- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
BP may not have to pay for "economic damages"
Posted on 5/3/10 at 6:37 pm
Posted on 5/3/10 at 6:37 pm
quote:
He(Obama) stopped to speak to several fishermen, assuring them that BP would reimburse them for lost earnings. But reimbursement may be one of the largest battles to come, given that federal law sets a limit of $75 million on BP’s liability for damages, apart from the cleanup costs
ny times
why has no major tv news outlet reported this yet?
6
Posted on 5/3/10 at 6:38 pm to nhassl1
I heard this today on FOX
I dont think it will stand if they were negligent.
I dont think it will stand if they were negligent.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 6:40 pm to MoreOrLes
didnt get a chance to watch the news today. they were definitely a little late reporting this.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 6:42 pm to nhassl1
i think i read there is a trust to pay for the damages, but $75M may come from the company directly... i forget
there is supposed to be a trust formed to cover these losses
there is supposed to be a trust formed to cover these losses
Posted on 5/3/10 at 6:45 pm to MoreOrLes
a reporter asked the WH spokesperson at the noon briefing and he didn't have an answer to the question
Posted on 5/3/10 at 6:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
yea but the trust is tax payer money or a money from a conglomerate of companies. (though i could be wrong, but i know its not ALL from BP) my point is that BP can only be held responsible for 75 million other than cleanup costs. thats a drop in the bucket compared what ppl will lose.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 7:08 pm to nhassl1
The blowout right off of I-10 in November of 2007 I believe it was ... the merchants that were affected I don't think got any money. Court ruled against them.
Anyone remember???
Anyone remember???
Posted on 5/3/10 at 8:10 pm to tiger91
I know its dumb question but shouldnt TransOcean be considered more negligent than BP? It is TransOcean's rig and TransOcean's employees correct?
Posted on 5/3/10 at 8:15 pm to sms151t
quote:
I know its dumb question but shouldnt TransOcean be considered more negligent than BP? It is TransOcean's rig and TransOcean's employees correct?
When it's all said and done I expect TransOcean and Halliburton to take the brunt of it.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 9:01 pm to redstick13
quote:
TransOcean to take the brunt of it.
took out halliburton because they aren't involved in this question.
Does that have anything to do with a modified valve on the BOP? I keep seeing things about it, but never a link, I don't believe.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 9:17 pm to nhassl1
MSNBC ran the story on Keith Olbermann's show today. if you get cable, they are excellent at covering this kind of story. They use NBC people and MSNBC people interchangeably when they have a big story to cover. Brian Williams of NBC was on the Rachel Maddow show.
$75 million is the limit of BP's liability.
some florida US senator is pushing a bill to raise the limit to
$10 billion but its too late for this event.
$75 million is the limit of BP's liability.
some florida US senator is pushing a bill to raise the limit to
$10 billion but its too late for this event.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 9:23 pm to ottothewise
quote:
took out halliburton because they aren't involved in this question.
Weren't they the cementing crew on this well?
Posted on 5/3/10 at 9:26 pm to lsugradman
quote:
Weren't they the cementing crew on this well?
Yes. I was talking about the question that I posted.
About TO modifying a valve, if that's accurate.
Sorry for the confusion.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:19 pm to nhassl1
quote:
some florida US senator is pushing a bill to raise the limit to $10 billion but its too late for this event
correct me if im wrong and i have no doubt that someone will,but isn't there a law similar to this in regard to transporting oil. i think it states something to the effect that oil traffickers for the lack of better word are held liable w/o a $ limitation. i think it was in response to the valdez spill. from a liability stand point any insurer will require a spotless record for insurance which would drive up safety. like i said this is the gist of what i remembered but i could be off a little bit
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:25 pm to nhassl1
quote:LINK
atthew Wald of The New York Times reports the details of the previously obscure Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a $1.6 billion fund financed by a minuscule tax on oil — eight cents per barrel, which Wald says is roughly 0.1%. According to Wald, the fund is designed to pay damage claims resulting from oil spills, though not cleanup and containment costs. But that’s not all it does. It also limits the liability of oil companies like BP.
the "trust fund" is only good for a billion... i think that has the potential to run out pretty quick with 4 states and their tourism being impacted
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:29 pm to nhassl1
I somehow doubt that the $75m cap applies uniformly to all damages.
There would be too big of a moral hazard. A company who would normally be willing to spend $150m to avoid having to pay $20b in damages, would now say "frick it" and just go ahead and risk the $20b because worst case scenario, they only have to pay $75m and save money.
For this reason, the moral hazard that companies that operate in very large scales, tort caps on liability for companies is almost always a bad idea.
There would be too big of a moral hazard. A company who would normally be willing to spend $150m to avoid having to pay $20b in damages, would now say "frick it" and just go ahead and risk the $20b because worst case scenario, they only have to pay $75m and save money.
For this reason, the moral hazard that companies that operate in very large scales, tort caps on liability for companies is almost always a bad idea.
This post was edited on 5/3/10 at 10:34 pm
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:32 pm to Things and stuff
english please... are u saying that they will pay more to save their image?
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:35 pm to lsugradman
quote:
Weren't they the cementing crew on this well?
They also had the mud loggers on location who should have been monitoring the well for flow.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:35 pm to nhassl1
quote:
english please... are u saying that they will pay more to save their image?
No. I'm saying we need to read the actual language of the legislation that this $75m cap is based off of. It likely has holes in it and/or is not all-encompassing.
Posted on 5/3/10 at 10:39 pm to Things and stuff
makes sense
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News