I wouldn't be surprised if tourism is cut in half. And, again, we're not just talking about simply tourism, but unquantifiable numbers. How do you compensate a retirement community for people who choose to retire in California instead? How do you compensate the doctors who lose those patients? How do you compensate the restaurants and grocery stores and utilities companies? You're not really thinking big picture here.
Burdens of proof come into play in settlements as well. A company is not going to be as willing to settle when they don't think the other side has a case, nor will the settle for as high as figure as they would otherwise.
Honestly, I have no idea. I hope not.
The damage caused by this spill is going to last decades, not just two years.
The Ixtoc 1 oil spill in Mexico's shallow Campeche Sound three decades ago serves as a distant mirror to today's BP deep-water blowout, and marine scientists are still pondering what they learned from its aftereffects. In terms of blowouts, Ixtoc 1 was a monster — until the BP leak, the largest accidental spill in history. Some 3.3 million barrels of oil gushed over nearly 10 months, spreading an oil slick as far north as Texas, where gooey tar balls washed up on beaches. Surprisingly, Mexican scientists say Campeche Sound itself recovered rather quickly, and a sizable shrimp industry returned to normal within two years.
Luis Soto, a deep-sea biologist, had earned his doctorate from the University of Miami a year before the June 3, 1979, blowout of Ixtoc 1 in 160 feet of water in the Campeche Sound, the shallow, oil-rich continental shelf off the Yucatán Peninsula. Soto and other Mexican marine scientists feared the worst when they examined sea life in the sound once oil workers finally capped the blowout in March 1980. "To be honest, because of our ignorance, we thought everything was going to die," Soto said.
...
As the studies extended into a second year, scientists noticed how fast the marine environment recovered, helped by naturally occurring microbes that feasted on the oil and degraded it. Perhaps due to those microbes, aquatic life along the shoreline in Texas had returned to normal within three years — even as tar balls and tar mats remained along the beaches, sometimes covered by sand, according to Wes Tunnell, a marine biologist at Harte Research Institute of Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi. "We were really surprised," Lizarraga said. "After two years, the conditions were really almost normal."
I wouldn't be surprised if tourism is cut in half.
And, again, we're not just talking about simply tourism, but unquantifiable numbers. How do you compensate a retirement community for people who choose to retire in California instead? How do you compensate the doctors who lose those patients? How do you compensate the restaurants and grocery stores and utilities companies? You're not really thinking big picture here.
Burdens of proof come into play in settlements as well. A company is not going to be as willing to settle when they don't think the other side has a case, nor will the settle for as high as figure as they would otherwise.
More fool you, then.
More important question, or precisely the same question that I asked? My point is that you cannot quantify these things, at least not very easily.More important question, how does a restaurant quanitify the amount of business lost from something like this?
This is just not true. Companies settle things all the time when they would win by going to court. Often going to court and getting aquitted is far more expensive than just settling. Companies will look at the business of it, and then make a decision.
You're not wrong but that doesn't change the truth of what I said, that the burden of proof and the likelihood of success at trial is going to be a factor in whether or not companies decide to settle. Indeed, companies will look at the business of it, and the business of it entails that they screw over people with rightful claims as much as possible.
More important question, or precisely the same question that I asked? My point is that you cannot quantify these things, at least not very easily.
You're not wrong but that doesn't change the truth of what I said, that the burden of proof and the likelihood of success at trial is going to be a factor in whether or not companies decide to settle. Indeed, companies will look at the business of it, and the business of it entails that they screw over people with rightful claims as much as possible.
You call me a hypocrite, I say that I think you're wrong, and that makes me a fool? Interesting.
There is a reason that they try to avoid these legal problems as much as possible.
It invites the ambulance chasers and fraudsters.
I'm sure the residents of the Gulf Coast were doing their best to avoid being the victims of an oil spill. Damn their carelessness![/sarcasm]
Does our government have liability in this for forcing oil companies to drill in deep water, at more risk, than drilling in shallow waters?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?