The libertarian's guide to externality costing. What do we do about the oil spill?

At this stage, I dont think theres anything to gain from the government stepping in and kicking BP out. One because this is what small government can actually do, not much. BP at least has some infrastructure already in place. Two because if it is the case that the relief well is the only solution, a) its more politically damaging and b) it doesnt get solved any quicker anyway.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']Yeah, it's real effective.[/QUOTE] They are drilling two relief wells. Thats what can be done and its being done. This other stuff never had a real chance at working.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Some (no idea how credible) are talking a controlled nuclear detonation to top the flow.[/QUOTE]

This has been talked about on conspiracy-ish sites since it started.

Essentially, get tankers out there to suck the oil from the surface, and nuke the ocean floor to top the flow.

I'm with you on the uncertainty of the the credibility of the plan.

These same sites have also talked about a second, much larger leak during the past couple of weeks. The link foc posted touches on this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, it's beyond time for the government to step in, assemble their own team of experts, engineers etc. and do whatever it takes to stop the leak---then send BP the bill.

BP has had more than enough time to fix it on their own, as well as protect the beaches etc. They've failed at every attempt, and as the story about about bringing in temp workers to make it look like they were doing more for Obama's visit shows--they really don't give a shit about anything but $$$$$ and PR.[/QUOTE]

There is really nothing the govt can do. They do not deep sea drill, so they have less experience than BP when it comes to working in these conditions, secondly the govt has no equipment other than a boat to actually deal with the situation. If the government stepped in it would probably only accomplish one thing, screwing the taxpayer. The government would still need to rely on BP if it took over the operation because they are probably one of the few organizations that have the equipment to deal with the leak, secondly, if the government stepped in it would give BP the legal route to say the government, when stepping in, took all responsibility, and try (and most likely succeed) in passing the bill the US Government through the court system. In the end the result will be the same, but BP will be able to shirk future losses to the US Government.

The scariest part of the entire situation is that our government is most likely completely useless in this situation and that, as much as I hate the fact, BP is most likely the best equipped at handling the situation.
 
All we need is some more human labor from Mexico. Take the whooping cranes and twist 'em like a dish rag over a funnel leading to the oil barrel. Or...better yet...we could send out boats with big nets, collect all the dying wildlife and toss them into cookers. Not only would we recover some of the oil, but we would keep more of the die off out of the oceans (which would help with the dissolved O2 levels).
 
[quote name='cindersphere']The scariest part of the entire situation is that our government is most likely completely useless in this situation and that, as much as I hate the fact, BP is most likely the best equipped at handling the situation.[/QUOTE]

At the very least the government could take over some of the clean up and protection of beaches/wetlands as BP seems to be dropping the ball on that part. Leave the leak to BP, put the government in charge of cleanup and prevention since BP wasn't doing much on that front and had to fly in extra workers to make it look like they were!
 
You'd think this thing would get to a point where BP just couldn't fuck up any more by virtue of running out of things to fuck up. You'd be wrong.

Surprise!
At least nine fishermen hired by BP to use their boats to help with oil cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico have been hospitalized with serious heath problems, including one who “busted his skull” after collapsing on a dock.

When asked about this clear pattern of illnesses of workers who come in contact BP’s oil and chemical dispersants, BP CEO Tony Hayward callously dismissed the health problems as “food poisoning.”

“I’m sure they were genuinely ill, but whether it was anything to do with dispersants and oil, whether it was food poisoning or some other reason for them being ill,” said Hayward.

“You know, food poisoning is clearly a big issue when you have a concentration of this number of people in temporary camps, temporary accommodation, it’s something we have to be very, very mindful of, continued Hayward. “It’s one of the big issues of keeping the army operating. You know, armies march on their stomachs.”
Click to expand...
How does the BP CEO still have a job, and how do his family and friends not beat him to death with a pool cue?
 
[quote name='speedracer']

How does the BP CEO still have a job, and how do his family and friends not beat him to death with a pool cue?[/QUOTE]

Cause none of them lives in America?
 
http://www.rense.com/general91/image001%2060.jpg

Here is a massive picture.

image001%2060.jpg

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/31/bp-clashes-scientists-sea-oil-pollution

BP claiming it isn't that bad. The Guardian isn't really fringe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Transocean has just launched a preemptive legal attack on its dead and injured employees.

