Gulf Oil Disaster.

[sologdin]

IMO, they've set up an agency without Congressional authorization. In other words, they're creating regulations to determine how to distribute the fund without an enabling statute from Congress.

is this the case? if the claims fund is not subject to the control of the united states, and uses no moneys from the united states, what is the argument that it is within the scope of the APA? it can't simply be that BHO shook down BP so accordingly it's an agency sans enabling act OH NOAH!!

[Swordfish]

I'm glad to see he's listening to me. If only he'd get contacts... ah, well, you can't win 'em all.

Lasik FTW.

Maybe he's waiting for universal healthcare?

[Mad Monkey]

He's the Interior Secretary; I think he's enrolled in the same plan that all government employees get. I'm not sure if it covers Lasik though, but he can at least do away with those enormous lenses.

[Guest Raidne]

is this the case? if the claims fund is not subject to the control of the united states, and uses no moneys from the united states, what is the argument that it is within the scope of the APA? it can't simply be that BHO shook down BP so accordingly it's an agency sans enabling act OH NOAH!!

Of course not. But it would be the agency adjudication function (don't really know if it's formal or informal) - with the apparently limiting effects it claims to have on subsequent federal suits - that would, IMO, bring it under the APA.

I could care less about who supposedly "shook down" who - that's all media posturing by both Obama and the Republicans.

Lev - I've said about million times that I think they should have a written agreement that's treatment as a formal settlement. So I guess the short answer is "no."

Let's play that same game the other way. Lev! Are you saying that a Gulf fisherman who files a claim now for $10K and is only offered $1K should be precluded from filing any other claim for the damages he's actually owed later on, and that there's some grounds for the legal enforceability for that outcome? Or are you, in fact, just saying that everything the Obama administration does is a rainbow of sunshine cloaked in the many colors of righteous wonderfulness such that any action undertaken by said administration becomes infused with the goodness of puppies and ice cream by sheer fiat power?

[The Progressive]

a Gulf fisherman who files a claim now for $10K and is only offered $1K should be precluded from filing any other claim for the damages he's actually owed later on

First, for people with legitimate claims and the receipts to back it up, I haven't seen anything that would substantiate your hypethetical scenario here where Feinberg would squeeze them in favor of BP.

Second, where in the agreement does it stated that disastified claimants are precluded from filing any other claims later on?

[Guest Raidne]

First, for people with legitimate claims and the receipts to back it up, I haven't seen anything that would substantiate your hypethetical scenario here where Feinberg would squeeze them in favor of BP.

This is what bothers me about lay observers of legal stuff.

Sometimes cases don't come out perfectly the first time. It's an imperfect process. It doesn't mean anyone "sqeezed" anyone. It's not like everytime I draft a decision overturning the previous one there's some devious bastard who just wanted to screw somebody over for some insidious reason behind it. We're just humans - we have time constraints, imperfect evidentiary records, and an overwhelming case load.

That's why it's a good idea to have a right to appeal. Which I'm not seeing here.

Second, where in the agreement does it stated that disastified claimants are precluded from filing any other claims later on?

Let's just stop at "where in the agreement." Or even "the agreement." Because I don't know - where is a hard copy of the agreement? Find me one, and I'll show you. Otherwise, all I can do is refer to you articles in the news.

[Nymeria Sand]

And it just got worse. Apparently, a robotic sub collided with the well cap, and they had to remove the containment system. Oil is now gushing again.

No link for that yet, but it's all over Twitter.

[The Progressive]

Raidne,

The text of the agreement as released by the White House that I linked to in an earlier post stated that "dissatisfied claimants maintain all current rights under law, including the right to go to court or to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund."

[Guest Raidne]

Raidne,

The text of the agreement as released by the White House that I linked to in an earlier post stated that "dissatisfied claimants maintain all current rights under law, including the right to go to court or to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund."

Ah, I see the link to the factsheet now (which, btw, is not actually the text of the agreement, if any such thing exists, but I'll take it as such seeing as we don't seem to have anything else...).

That's interesting, and contrary to what I read in press releases earlier. What will the standard of review be? De novo? Clearly erroneous? Will it be like reviewing an arbitration agreement, or an agency decision, or like nothing ever happened?

What would happen if our hypothetical Gulf fisherman was dissatisfied, took his claim through the regular Court channels, and the Court found that he actually wasn't entitled to anything. Would he have to pay the $1000 back?

I just don't understand why this can't just be a fund, and instead has to be a whole adjudicatory system outside of the existing Constitutionally/Congressionally authorized Court system.

