News BP Should Pay: Holding Corporations Accountable for Environmental Damage

[mynameinc]

How do you feel that BP should be punished?

 

[arildno]

How do you feel that BP should be punished?

Hung, drawn and quartered?

Or, perhaps, be sawed in two and let the parts lie in the streets to be eaten by dogs? (This was a common punishment for traitors in Morocco back in the 18th century).

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not sure that there is a way that BP and the US government can be punished which is commensurate with the human, economic, and environmental damage caused. If, in theory, one could isolate each individual in private and public life who's actions contributed to this disaster, ignoring the entire public's desire for cheap fuel, then you would either put those people to death as an example, or strip them of all assets and put them in the equivalent of a "Work camp of strict regime" in gulag style.

Let them live as an example, so that the notion of spreading responsibility across a whole agency or corporation no longer shields individuals from massive reprisal. This assumes a finding of negligence, otherwise we all have to be hung, drawn, and quartered for our dependence on oil and electing these clowns.

BP... I don't know, but the people of MMS should be dragged out their beds and shot on the sidewalk.

 

[KalamMekhar]

Would you punish your child for accidentally knocking over a pan that you left dangerously close to the edge of a table, because you didn't enforce safety regulations?

 

[arildno]

Why do you regard the State as some sort of Parent, KalamMekhar?

 

[KalamMekhar]

A nations government should have some control over safety regulations, and enforcing them, if there is a company who is doing business within the nation. the US Gov't. should have enforced its current safety regulations on oil drilling, instead of leaving it up to the companies themselves to decide how to safely operate. I have seen things go sour before, when a company believes it can regulate itself safety wise.

On another, but similar point, without OSHA, things would be much, much more dangerous in the workplace. I have personally seen people say "I don't need to wear this hard hat," and later to be struck by something in the head. Just because nothing bad has happened for a while, doesn't mean one can continue to operate under the false assumption that everything is safe.

I hope I am making my point clear.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So the government is to blame; and certainly from what I understand there has been some serious changes implemented/being implemented in terms of how the regulatory agencies are organized (to avoid conflicts of interest, competing goals etc.)

But a child isn't responsible for all his actions precisely because he is a child; just because the government didn't enforce its regulations on BP doesn't give BP permission to break them

 

[arildno]

BP clearly violated rules already laid down, KalamMekhar.

That others are negligent do not confer upon adults the right to violate rules binding both.

 

[billiards]

Halliburton should also be punished for their involvement, but of course that would be getting a bit too up close and personal.

 

[mynameinc]

I read the other day that Deepwater Horizon was a risky type of well, which saves BP $7-10 million. While other companies used this type of well rarely in the Gulf, BP was using it 1 out of every 3 times.

I believe they should most certainly have to pay for ALL cleanup efforts and reimburse everyone who (unwillingly) lost property and/or their livelihoods in the spill. After paying that, BP has a great chance of going bankrupt.

 

[mynameinc]

Halliburton should also be punished for their involvement, but of course that would be getting a bit too up close and personal.

When I said BP, I meant the other corporations involved (directly!) as well. :)

 

[KalamMekhar]

Why would you want BP to go bankrupt? That would be the same situation as GM going bankrupt. Just because the corporate end of the company is "corrupt" doesn't mean thousands of people should lose their jobs.

 

[russ_watters]

When I said BP, I meant the other corporations involved (directly!) as well. :)

From everything I have heard, Haliburton did nothing wrong and may have even attempted to persuade the other parties to try to prevent the explosion. Anyway...

There are several layers here and I am all-but certain appropriate punishment will be meted out. It almost always is. First and obviously, BP (and Transocean) will pay financial damages and cleanup costs. It is already paying both, which is surprising to me as the payments don't preclude additional payments resulting from lawsuits. There is a substantial danger in trying to squeeze too much out of BP too soon in that the combination of their low stock prices and high initial exposure may well cause them to go bankrupt. What is needed from BP is for the company to stabilize and at least limp-along for the next 20 years while paying for cleanup and damages.