Surprise!

While the world's biggest offshore driller may not succeed in limiting its financial liability, the filing could give Transocean an edge in what could be a lengthy, multipronged legal battle against claims for damages from the accident that killed 11 workers.

"One of the primary goals of this filing is to consolidate in a single court many of the lawsuits that have been filed...to initiate an orderly process for these lawsuits and claims before a single, impartial federal judge," Transocean said in a prepared statement. The company added it was taking this action at the instruction of its insurers to preserve coverage.
Click to expand...
Translation: We are judge shopping and making sure this does not get in front of a jury. Rather than let the process take its course, we are forcing the action in a way wholly detrimental to our workers.
Still, the petition, filed in U.S. District Court in Houston, was likely to rile workers who escaped the burning rig and have filed suit or any of the estates of the 11 workers who died in the April 20 fire.

"They get to fix the venue and they get to slow everything down," said Kurt Arnold of Houston-based law firm Arnold & Itkin, who is representing several survivors of the accident.
Click to expand...
Translation: When Exxon spewed oil all over Alaska with the Valdez, it won by delaying the holy living hell out of the proceedings and finally won by attrition. Except they did that against the government. How long do you think the employees will be able to pay attorneys? Years? A decade?
Mr. Arnold added that the measure forces the large number of plaintiff lawyers to coordinate among themselves in order to obtain depositions from the defendants, making the process more cumbersome.
Click to expand...
Translation: fuck you.
Limitation of Liability proceedings not only give the petitioners-in this case Transocean—first say in a venue for litigation, but they also keep the case in front of a judge and away from a jury, said David Robertson, a maritime law professor at the University of Texas in Austin. Juries "tend to favor injured human beings over corporate defendants, and it's presumed federal district judges have no such inclinations," Robertson said.
Click to expand...
Yup.

Gloves are off.
 
Contingency lawyers exist.

Considering there is no idea of the scope of the eventual lawsuit, Transocean might win simply by letting executives raid the kitty for a decade or so and then fold up shop.
 
So on democracy now last Friday or something (just watched it yesterday) they had the story about BP telling workers they'd lose their jobs if they wore respirators (ones they brought themselves since they weren't provided). What's up with that? The one dude said it was to limit liability - letting them wear respirators would be admitting they know it's dangerous - and the other dude said it might be because they don't have a safety plan and would violate some OSHA rules. And of course maybe a little PR thrown in as they wouldn't want a bunch of images of workers in respirators floating around.

Any truth to any of that?
 
[quote name='SpazX']So on democracy now last Friday or something (just watched it yesterday) they had the story about BP telling workers they'd lose their jobs if they wore respirators (ones they brought themselves since they weren't provided). What's up with that? The one dude said it was to limit liability - letting them wear respirators would be admitting they know it's dangerous - and the other dude said it might be because they don't have a safety plan and would violate some OSHA rules. And of course maybe a little PR thrown in as they wouldn't want a bunch of images of workers in respirators floating around.

Any truth to any of that?[/QUOTE]

I would infer there is some truth to it.

Anything dangerous requires a Material Safety Data Sheet. If they're handling a dangerous product without informing their workers, they have a lawsuit they'll lose. If one person is using a respirator, everybody has to use a respirator. If respirators are being used, filters have to be provided to keep them working or they got another lawsuit.

Considering how much worse this is going to pan out, how much money do I need to short BP? I'm thinking I should put a short in for bankruptcy between now and 5 years.
 
[quote name='SpazX']So on democracy now last Friday or something (just watched it yesterday) they had the story about BP telling workers they'd lose their jobs if they wore respirators (ones they brought themselves since they weren't provided). What's up with that? The one dude said it was to limit liability - letting them wear respirators would be admitting they know it's dangerous - and the other dude said it might be because they don't have a safety plan and would violate some OSHA rules. And of course maybe a little PR thrown in as they wouldn't want a bunch of images of workers in respirators floating around.

Any truth to any of that?[/QUOTE]


Shows that BP has no regard for further hurting anyone else and in this case the people they have manipulated into cleaning up this mess of theirs. All they care about is their liabilities and profits. Not the health of anyone, not the fact they destroyed the local and possibly global ecology. Why we let such entities rule and decide our day to day is beyond ignorance. We are at the mercy of corporations.