[Nymeria Sand]

BP's containment cap over well removed

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/23/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

BP's containment cap over a ruptured Gulf of Mexico well was removed Wednesday after a robotic vehicle apparently bumped into a cap vent and closed it, raising the possibility of hydrates forming, said Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's response manager.

Allen also said that two oil recovery workers in the Gulf of Mexico have died. One died in a swimming accident; the other was an operator of a boat, he said.

[Swordfish]

BP's containment cap over well removed

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/23/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

And even worse, there appears to be a storm coming.

[Guest Raidne]

Goddamn it.

[lokisnow]

Note that all this shit started happening AFTER Sarah Palin started praying for God to fix the oil spill.

Clearly we have a verifiable cause and effect here!

Can anyone claim that SP would not have claimed prayer&God victory if the leak had been contained this week instead? If she was going to claim victory, she's got to be prepared to claim responsibility as well. Palin prayed for it to get better and shit got worse, clearly she's responsible.

[Swordfish]

Note that all this shit started happening AFTER Sarah Palin started praying for God to fix the oil spill.

Clearly we have a verifiable cause and effect here!

Can anyone claim that SP would not have claimed prayer&God victory if the leak had been contained this week instead? If she was going to claim victory, she's got to be prepared to claim responsibility as well. Palin prayed for it to get better and shit got worse, clearly she's responsible.

:rolleyes:

I find it fascinating how obsessed with palin some people are, and moderately disgusted whenever someone shows this kind of politically motivated glee at wholly inappropriate times.

Do you think the oil spill is some kind of vindication for your palin obsession?

because I find that..... Odd.

[TerraPrime]

And it just got worse. Apparently, a robotic sub collided with the well cap, and they had to remove the containment system. Oil is now gushing again.

No link for that yet, but it's all over Twitter.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

*facepalm*

[DanteGabriel]

My friend, who lives in Boston but came from Louisiana and has family there, says the rain has oil in it now...

[Gertrude]

I haven't heard anything about that. I would be very interested to see if this is verified. That would be horrific :stillsick:

[Nymeria Sand]

My friend, who lives in Boston but came from Louisiana and has family there, says the rain has oil in it now...

Before anyone tries to say that oil doesn't evaporate, I'm going to state categorically that it does, especially the lighter crudes.

From CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/oil_spill/light_crude_health_professionals.htm

Light crude contains volatile organic compounds which evaporate. Thus, light crude oil will lose up to 10 to 15% of its volume immediately, and up to 25% of its volume within 24 hours. How much of its volume is lost depends on the surface-to-volume ratio of the bulk oil. Events that disperse the oil, such as a well blowout, can affect this. Thus, crude oil in a pool or tank will retain more of its volatile components than crude in an oil slick.[2]

When oil is spilled in the ocean, it initially spreads primarily on the surface of the water. How much it spreads depends on its relative density and composition. The oil slick formed may remain cohesive, or, if seas are rough, it may break up. Waves, water currents, and wind can force the oil slick to drift over large areas, impacting the open ocean, coastal areas, and marine and terrestrial habitats in the path of the drift.

Oil that contains volatile organic compounds partially evaporates, losing 20 to 40 percent of its mass and becoming denser and more viscous. A small percentage of oil may dissolve in the water. The oil residue also can spread almost invisibly in the water or combine with water to form a thick mousse-like substance. Part of the oil waste may sink with suspended particulate matter, and the remainder eventually congeals into sticky tar balls.

From MMS:

http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/120/120BG.PDF

See "Physics and Chemistry of Oil Evaporation" on page 1.

[Noontidal]

The catch here is, that while there may be trace amounts, this is one of those issues that exists more in their heads than in reality.... i.e. if you are convinced that the rain is oil, it will certainly seem that way. Even in cases where there is none.

[TerraPrime]

The catch here is, that while there may be trace amounts, this is one of those issues that exists more in their heads than in reality.... i.e. if you are convinced that the rain is oil, it will certainly seem that way. Even in cases where there is none.

But this is easily verifiable. Weather people collect rainfalls as part of their data. Just send the collected rain for analysis, and it can be proven either way whether there's trace amount of oil in the rain drops.

Personally, I think the evaporation of the volatile organics is real, but I am not sure that it will come down as rain, for the simple issue of organic compounds not being water soluble. The evaporated oil will probably cling to tree leaves or other vegetations, or the outside of houses. Those then may get washed back down during rainfall. Just my guess.