|
rulemylife -> RE: BP responsible. (5/8/2010 7:13:02 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
The $75 million cap only applies to economic damages.
They are still fully liable for the cleanup costs and environmental damage.
And even that $75 million cap may not apply if it can be shown that BP's negligence caused the spill.
Remember when standard oil crashed their boat the exxon valdez into some place called Alaska and how they sorta messed it up.
Remember the huge fine they got.
Remember reading a few months ago how it was reduced to chump change.
But I know in my heart of hearts this time will be different.[8|]
I wouldn't exactly call $507 million "chump change" though the actual costs they should have been responsible for were far greater.
But here is an interesting development in the current situation:
AP INVESTIGATION: Blowout preventers known to fail
After the accident, BP CEO Tony Hayward said of blowout preventers in general: "It's unprecedented for it to fail."
Yet the AP review turned up instances where preventer seals have failed outright, obstructions have blocked them, or valves simply weren't designed for the task. Sometimes there were blowouts.
...The government has long known of such problems, according to a historical review conducted by the AP. In the late 1990s, the industry appealed for fewer required pressure tests on these valves. The federal minerals service did two studies, each finding that failures were more common than the industry said.
But the agency, known as MMS, then did its turnaround and required tests half as often. It estimated that the rule would yield an annual savings of up to $340,000 per rig. An industry executive praised the "flexibility" of regulators, long plagued with accusations that it has been too cozy with the industry it supervises.
...In 1999, right after that rule change, an MMS-commissioned report by a research group identified 117 blowout preventer failures at deepwater rigs within the previous year.
|
|
|
|