Glad to see another person here who watches Democracy Now, a beacon in the darkness we call US mainstream media.
 
But what about the alligator-filled giant wall of flame!?
worst_case_scenario.png

"To get serious analyses of hurricanes and oil slicks, see Jeff Masters' blog. To get serious discussions of worst-case scenario thinking, see Bruce Schneier's blog. To get enough Vitamin D, don't read any blogs and go outside instead."
 
For anyone who missed it, there was a pretty good segment on the Oil Spill on Meet the Press last Sunday--just listed to the podcast wihle working out this afternoon.

Started with an PD exec, then a lady form Obama's administration--names of both are eluding me.
 
Nah, I like news/politics podcasts or sports talk podcasts like PTI during the cardio part of my workout. Makes it go by faster since I'm focusing on that, unlike music which I just end up tuning out.
 
So how are military relations going to hold up when this oil spill goes to shit. I mean it is British Petroleum.

I find it interesting that they are talking about nuclear devices at least on Bloomberg now.


what about the second larger oil leak 5-7 miles away... could this rig we are focused on be a self inflicted disaster to divert attention from the other bigger leak, as some forums are talking about?

Or this other BP rig "Atlantis" that is operating dangerously and at high pressure levels, in the gulf?


Or what about the fact that Goldman sachs sold off a bunch of BP stock just days before this happened.... and Peter Sutherland who now works at Goldman had left BP in January...?

Lots of odd crap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, serious question. I'm sure we can all agree that BP/Transocean/Haliburton should be paying the costs of cleanup and direct damages due to this spill.

However, while listening to NPR while working today, I heard some business owner complaining about how her restaurant might have to close because there's no tourism going on now in her area due to the spill - and that BP & Co. should have to pay her damages.

What say you?
 
So I was wondering if we actually use the nuke to close the leak, does this give oil producing countries a claim to keep nuclear weapons? Middle eastern countries are going to try to use this to build nuclear projects.

Yes I know this is blatant fear mongering but I haven't found an article talking about this possibility yet and it has surprised me.
 
Nobody* thinks that BP will end up paying anything resembling the actual damages. Not even of the cleanup itself, much less money lost through the likes of fishing and tourism. The lifetime damages to the fishing industry alone is worth vastly more than BP is.

I have a hard time believing its a serious question though. I really didnt think anyone thought they were seriously exempt from any of those indirect damages. I'm 200 miles inland, but if a hurricane happens to drop sludge on my roof or on my yard, thems damages.

*sane
 
I read on Reuters that the baseline fees would be something like a minimum of $1100 PER BARREL....do the math guys.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, serious question. I'm sure we can all agree that BP/Transocean/Haliburton should be paying the costs of cleanup and direct damages due to this spill.

However, while listening to NPR while working today, I heard some business owner complaining about how her restaurant might have to close because there's no tourism going on now in her area due to the spill - and that BP & Co. should have to pay her damages.

What say you?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. If my negligence materially affects you, we should come to terms that make you whole again.

I wonder why I don't hear Republicans in the Gulf states screaming for tort reform right now. An intrepid reporter should ask Bobby Jindal.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Absolutely. If my negligence materially affects you, we should come to terms that make you whole again.

I wonder why I don't hear Republicans in the Gulf states screaming for tort reform right now. An intrepid reporter should ask Bobby Jindal.[/QUOTE]

Actually, this is a situation where tort reform is needed. If this was caused by as much negligence as has been indicated, there needs to be some jail time for a number of people. How many people do you think will end up in jail for this?

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Nobody* thinks that BP will end up paying anything resembling the actual damages. Not even of the cleanup itself, much less money lost through the likes of fishing and tourism. The lifetime damages to the fishing industry alone is worth vastly more than BP is.

I have a hard time believing its a serious question though. I really didnt think anyone thought they were seriously exempt from any of those indirect damages. I'm 200 miles inland, but if a hurricane happens to drop sludge on my roof or on my yard, thems damages.

*sane[/QUOTE]

I agree that they'll probably get away without paying as much as they should.
I agree that they should pay for damages to the fishing industry.
And I agree that, if your hypothetical hurricane situation happened, BP should pay damages.

