Gulf Oil Disaster.

[ThinkerX]

ETA: And my working theory for why BP is still the major presence on the ground is that having it any other way lessens their liability in paying for the damage.

Dream on. BP controls the cleanup, controls access to the oil cleanup area (even previously public/private property). And ultimately, BP will fght all claims in court and refuse payments for years to decades. We went through this mess with the Exxon Valdez oil spill here in Alaska.

Even money says that right now, there is an entire team at BP drafting (legal) opinions that effectiively say 'We are not going to pay for this regardless of our public stance'. And they will get away with this for a long time to come.

[TerraPrime]

Even money says that right now, there is an entire team at BP drafting (legal) opinions that effectiively say 'We are not going to pay for this regardless of our public stance'. And they will get away with this for a long time to come.

BP would be negligent in their duties to their shareholders if they were not doing this, I'd contend.

[Guest Raidne]

Dream on.

About what? I'm really pretty convinced I wasn't advocating anything there about whether BP will or will not pay for the oil spill.

We went through this mess with the Exxon Valdez oil spill here in Alaska.

In all fairness, Alaska bends over backwards telling Exxon how grateful they are that they paid so much in cleanup costs and that the state could never have afforded it on its own all the time.

Not that I have any interest in defending Exxon.

Even money says that right now, there is an entire team at BP drafting (legal) opinions that effectiively say 'We are not going to pay for this regardless of our public stance'. And they will get away with this for a long time to come.

BP would be negligent in their duties to their shareholders if they were not doing this, I'd contend.

TP is right. But I'll still take that bet because I bet the "team" is a big law firm contracted by BP working at their own offices. And really, I bet they're focusing on actually paying for cleanup costs, but not paying individual claims for eternity.

And, come on, they probably will get thousands of fraudulent claims in addition to the thousands of good ones, and it'll be tough to tell which are which. The only thing they can do to differentiate them is litigate them all and let the process work it out. If people can present an airtight case, they'll settle, and if not, not. What else do you want them to do - just pay everything?

[ThinkerX]

In all fairness, Alaska bends over backwards telling Exxon how grateful they are that they paid so much in cleanup costs and that the state could never have afforded it on its own all the time.

Very true. The alaskan state government, is for the most part, owned by the oil industry.

That said, maybe you missed the comment of Obama's a week or three back? Rough paraphrase: 'We need BP'. That, combined with a few other things, tells me that deals are being cut behind the scenes at the federal level (and certainly the state levels as well) to keep BP afloat, even if that means not paying out on claims known to be legit.

BP would be negligent in their duties to their shareholders if they were not doing this, I'd contend

Another stretch of pavement on the road to hell...or in this case economic expediency over energy crisis/environmental catastrophe.

[Guest Raidne]

Another stretch of pavement on the road to hell...or in this case economic expediency over energy crisis/environmental catastrophe.

This is where I always disagree with both liberals and conservatives.

Where I disagree with liberals: no, there's nothing wrong with BP caring about shareholder value first. That's what they are supposed to do. They are a corporation, i.e. a profit-producing machine. That is all they are designed to be, and they are violating their ethical duties by doing anything else.

Where I disagree with conservatives: that's why the government should be leading the clean-up effort and overseeing this whole mess. You should never have a corporation running anything where maximizing their own profit is not the primary objective, even if you think it's related to to the public's primary objective - minimizing damage from the spill. They're still not 100% related, and I guarantee you, decisions will be made that aren't in the public's interest because there isn't a 100% overlap in interests.

[ThinkerX]

Where I disagree with liberals: no, there's nothing wrong with BP caring about shareholder value first. That's what they are supposed to do. They are a corporation, i.e. a profit-producing machine. That is all they are designed to be, and they are violating their ethical duties by doing anything else.

Pyschopaths have ethics? Because, in terms of 'personality', that is how corporations behave. And by making corporations 'persons', that only expands the range of abusive behaviour they are free to engage in.

My point stands: BP will do its best to deny *ALL* claims, even fully legit ones, all the while conducting a massive propaganda campaign about how much they are spending to clean up the mess. There was some 'gag order' type malarky right after the platform first blew; I figure we can expect to see a lot more of that.

[Guest Raidne]

Pyschopaths have ethics? Because, in terms of 'personality', that is how corporations behave. And by making corporations 'persons', that only expands the range of abusive behaviour they are free to engage in.

My point stands: BP will do its best to deny *ALL* claims, even fully legit ones, all the while conducting a massive propaganda campaign about how much they are spending to clean up the mess. There was some 'gag order' type malarky right after the platform first blew; I figure we can expect to see a lot more of that.

I don't think you're really reading/understanding what I'm writing here.