Second is what many people have forgotten about: criminal charges for individuals. From what I have heard about the disaster, it was not just preventable but was actually precipitated by bad decision making on the day of the accident... And people died. That's murder. I am confident that those responsible will be convicted of murder.

Case-in-point, here's an article discussing the possibility for the Massey Mine disaster: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_59415.shtml

In that case, the link will be more procedural and historical, but I think it is still likely to be made.

Another: Pier 34 in Philadelphia had a night club on it. An engineer told the club owner to close the club and repair the pier because a collapse was imminent (actually, described as "in-progress", I think). The owners opened-up that night anyway and the pier collapsed, killing 3. The owners were convicted of murder for ignoring good engineering advice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Pier_34_Collapse

 

[mynameinc]

Why would you want BP to go bankrupt? That would be the same situation as GM going bankrupt. Just because the corporate end of the company is "corrupt" doesn't mean thousands of people should lose their jobs.

Why do you want BP to not pay what they naturally owe?

No, it wouldn't be the same situation, because this time, BP's assets would be liquidated, and if anything is left over, it would be distributed amongst shareholders.

By the way, the jobs would probably be replaced by the oil companies buying BP's wells, refineries, etc.

 

[mheslep]

And people died. That's murder.

Manslaughter, negligent homicide maybe, I doubt murder.

 

[russ_watters]

Manslaughter, negligent homicide maybe, I doubt murder.

It is quite common for manslaughter and neglegent homicide to also be called "3rd degree murder":

The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":

...
iii. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"),

Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Legal_analysis_of_murder

 

[russ_watters]

Separate post because maybe people are already responding to the last...

...actually, it appears that perhaps manslaughter is a completely separate crime from murder, though different sources vary on the precise definition or which can be mixed with which. In any case:

The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Manslaughter

The BP case would not be a manslaughter case because there was "malace aforethought": The person who ordered the drilling fluid removed knew that he was violating procedure and knew that that violation could result in an accident with severe consequences such as deaths.

Then:

Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

...
The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder
#3 is what BP appears guilty of.

 

[SonyAD]

Dissolve corporate personhood. Make the "decision makers" liable for the corporations' actions and inaction.

Alternatively, ensure premeditated crimes by the people that run corporations hurt their corporations financially to the extent that they are clearly and unmistakeably NOT cost effective. I mean, make it so crime doesn't pay.

As in "appropriate all dividends for a year or two" kind of not paying. If they try to reinvest the profits then tax them till they bleed for 5 years.

Etc.

 

[nismaratwork]

There is a little used murder statute that will never, but really should, apply to a number of people in MMS, and managers up the line at BP: "Depraved Heart".

I think SonyAD has the right idea, although our recent SCOTUS decision just made a big step in the OTHER direction, sadly. When hundreds or thousands of people disperse responsibility, but have the rights of individuals, you get this. I wonder also how you make a case against the negligent regulators that is in proportion to the deaths of 11 men, and the environmental impact.

I don't know of anyone who has a rock-solid prediction for the magnitude or duration of the environmental fallout from this, and our justice system just is not designed to hold people properly accountable for despoiling national resources. No new case-law is going to be made here, which means a handful of people will be CHARGED, and actually getting a conviction is iffy as hell.

I think it is important to remember that it would take a genuine desire by the judiciary and congress to establish precedent for holding government officials and corporate employees accountable. They will never do something that could be so easily used against themselves, in my view; extend depraved heart to people who allow or cover lethal environmental disasters and I wonder how many elected, appointed, and "lifers" would be left in government, and not in jail. Certainly the EPA and FDA would be subject to constant legal threat. There is a balance struck in the law to protect state institutions, and that balance is... unbalanced. I think this is why BP is so hated, beyond even what is reasonable; on some level people know that BP might take a few hits, but our own government will ALWAYS cover its ***.