I'm just not sure I agree with the idea that BP is responsible for the tourism industry of the entire coast. It's a bad economy. I'd say these businesses were going to be facing a tough season without the oil spill. I'd say a good number of them would be closing regardless. Now, suddenly, the reason no one is going there is because of the oil spill?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Actually, this is a situation where tort reform is needed. If this was caused by as much negligence as has been indicated, there needs to be some jail time for a number of people. How many people do you think will end up in jail for this?[/quote]
Torts cannot, by definition, result in jail time. Torts and the criminal code don't have that kind of relationship. You can be found liable (not guilty, an important distinction) via tort law without having committed a crime. But if you're found guilty of a crime, you've probably opened yourself to a tort claim.

The Department of Justice right now is trying to figure out if anyone involved committed a crime, but pinning crimes on corporations or individuals on behalf of corporations is extremely difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if there's no criminal charges, even though you and I and any reasonable person can agree that an act this egregious, resulting in 11 deaths, a bunch of injuries, and unfathomable environmental damage means SOMEONE should be hittin up Club Fed for a hot minute.

Tort reform as proposed by Republicans would have placed a hard cap on a damage award won against BP in this instance. That's the whole problem with tort liability caps. You're basically (shit not basically, you ARE) saying that no matter how badly you dick someone else up, you should be protected. It's fantastic for business because a cap acts as a liability limiter even if you're found to be grossly negligent. As a business operating under a tort cap , why wouldn't you be grossly negligent if the numbers mean you can't lose even if you get sued for max damage?

BP clears $5.5 billion a year or so. You cap every single claim ever made against them at $100k. You could make 55,000 successful max claims against them and STILL only hit em for a single year of income, without even touching their underlying assets. If I'm a manager at BP, I'd blow off every safety concern ever raised. What the hell do I care? Capitalistically (yea I made that word up I think) speaking, it makes perfect sense.

Wikipedia has really good articles on Torts. Be careful though, it's not exclusively American in nature, plus they kind of assume you understand the whole US is based on English common law but is changed but not really kind of. Yea.
Torts
US Tort Law
US Tort Reform Efforts
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, serious question. I'm sure we can all agree that BP/Transocean/Haliburton should be paying the costs of cleanup and direct damages due to this spill.

However, while listening to NPR while working today, I heard some business owner complaining about how her restaurant might have to close because there's no tourism going on now in her area due to the spill - and that BP & Co. should have to pay her damages.

What say you?[/QUOTE]

im sure there will be many lawsuits in the days to follow mirroring situations like this. everything from tourism businesses to small fisheries. the majority will be settled out of court and quietly and will takes years and years.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm just not sure I agree with the idea that BP is responsible for the tourism industry of the entire coast. It's a bad economy. I'd say these businesses were going to be facing a tough season without the oil spill. I'd say a good number of them would be closing regardless. Now, suddenly, the reason no one is going there is because of the oil spill?[/QUOTE]

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD

United-States-GDP-Growth-Rate-Chart-000005.png


Out of the 16 other quarters listed, the most recent quarter's growth is equal to or greater than 12 of those quarters. So, try another song about a "bad economy".

Most of those businesses have ledgers. The businesses can provide a reasonable amount of income they have made during worse and better times.

BP's responsibility will be covering the amount of income lost minus costs no longer incurred by the business plus the legal fees the business has to spend to make BP pay for their mistake.
 
I dont see any small business have the legal resources to get much out of BP. Most likely they will accept whatever settlement BP offered. BP can drag this on for years, the small business cannot.
 
[quote name='62t']I dont see any small business have the legal resources to get much out of BP. Most likely they will accept whatever settlement BP offered. BP can drag this on for years, the small business cannot.[/QUOTE]

Thus the power of class action.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD

United-States-GDP-Growth-Rate-Chart-000005.png


Out of the 16 other quarters listed, the most recent quarter's growth is equal to or greater than 12 of those quarters. So, try another song about a "bad economy".

Most of those businesses have ledgers. The businesses can provide a reasonable amount of income they have made during worse and better times.

