2 years ago
Should BP be allowed to determine how much funds are given for boom plans in oil spill areas?
Santa Rosa County submitted a boom plan to protect their portion of the Florida Gulf Coast. Santa Rosa county is located on the Gulf Coast and includes portions of Pensacola Beach, Opal Beach, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Navarre Beach and joins up with Fort Walton Beach. The county has 100 miles of inland shoreline and asked for 10 miles of boom coverage.
The original request was approved but yesterday was disapproved instead. BP has given the state of Florida $25Million for 16 effected counties. Santa Rosa estimates protecting the inland waters and the oil from coming through the bay as a $6M effort per month. BP has said they will pay all cost but given only a limited budget to the state to work with. Should BP be required to cover the initial cost of the counties' plans to protect their waterways from the oil? Who should determine how much they have to pay out up front?http://www.pnj.com/article/20100508/NEWS01/5080316/1056
The original request was approved but yesterday was disapproved instead. BP has given the state of Florida $25Million for 16 effected counties. Santa Rosa estimates protecting the inland waters and the oil from coming through the bay as a $6M effort per month. BP has said they will pay all cost but given only a limited budget to the state to work with. Should BP be required to cover the initial cost of the counties' plans to protect their waterways from the oil? Who should determine how much they have to pay out up front?http://www.pnj.com/article/20100508/NEWS01/5080316/1056
images:
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$3 Answers
BP has been pumping oil out of the sea floor at Deep Water Horizon in the Gulf and earning huge amounts of money from it. According to a USA Today editorial "In 2009, the top five petroleum companies earned $100 billion on revenue of $1.8 trillion. That's nearly as much as the $2.1 trillion the U.S. treasury collected last year." (see http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-05-04-editorial04_ST_N.htm ).
A transcript from ABC's This Week (see http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-mckay-napolitano-salazar-allen/story?id=10532649&page=3 ) quotes BP as having said in their filing for the original permit for drilling:
- quote -
An accidental oil spill could cause impact to the beaches. However, due to the distance to shore, 48 miles, and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. BP Exploration and Production Incorporated has the capability to respond to the maximum extent practicable to a worst-case discharge
- end quote -
Ok. So BP made a lot of money based on that assertion that "no significant adverse impacts are expected" and now, whether as a result of accident, failure on BP's part, or failure on the part of the company BP hired to operate the rig itself, there is an ecological disaster unfolding. It's time for BP to put its money where its mouth was.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Deepwater_Horizon_offshore_drilling_unit_on_fire_2010.jpg
In fact, BP has announced that it would cover the costs of cleaning up the oil. According to an LA Times blog (see http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-bp-accepts-responsibility-for-oil-cleanup.html )
- quote -
In a round of appearances on morning television and radio news shows, BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward accepted responsibility for the cleanup and said the company would pay compensation for legitimate claims for property damage, personal injury and business losses.
“We are responsible, not for the accident, but we are responsible for the oil and for dealing with it and cleaning the situation up,” Hayward said.
- end quote -
As far as it goes, that's good. One could be petty and note that the precedent of the Exxon Valdez cleanup, and the fact that Exxon was forced to pay for that cleanup, were the main reason BP has made this statement, knowing it would not cost it a red cent more than the cost it would have been forced to pay anyway. However, it's better when this is made clear upfront and the court system is not needed to enforce such a no-brainer.
The question then boils down to what you ask here. To what degree does BP get to control what gets done to clean things up, or to protect things from getting dirty in the first place, and to what degree do the communities affected get to have a say in the matter. Given BPs track record here, I'd say that they tend to skimp somewhat on prevention, and that cleaning up the mess after the fact tends to be much much more expensive than preventive measures would have been. Along the lines of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
On the other hand, it is not reasonable to allow the very concerned (and rightly so) but inexpert local governments to jump on any potential protective measure, whether or not it is likely to truly help, and whether or not it is really needed, and expect BP to cover all such costs.
The proper way to handle this then is to have the appropriate government agencies bring to bear their experience and expertise, along with a professional blue-ribbon panel of experts from academia and industry (though BP should not be given a veto or even a vote in that committee), and determine what measures should be employed, where, and when. At that point, those measures should be funded by a fund BP should set up immediately for the purposes of "dealing with (the oil) and cleaning the situation up" in the words of the BP CEO. The amount they set aside for this should for starters be as much as the Exxon Valdez cleanup effort costs ended up reaching. If any money is left over once the dust settles, that amount should then be used to bolster safety at BP's other off-shore rigs, and at their refineries for that matter. According to the same USA Today editorial quoted above, "Federal investigators said the company's cost-cutting was at least partially responsible for a disastrous explosion that killed 15 at a BP refinery in Texas City in 2005 and two large oil spills in Alaska in 2006."