 

[mheslep]

.

Then: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder
#3 is what BP appears guilty of.

Hmm, yes apparently so.

 

[nismaratwork]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder

 

[russ_watters]

Dissolve corporate personhood. Make the "decision makers" liable for the corporations' actions and inaction.

Criminally, they are liable. If you make them personally liable, the citizens of the gulf lose because the heads of the company don't have anywhere near as much money as is needed to pay for the damages.

 

[nismaratwork]

Criminally, they are liable. If you make them personally liable, the citizens of the gulf lose because the heads of the company don't have anywhere near as much money as is needed to pay for the damages.

This is PF Russ, so the solution is simple: cool them to near absolute zero and place BP and its constituent parts into a superposition of "single entity" and "individual", then hold both accountable in different ways. The people go to jail, and the corporation pays.

 

[Antiphon]

I'm buying all my gas at BP now. I'm tired of the anti-capitalist thugs of thus world piling on to beat down our corporations and those of our friends and allies. I'm ashamed as an American that my President deigns himself fit to dictate terms to BP. By what authority? Where's the "hey, how can help you plug this leak?". No, BP gets a criminal investigation and all the Lawyers my illustrious professor of a president can muster.

I'm buying only BP gas until a different president reinstalls Churchill's bust in the oval office.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm buying all my gas at BP now. I'm tired of the anti-capitalist thugs of thus world piling on to beat down our corporations and those of our friends and allies. I'm ashamed as an American that my President deigns himself fit to dictate terms to BP. By what authority? Where's the "hey, how can help you plug this leak?". No, BP gets a criminal investigation and all the Lawyers my illustrious professor of a president can muster.

I'm buying only BP gas until a different president reinstalls Churchill's bust in the oval office.

I can't tell if you're joking, or drunk...

 

[Antiphon]

I can't tell if you're joking, or drunk...

I'm dead serious and considerably more sober, on every level, than most of this thread's analysis.

 

[KalamMekhar]

I'm buying all my gas at BP now. I'm tired of the anti-capitalist thugs of thus world piling on to beat down our corporations and those of our friends and allies. I'm ashamed as an American that my President deigns himself fit to dictate terms to BP. By what authority? Where's the "hey, how can help you plug this leak?". No, BP gets a criminal investigation and all the Lawyers my illustrious professor of a president can muster.

I'm buying only BP gas until a different president reinstalls Churchill's bust in the oval office.

You and me both. Have you seen the rewards that the BP visa offers? Insanely good!

 

[DaveC426913]

Pier 34 in Philadelphia had a night club on it. ... the pier collapsed, killing 3. The owners were convicted of murder ...

Murder conviction. Meh.

"...They were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Pier_34_Collapse#Criminal_charges"to 9+ months of house arrest and 1,000 hours of community service..."

 

[mynameinc]

You and me both. Have you seen the rewards that the BP visa offers? Insanely good!

If I had a vehicle, I wouldn't buy BP gasoline because they deal a lot with Iran (in case you didn't know, their dictator wants to wipe out Israel).

 

[KalamMekhar]

Just because Iran's government is beyond unbelievable, does not make the crude oil any less valuable. One could talk about ethics, but oil is oil, and money is money.

 

[mynameinc]

I'm buying all my gas at BP now. I'm tired of the anti-capitalist thugs of thus world piling on to beat down our corporations and those of our friends and allies.

If a corporation does something wrong, it needs beat down, no?

I'm ashamed as an American that my President deigns himself fit to dictate terms to BP. By what authority?

I must concede that he has made some inappropriate and unnecessary comments.

Where's the "hey, how can we help you plug this leak?"

The Fed. gov. has been trying to help. Definitely not as well as they could have, but when does the fed. gov. ever do anything the best possibly way?

No, BP gets a criminal investigation and all the Lawyers my illustrious professor of a president can muster.

Do you honestly feel that BP does not deserve an investigation?