BP's responsibility will be covering the amount of income lost minus costs no longer incurred by the business plus the legal fees the business has to spend to make BP pay for their mistake.[/QUOTE]


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hJn0_PllPpuXoK3SY6DUiz5oBaxQ

Yeah I am sure the downturn in the tourist trade in the above is just a coinkydink.
 
According to regulatory filings, RawStory.com has found that Goldman Sachs sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman's sales were the largest of any firm during that time. Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP's stock during the quarter.
Click to expand...

dont worry, alex jones is already all over it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Where only the lawyers win.[/QUOTE]

beat me to it. You guys remember the reading about the settlements lawyers pocketed from big tobacco?

Not to mention all the money that goes into funding those stupid as hell TRUTH ads. That crap makes me want to smoke just to spite them.
 
So a high definition video clip of the leak (that apparently BP said didn't exist then refused to release till the gubmint got all pissy) was released yesterday morning and the government dudes took a look at it. BP still refuses to release the entire video, which they've had running since the first week.

Surprise?
BP’s oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico may be up to four times the scale estimated by a government scientific panel, pumping out 100,000 barrels a day in what equates to the company’s “worst case scenario” and prompting new accusations that executives are stonewalling the truth.

The news — revealed by one of the members of President Obama’s Flow Rate Technical Group, a panel that previously estimated that the flow was in the region of 12,000 to 25,000 barrels a day — counter to BP’s claims that it is now capturing “the majority” of the oil and channeling it into a tanker.
Click to expand...
Now there's talk of a RICO case against BP for withholding it. An intrepid reporter noticed that 2 days ago BP claimed to be collecting 15,000 barrels a day. Of course, BP's last stated guess was that 5,000 was leaking. Whoopsie.

Want MOAR LOLZ!!1 OF COURSE YOU DO!!
Leifer cited satellite data that appeared to show the leaking well's flow was increasing over time. He also noted that BP's decision to drill open a pipe in an effort to place a "hat" on the damaged well had substantially increased the amount of oil that may be spewing into the sea.

The new number is 100,000 barrels - 200,000 barrels per day.
Click to expand...
So they're now catching 15,000, up from 1-5,000 a day, but they significantly increased the leak itself. Way to go guys! Somebody get these all stars a congressional medal of freedom.
 
Wait for it... wait for it... it's amazing.

Surprise!
On Wednesday, the cap was collecting 630,000 gallons of oil – but it could be capturing more oil if BP had decided to put more ships on the surface to hold and process the collected oil. That means the cap will have to continue venting excess oil into the Gulf until another two ships – one which can sift gas and water out of the crude and another which will shuttle oil to shore – arrive next week.
Click to expand...
They got the cap to partially work and forgot to get boats in the water to catch the oil. Next week at the earliest.

You can't make this shit up.
 
[quote name='Don Chubo']If this is right, Barry may need to kick his own ass.[/QUOTE]

Implying that I wouldn't have heard "US SELLING OUT TO DUTCH TERRORIST GOVERNMENT!" or some other bullshit nonsense.

Implying that agreeing to help from another country wouldn't challenge AMERICA IS NUMMER #1 and thus not entail a bunch of bitching from idiots.

Implying that you think him saying he's going to kick some ass is ridiculous when you've been screaming for something like that for years, and had no problem when Bush made WAY bigger gaffes.

Implying a billion other bullshit things because no matter what Obama does, half the country is perpetually angry and pissed off and narrow minded and flat out stupid.
 
Just yesterday i hada guy tell me that this would have all gone better had the gubment left BP alone to handle it.

And he's probably right, it would have gone better, for BP at least.
 
[quote name='Don Chubo']Hadn't seen that anyone posted this yet..

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7043272.html

If this is right, Barry may need to kick his own ass.[/QUOTE]
Until I saw what I posted above about BP having a high def video of the spill within the first week, I would have said that the first week was still too early to fully understand what had happened and that it wasn't fair to go crazy with the blame. But the camera thing kind of blows that.

That's my home town piece of crap newspaper! Seriously though, the Chron's coverage has been a LITTLE spotty. BP's US headquarters is here, and Chevron, Exxon, and anyone in the oil services business is here. I heard once that 60% of all square footage downtown is dedicated to oil or oil services (not including the lawyers!). The newspaper hasn't run a nasty piece yet and has really tried to toe the line.

Just check out the comments. It's all the government's fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top