- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- 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
How much in punitive damages alone
Posted on 5/17/10 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 5/17/10 at 5:11 pm
will BP be hit with? Exxon got hit with 5 billion at first and by the end it was down to 500 million. Any guesses?
1
Posted on 5/17/10 at 6:17 pm to Elleshoe
3-5 billion that will stick, the rig sinking already cost them a billion and another billion at least to stop the well.
Posted on 5/17/10 at 6:34 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:I thought the rig belonged to Transocean. Plus, I bet Lloyds of London gets to pay for the rig.
3-5 billion that will stick, the rig sinking already cost them a billion and another billion at least to stop the well.
Posted on 5/17/10 at 8:09 pm to Diamondawg
You will not know for at least a decade. BP will follow Exxon's script and take to appeals where it will be for yrs. So far, everything I've read says the seafood are still in good shape. If that is in fact true, I would guess the shrimpers are only out the amt they would of made, minus the amount BP is already paying them.
Posted on 5/17/10 at 8:14 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
I thought the rig belonged to Transocean. Plus, I bet Lloyds of London gets to pay for the rig.
Yes. The rig was insured and it was owned by Transocean, not BP.
Posted on 5/18/10 at 9:59 am to TheHiddenFlask
punitive are capped at $75 million. there was some legislation going through congress last week that tried to up it to $10 billion, not sure how it did though.
Posted on 5/18/10 at 10:04 am to halleburton
quote:
there was some legislation going through congress last week that tried to up it to $10 billion, not sure how it did though.
Democrats' attempts to bring the legislation to the floor last week were blocked by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Democrats are expected to try again this week to bring the measure up for consideration.
Murkowski, a drilling supporter, has received almost $300,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. While Murkowski said that she supports raising the cap, she argued that the $10 billion figure would prohibit all but the biggest of oil companies from drilling oil offshore:
Her husband also works for BP
This post was edited on 5/18/10 at 10:22 am
Posted on 5/18/10 at 10:18 am to guttata
it depends on what happens with the plume that is 4,000 feet under water, heading for Florida keys.
If there is a publicity nightmare, such as the actual proven loss of the coral reef, you can triple the damages.
If nothing much additionally comes of this, the practical limits will be the fishing industry's real losses and some piddling amount paid to resort hotels which can show cancellations.
If there is a publicity nightmare, such as the actual proven loss of the coral reef, you can triple the damages.
If nothing much additionally comes of this, the practical limits will be the fishing industry's real losses and some piddling amount paid to resort hotels which can show cancellations.
Posted on 5/18/10 at 11:38 am to ottothewise
quote:
While Murkowski said that she supports raising the cap, she argued that the $10 billion figure would prohibit all but the biggest of oil companies from drilling oil offshore:
This is exactly rite, should they raise it hell yea, to 10 billion no way in hell.
Posted on 5/18/10 at 11:42 am to GREENHEAD22
Whats the fine for not calling La. 811 before you dig? 
Posted on 5/18/10 at 11:49 am to GREENHEAD22
Make it 50 Billion as far as I'm concerned.
Once the tar balls are confirmed and more begin washing up. BPs rep will be tarnished and the cost will skyrocket.
Once the tar balls are confirmed and more begin washing up. BPs rep will be tarnished and the cost will skyrocket.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 11:26 am to Mudminnow
BP has a 65% stake in Mississippi Canyon Block 252. Anadarko has 25% and Japanese player Mitsui the remaining 10%. All are liable for costs on a proportionate basis.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 11:28 am to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
BP has a 65% stake in Mississippi Canyon Block 252. Anadarko has 25% and Japanese player Mitsui the remaining 10%. All are liable for costs on a proportionate basis.
I think Anadarko is covered by insurance until their interest expense exceeds somewhere like 1.2 to 1.6 billion dollars. After that they are out of pocket. I don't have a clue about Mitsui.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 11:29 am to Sid in Lakeshore
Which one of those companies is a small "mom and pop" operation? 
This post was edited on 5/20/10 at 11:31 am
Posted on 5/20/10 at 11:31 am to wilceaux
quote:
Which one of those is a small "mom and pop" operation?
to re-phrase, it would basically eliminate anyone but BP, Chevron, Shell, Exxon, or Total from drilling in the deepwater gulf of mexico.
non-super majors would be excluded.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 11:33 am to oilfieldtiger
quote:
non-super majors would be excluded
How many non-super majors do deepwater drilling?
(not being a smartass, very curious)
Posted on 5/20/10 at 11:36 am to wilceaux
quote:
How many non-super majors do deepwater drilling?
I don't have the exact number but there are quite a few.
Posted on 5/20/10 at 11:51 am to oilfieldtiger
quote:
to re-phrase, it would basically eliminate anyone but BP, Chevron, Shell, Exxon, or Total from drilling in the deepwater gulf of mexico.
non-super majors would be excluded.
so if a super major can fail this badly with no apparent way of fixing it, why would I want a smaller operation to drill in deepwater?
Posted on 5/20/10 at 12:18 pm to YatTigah
quote:
so if a super major can fail this badly with no apparent way of fixing it, why would I want a smaller operation to drill in deepwater?
Good question.
And if a company can't afford to clean up the mess and pay damages, they shouldn't be drilling in the first place.
Posted on 5/21/10 at 1:28 am to wilceaux
quote:
And if a company can't afford to clean up the mess and pay damages, they shouldn't be drilling in the first place
Saudi Arabi agrees with you. We should ban drilling in all places that could negatively effect the US environment.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News