The Corporation, the documentary you're referencing, makes some great points about corporations. For instance, that they shouldn't have personhood status - and I agree with that and have started threads on that topic.

But here's the thing - it's really simple - you don't want to have different expectations for corporations - they are what they are: profit-making machines. And that's what they should be. But, I sure as hell don't want everything in my country run by profit-making machines. That's the limit of the free market and that's when you want government involvement.

My two cents. I'm saying all this to point the point that BP should not be in charge of the recovery operation in the Gulf. But they are, because if the government took over, it would help break BP's chain of liability. Which is not to say that won't contest claims anyway, for sure, just that it would be easier for them to if the government took over. That's true, but I would argue that we should in no way care about that right now.

[ThinkerX]

Disturbing if true...and it probably is.

http://downstreamventures.yuku.com/topic/3712

[Annelise]

That's true, but I would argue that we should in no way care about that right now.

Turtles and birds are cute and it's sad to see them coated in oil but too bad for them, we aren't an environmentally-minded country.

People aren't dying. And as long as that's the case, and that the majority of the country's livelihoods aren't at risk, people will shake their heads and curse at BP and say Obama should be doing whatever, but they don't want the government to take over and they sure don't want their wallets to be put on the hook for this mess. This is why I think the net of blame for the response really needs to be a lot wider than BP and Obama. I've heard it called a national emergency but few outside the affected areas act like it.

[Sad King Billy]

Does anyone have an idea whether the plug will hold?

[The Iceman of the North]

Does anyone have an idea whether the plug will hold?

I'll get back to you on that. I'm a bit busy now, but I promise I'll have an answer for you within a couple of months,

[kairparavel]

If you've earned money helping to clean up the spill, those earnings will be subracted from your BP claim.

Nice.

[DanteGabriel]

BP caught Photoshopping pictures of their command center to eliminate embarassing empty screens:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/bps-photoshopped-command_n_652633.html

How much petty, venal bullshit can these pigfuckers stack on top of their egregious criminal negligence? To the lampposts with these swine.

[Guest Raidne]

I cannot even see straight after reading this thread anymore due to the fog caused by the steam coming out of my ears. I'm going to have to take a break.

Also, A, I know that's not your point of view, but there's more to the devastation of habitat then the cuteness of the wildlife affected.

[Zap Rowsdower]

Team Obama on the Gulf: Dizzy with Success!

[The Progressive]

Been reading some news article about how microbes and evaporation led to significant disappearance of oil spill in the Gulf area ........ large areas of fisheries have even been reopened.

[sologdin]

nah. but there's plenty of surplus benzene, and the major growth area of the local economy down here is metastatic malignancy.

there's nothing wrong with BP caring about shareholder value first. That's what they are supposed to do. They are a corporation, i.e. a profit-producing machine. That is all they are designed to be, and they are violating their ethical duties by doing anything else.

this appears to support the proposition that BP will rightfully attempt to deny meritorious claims. i understand why the corporation might initially do this, but it's a symptom of idiot defense attorneys who refuse to recommend settlement of meritorious claims, which is a myopia that harms the company greater in the long-term than any gain made in the short-term. it's most manifest in cases where the law provides for fee-shifting, but even the routine meritorious case involves satisfaction of a judgment plus one's own attorney's fee.

FFS, it may be ethical for the corporation to be myopic, but their fucking rambo lawyers need to get their tickets punched.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

So I've noticed that nobody seems to have mentioned the fact that they stopped the spill... is nobody happy about this?

I mean, sure maybe the extent is not fully understood, and yeah the govt and BP are probably going to be bickering for years about fault and clean up costs and everything... but at least, with the well no longer gushing, we have a problem of a defined spill, not one that could continue to balloon up.

[Nymeria Sand]

It's still too early to celebrate. The well hasn't been killed--it's not quite over just yet.

[Annelise]

Also, A, I know that's not your point of view, but there's more to the devastation of habitat then the cuteness of the wildlife affected.

I do know that; you have mistaken my POV. I'm talking in terms of the face of story, so to speak, and national perception. IMO, pictures of oil covered wildlife simply lack the impact to move most Americans to the level of indignation and action generally afforded a national emergency. I think it's extremely relevant to look at the public in this regard, as I think the public absolutely helped shape the official response/s with our own, which, IMO, was muted due to the lack of human casualty and a certain amount of indifference toward the environment, apart from how it stands to affect people.

ETA: Further, I think the apportioning of blame and responsibility should reflect this rather than limiting it to BP and Obama. Frankly, Obama is short term - 4 years, maybe 8. I feel it's at least as useful to take an honest look at national attitudes if we want better next time, or to avoid a next time.