I'm buying only BP gas until a different president reinstalls Churchill's bust in the oval office.

And I'm sure the British will only buy Exxon until the next PM puts FDR's bust in his office.

 

[mynameinc]

Just because Iran's government is beyond unbelievable, does not make the crude oil any less valuable. One could talk about ethics, but oil is oil, and money is money.

I can't bring myself to buy from a company that's willing to go into deals with a nation that wants to annihilate Israel as quickly as BP is.

By the way, I wasn't aware that BP stations were any cheaper than everyone else (then again, I don't drive).

 

[KalamMekhar]

Depends on the day. Usually I will see them at being around 1 cent cheaper on average. We only have BP and Freedom stations here, so not much to compare to. The BP stations have Hot Stuff pizza, so I get a breakfast pizza there before work.

 

[mynameinc]

Depends on the day. Usually I will see them at being around 1 cent cheaper on average. We only have BP and Freedom stations here, so not much to compare to. The BP stations have Hot Stuff pizza, so I get a breakfast pizza there before work.

Ah. Based on their website (I had never heard of Freedom before) Freedom Oil could be bought from BP as well, couldn't it?

 

[russ_watters]

Murder conviction. Meh.

"...They were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Pier_34_Collapse#Criminal_charges"to 9+ months of house arrest and 1,000 hours of community service..."

Yeah, thought technically a plead is the same as a conviction, the deal they struck had them off pretty easy in sentencing. It was disappointing.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I can't bring myself to buy from a company that's willing to go into deals with a nation that wants to annihilate Israel as quickly as BP is.

So how do you manage that? Stations don't generally advertise the source of their gas. The BP station may buy from Texico; the Shell station may buy gas from BP.

Also, can you explain the quoted sentence above? I'm trying to figure out what "quickly" modifies. I parse it as

"I can't bring myself to buy from [a company that's willing to go into deals with [a nation that wants to annihilate Israel]] as quickly as BP is."
->
"I can't bring myself to buy from [a company that's willing to go into deals with Iran] as quickly as BP is."
->
"I can't bring myself to buy from BP as quickly as BP is."

so I must be doing something wrong.

 

[Office_Shredder]

So how do you manage that? Stations don't generally advertise the source of their gas. The BP station may buy from Texico; the Shell station may buy gas from BP..

I think franchise gas stations are required to buy gas from the company usually

 

[Cyrus]

So how do you manage that? Stations don't generally advertise the source of their gas. The BP station may buy from Texico; the Shell station may buy gas from BP.

All gas stations that are owned by the oil company must by gas from the company.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Why do you want BP to not pay what they naturally owe?

No, it wouldn't be the same situation, because this time, BP's assets would be liquidated, and if anything is left over, it would be distributed amongst shareholders.

By the way, the jobs would probably be replaced by the oil companies buying BP's wells, refineries, etc.

I obviously can not imagine how much money the damages would range in but in many cases where corporations are confronted with class action suits they wind up going bankrupt and not being able to pay everything that they owe. You may not be concerned for the welfare of BP but if you are concerned about all of the damages being taken care of it would be preferable that they not go bankrupt.

All gas stations that are owned by the oil company must by gas from the company.

I have read that the companies buy from each other. Some times they do not have enough to meet demand and others have more than enough. The later will then sell their excess to the former. Unless you really care what company actually pumped the oil though I do not see that it makes much of a difference.

 

[SonyAD]

BP isn't going to go bankrupt over the damages. That's just another sad, sad, right wing canard. Like the one where they try to make BP out to be the victim of government, maybe imply the government is primarily at fault, maybe they even caused the spill and not BP, even though government failed only in curtailing private sector wrong doing and actually regulating.

Even though BP has been written for so much more violations than all the other big oil players on the market, etc.

BP doesn't sell here, that I know of. No loss there. Their POS lubricants do, though.

