Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
bpw

New And Shocking Propect For Bp

Recommended Posts

I had some discussions at work today about the possibility of other Oil Companies sueing BP because of the moratorium on drilling in the GOM and Alaska. Clearly, the decision to stop all drilling will cost every operator in those two regions. Do any legal minds here know how the liabilities work here in the USA. Are BP on the hook for lost income in other oil companies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted this earlier from the NY Times about the economic impact. The 6 month drilling ban is costing christ knows what and it's not just limited to the oil workers not working. I would assume that most of these people will live in the state and the knock on effect on the local economy could be huge.

The cost for BP could be huge, although it could just be a couple of years full profits gone in payouts. Didn't they make £($)45bn or something last year. So even a bill of $150 may only take them 3 or 4 years to pay off.

Although the cost to pension funds could be huge, I would bet that even American pension funds have invested in BP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some discussions at work today about the possibility of other Oil Companies sueing BP because of the moratorium on drilling in the GOM and Alaska. Clearly, the decision to stop all drilling will cost every operator in those two regions. Do any legal minds here know how the liabilities work here in the USA. Are BP on the hook for lost income in other oil companies?

Are you employed at MacDonalds? Many profound conversations at the gherkin-insertion work station.

The moratorium is imposed by gubmint. If anyone gets sued for loss of revenue caused by that decision it will be the US taxpayer. Sweet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Yes, the ban on drilling will do more economic harm to the gulf region than the halt on fisheries :-

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0324108620100603

It's typical Obama failing to understand the law of unintended consequences and doing yet more self-inflicted damage, he's just added thousands more to the next jobs report and many rigs will go down to Brazil and never come back. BP cannot be blamed for this by competitors, it's a matter for the government.

Banana republics make up policy on the hoof and have a predilection for disrespecting private property rights and prior agreements, that's why many companies would rather do business with politically stable countries in Latin America than the United States of Obama.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some discussions at work today about the possibility of other Oil Companies sueing BP because of the moratorium on drilling in the GOM and Alaska. Clearly, the decision to stop all drilling will cost every operator in those two regions. Do any legal minds here know how the liabilities work here in the USA. Are BP on the hook for lost income in other oil companies?

I doubt a court would hold BP liable as the shutting down of all of-shore rigs may be deemed too remote or, in US legal terms, an insufficient proximate cause. On the other hand, it could be argued that they should have foreseen catastrophic consequences of a major leak and that this could result in a total; off shore ban for a period of time necessary for inspections to take place to ensure all safety procedures are in place in other rigs.

Can other oil companies sue BP for lost business? The answer lies in whether a jury would find that BP should have foreseen government action in shutting all Gulf operations down. I doubt it myself as there is no reason for BP to have foreseen that other oil companies had similarly negligent safety procedures or a lack of such procedures. It might be argued that the US government have no reason to shut other rigs down given the rarity of leaks of this magnitude. If they do so and such action was unforseeable or unreasonable Fed action would become a novus actus interveniens (new act intervenes gving the intitial wrongdoer an out).

I do think BP execs may face criminal charges if the Feds uncover gross negligence (recklessness) when they ought to have known lives and//or property would be put at risk but they took the risk anyway to save money.

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you employed at MacDonalds? Many profound conversations at the gherkin-insertion work station.

The moratorium is imposed by gubmint. If anyone gets sued for loss of revenue caused by that decision it will be the US taxpayer. Sweet!

Oh, those working class chappies, arent they funny guffaw guffaw.

That comment is a nasty piece of intellectual snobbery: working in Macdonalds is (increasingly) the only option

for lots of people, would you prefer people were on benefits instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched Andrew Marr and co talking about this, with the editor of the new yorker.

Asking whether US gov would seize BP.

Surely the pertinent question I have yet to see asked is why would the US government would grant a license to BP to drill, knowing, [as they must have done] that in the event of the accident that took place, there was no way to stop the disaster that would ensue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt a court would hold BP liable as the shutting down of all of-shore rigs may be deemed too remote or, in US legal terms, an insufficient proximate cause. On the other hand, it could be argued that they should have foreseen catastrophic consequences of a major leak and that this could result in a total; off shore ban for a period of time necessary for inspections to take place to ensure all safety procedures are in place in other rigs.

BP is responsible for the cost of the leak, however, the operator of the rig were responsible for the accident (which wasn't BP of course). So I'd find it even less likely BP could be responsible for the actions of the Government as BP's responsibility for the accident is only by proxy, as the well owner.

Surely the pertinent question I have yet to see asked is why would the US government would grant a license to BP to drill, knowing, [as they must have done] that in the event of the accident that took place, there was no way to stop the disaster that would ensue?

Indeed, Obama has already made that connection when he said that he wanted to stop the cosy relationship between the regulators and operators. Its an admission of join responsibility of the US government (and after all the US consumer by requiring, demanding, cheap oil)

Edited by Peter Hun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BP is responsible for the cost of the leak, however, the operator of the rig were responsible for the accident (which wasn't BP of course). So I'd find it even less likely BP could be responsible for the actions of the Government as BP's responsibility for the accident is only by proxy, as the well owner.

Indeed, Obama has already made that connection when he said that he wanted to stop the cosy relationship between the regulators and operators. Its an admission of join responsibility of the US government (and after all the US consumer by requiring, demanding, cheap oil)

Highlighted the important bit. The hypocrisy of wanting oil at the lowest cost but not the inevitable consequences.

Note that all US media attention is on BP and not TransOcean the American run drilling company (based in Switzerland to avoid tax) that actually owned and operated the rig.

In fact when it comes to hypocrisy our American cousins are rapidly overtaking Brits as world leaders.

A sign of their coming decline I suppose

Edited by realcrookswearsuits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero

Oh, those working class chappies, arent they funny guffaw guffaw.

That comment is a nasty piece of intellectual snobbery: working in Macdonalds is (increasingly) the only option

for lots of people, would you prefer people were on benefits instead?

Just for the sake of pedantry:

A lot of people who work in McDonald's are also on benefits (disguised as tax credits and the like).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, those working class chappies, arent they funny guffaw guffaw.

That comment is a nasty piece of intellectual snobbery: working in Macdonalds is (increasingly) the only option

for lots of people, would you prefer people were on benefits instead?

You may find that the reason for stereotypes existing is that they are often right. You will need to spend a long time searching for someone literate flipping burgers unless they are a student doing it as a temporary job. I don't see anything wrong with not listening to flippers' legal opinions on BP, but that certainly does not mean I want to make them unemployed and replace them with lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may find that the reason for stereotypes existing is that they are often right. You will need to spend a long time searching for someone literate flipping burgers unless they are a student doing it as a temporary job. I don't see anything wrong with not listening to flippers' legal opinions on BP, but that certainly does not mean I want to make them unemployed and replace them with lawyers.

Stereotyping isn't the issue, its the tiresome use of stereotyping to put people down and deny them dignity that is the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, as an industry insider, a moratorium was placed on High Pressure, High temperature drilling in UK in early 90's following a blowout in North Sea resulting in loss of rig. The oil company was American, you all remember that don't you? No?! Quelle Surprise!!!

BP are not liable for Saint Barrack's whims.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some discussions at work today about the possibility of other Oil Companies sueing BP because of the moratorium on drilling in the GOM and Alaska. Clearly, the decision to stop all drilling will cost every operator in those two regions. Do any legal minds here know how the liabilities work here in the USA. Are BP on the hook for lost income in other oil companies?

I think that's a bit far fetched even by American litigation standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.