I've tried Castrol 75w90 manual tranny oil. It lasted six months before the shaft bearings started whining, shifting started getting clunky. So now I only use Liqui Moly.

I would have expected a science forum to be conspicuously devoid of right wingnuts.

 

[mynameinc]

I obviously can not imagine how much money the damages would range in but in many cases where corporations are confronted with class action suits they wind up going bankrupt and not being able to pay everything that they owe. You may not be concerned for the welfare of BP but if you are concerned about all of the damages being taken care of it would be preferable that they not go bankrupt.

My pessimist side says that there is no way BP can actually pay everything they owe and not be bankrupt.

I have read that the companies buy from each other. Some times they do not have enough to meet demand and others have more than enough. The later will then sell their excess to the former. Unless you really care what company actually pumped the oil though I do not see that it makes much of a difference.

I simply loathe the idea of using my money to build a nuclear weapon to destroy Eretz Israel.

BP isn't going to go bankrupt over the damages. That's just another sad, sad, right wing canard.

1) Explain how it's right wing.
2) Explain how BP is going to save itself from bankruptcy. If it's good enough, I'll buy into BP. :)

Like the one where they try to make BP out to be the victim of government, maybe imply the government is primarily at fault, maybe they even caused the spill and not BP, even though government failed only in curtailing private sector wrong doing and actually regulating.

That one has been used in this thread. I don't buy into it, though.

I've tried Castrol 75w90 manual tranny oil. It lasted six months before the shaft bearings started whining, shifting started getting clunky. So now I only use Liqui Moly.

So, their products are terrible, also?

I would have expected a science forum to be conspicuously devoid of right wingnuts.

I'm actually a Libertarian positionnut. I get called a Liberal wingnut by the Conservatives, and a Conservative wingnut by the Liberals.

I would expect a science forum to be liberal, too.

 

[mynameinc]

So how do you manage that? Stations don't generally advertise the source of their gas. The BP station may buy from Texico; the Shell station may buy gas from BP.

Also, can you explain the quoted sentence above? I'm trying to figure out what "quickly" modifies. I parse it as

"I can't bring myself to buy from [a company that's willing to go into deals with [a nation that wants to annihilate Israel]] as quickly as BP is."
->
"I can't bring myself to buy from [a company that's willing to go into deals with Iran] as quickly as BP is."
->
"I can't bring myself to buy from BP as quickly as BP is."

so I must be doing something wrong.

I didn't phrase it the best way. Langauge is my weak point, especially English.

A better way of phrasing that:

I refuse to buy from BP as long as they are friendly to Iran.

 

[Cyrus]

I have read that the companies buy from each other. Some times they do not have enough to meet demand and others have more than enough. The later will then sell their excess to the former. Unless you really care what company actually pumped the oil though I do not see that it makes much of a difference.

What I'm saying is that the franchise owner of a Shell can't call up Texaco and have them deliver a load of fuel at a lower cost than what a Shell load might cost. They have to purchase fuel from the parent companies distribution source.

 

[KalamMekhar]

I didn't phrase it the best way. Langauge is my weak point, especially English.

A better way of phrasing that:

I refuse to buy from BP as long as they are friendly to Iran.

"I refuse to buy made in the USA products because Obama is president"

 

[nismaratwork]

"I refuse to buy made in the USA products because Obama is president"

I have to speak at this point: how have we moved from an appropriate HYPOTHETICAL punishment for BP, to relations with Iran and nuclear politics?!

Oh, and remember that "scientist" is a profession, vocation, and avocation... not a political view. Ideally a scientist shouldn't be right, left, center, or anything else; a scientist should be practical, desiring empirical evidence on a case-by-case basis. Then again, we're all human, and subject to those same frailties of wit.

Dirac was enamored of Communist ideals, possibly having been exposed to them by Kapitza, and Heisenberg seemed fairly cozy with the Nazis. If you expect even brilliant scientists to be inhumanly impartial, liberal, or conservative you're going to be dissapointed.

 

[mynameinc]

"I refuse to buy made in the USA products because Obama is president"

You're a conservative, aren't you?

I have to speak at this point: how have we moved from an appropriate HYPOTHETICAL punishment for BP, to relations with Iran and nuclear politics?!

Antiphon and KalamMekhar were discussing how they will now buy all of their gas from BP, and I stated that I refused to buy gas from them because of how cozy they are with NIOC.

Oh, and remember that "scientist" is a profession, vocation, and avocation... not a political view. Ideally a scientist shouldn't be right, left, center, or anything else; a scientist should be practical, desiring empirical evidence on a case-by-case basis. Then again, we're all human, and subject to those same frailties of wit.

Yes, (unfortunately?) all adults have political views. But, overwhelmingly, academics and scientists do vote liberal.

 

[nismaratwork]

You're a conservative, aren't you?



Antiphon and KalamMekhar were discussing how they will now buy all of their gas from BP, and I stated that I refused to buy gas from them because of how cozy they are with NIOC.



Yes, (unfortunately?) all adults have political views. But, overwhelmingly, academics and scientists do vote liberal.

I still believe that Antiphon is intoxicated or joking, and I don't find the notion of symbolic protests very moving. We're talking about recompense for loss of human life, and a kind of environmental and fiscal Depraved Indifference. I think we're beginning to stray from discussion into meaningless catharsis.

 

[mheslep]

BP isn't going to go bankrupt over the damages.

To know that for sure, one would have roughly know BP's net worth and roughly know the maximum possible damages. What are they?

I would have expected a science forum to be conspicuously devoid of right wingnuts.

Ha! BP is the government, didn't you know?

[PLAIN]http://davidsonnews.net/files/2010/02/020110Koonin.jpg

Dr. Steven E. Koonin was confirmed by the Senate on May 19, 2009 as the second Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Dr. Koonin brings to the post a distinguished career as a university professor and administrator at the California Institute of Technology. He also has experience in the private sector, joining the government from the position of Chief Scientist for BP, plc, based in London.

At BP since 2004, Koonin was responsible for ...

http://www.energy.gov/organization/dr_steven_koonin.htm

BTW, I would say the federal government does now hold primary responsibility for botching the clean up, not the leak itself.

 

[mynameinc]

I still believe that Antiphon is intoxicated or joking, and I don't find the notion of symbolic protests very moving.

If you referring to my refusal to buy from BP, it's not supposed to be moving. I plan to immigrate to Israel, and would only be funding my own demise!

Besides, once again, I don't drive, so it doesn't matter anyway.

We're talking about recompense for loss of human life, and a kind of environmental and fiscal Depraved Indifference. I think we're beginning to stray from discussion into meaningless catharsis.

You're probably right.

 

[SonyAD]

My pessimist side says that there is no way BP can actually pay everything they owe and not be bankrupt.

The escrow fund is $20 billion. BP made $14 billion in profits last year.

So they might need to sell some assets to pay that off within a quarter. Boo hoo.

Unless they manage to cap the gusher there is no point in discussing clean up costs. However, I'm sure an arrangement can be reached where by BP could pay what they owe gradually. It's not like they're some working stiff being foreclosed on by the bank because of a health care related bankruptcy.

1) Explain how it's right wing.
2) Explain how BP is going to save itself from bankruptcy. If it's good enough, I'll buy into BP. :)

1)
2) BP made $14 billion in profits in 2009.

That one has been used in this thread. I don't buy into it, though.

The other flavours of right wing do, though. They don't just buy it, they try to sell it on too.

So, their products are terrible, also?

From my experience, yes. Their motor oil sucks too. The Castrol Magnatec semisynthetics and group III oils suck. I've tried them too, before I knew any better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDZSa7LbscM" is how they advertise their tripe.

BTW, I would say the federal government does now hold primary responsibility for botching the clean up, not the leak itself.

What clean up? The spill is huge and ongoing.