As several people have noted (see e.g. http://theweek.com/article/index/202576/Gulf_spill_Can_BP_win_back_Americans ) BP has been trying to rebrand itself as environmentally friendly. This cannot but set a backdrop of higher expectations, against which BP's current epic failure stands out even more starkly.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Explosion%2C_Leak_at_Gulf_of_Mexico_Oil_Well_2010-04-28.jpg
A transcript from ABC's This Week (see http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-mckay-napolitano-salazar-allen/story?id=10532649&page=3 ) quotes BP as having said in their filing for the original permit for drilling:
- quote -
An accidental oil spill could cause impact to the beaches. However, due to the distance to shore, 48 miles, and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected. BP Exploration and Production Incorporated has the capability to respond to the maximum extent practicable to a worst-case discharge
- end quote -
Ok. So BP made a lot of money based on that assertion that "no significant adverse impacts are expected" and now, whether as a result of accident, failure on BP's part, or failure on the part of the company BP hired to operate the rig itself, there is an ecological disaster unfolding. It's time for BP to put its money where its mouth was.
In fact, BP has announced that it would cover the costs of cleaning up the oil. According to an LA Times blog (see http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-bp-accepts-responsibility-for-oil-cleanup.html )
- quote -
In a round of appearances on morning television and radio news shows, BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward accepted responsibility for the cleanup and said the company would pay compensation for legitimate claims for property damage, personal injury and business losses.
“We are responsible, not for the accident, but we are responsible for the oil and for dealing with it and cleaning the situation up,” Hayward said.
- end quote -
As far as it goes, that's good. One could be petty and note that the precedent of the Exxon Valdez cleanup, and the fact that Exxon was forced to pay for that cleanup, were the main reason BP has made this statement, knowing it would not cost it a red cent more than the cost it would have been forced to pay anyway. However, it's better when this is made clear upfront and the court system is not needed to enforce such a no-brainer.
The question then boils down to what you ask here. To what degree does BP get to control what gets done to clean things up, or to protect things from getting dirty in the first place, and to what degree do the communities affected get to have a say in the matter. Given BPs track record here, I'd say that they tend to skimp somewhat on prevention, and that cleaning up the mess after the fact tends to be much much more expensive than preventive measures would have been. Along the lines of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
On the other hand, it is not reasonable to allow the very concerned (and rightly so) but inexpert local governments to jump on any potential protective measure, whether or not it is likely to truly help, and whether or not it is really needed, and expect BP to cover all such costs.
The proper way to handle this then is to have the appropriate government agencies bring to bear their experience and expertise, along with a professional blue-ribbon panel of experts from academia and industry (though BP should not be given a veto or even a vote in that committee), and determine what measures should be employed, where, and when. At that point, those measures should be funded by a fund BP should set up immediately for the purposes of "dealing with (the oil) and cleaning the situation up" in the words of the BP CEO. The amount they set aside for this should for starters be as much as the Exxon Valdez cleanup effort costs ended up reaching. If any money is left over once the dust settles, that amount should then be used to bolster safety at BP's other off-shore rigs, and at their refineries for that matter. According to the same USA Today editorial quoted above, "Federal investigators said the company's cost-cutting was at least partially responsible for a disastrous explosion that killed 15 at a BP refinery in Texas City in 2005 and two large oil spills in Alaska in 2006."
As several people have noted (see e.g. http://theweek.com/article/index/202576/Gulf_spill_Can_BP_win_back_Americans ) BP has been trying to rebrand itself as environmentally friendly. This cannot but set a backdrop of higher expectations, against which BP's current epic failure stands out even more starkly.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
BP has no legal obligation, nor should they have any legal obligation, to fund anyone else who wants to spend money to contain or cleanup the spill.
BP has a legal obligation and will pay for the cleanup from the results from the spill.
BP is within its rights to spend its money as it sees fit to best contain the spill. I would rather have BP deciding on the best way to contain this spill then some government entity with no experience in this matter, nor a government entity which does try and minimize cost and the effects of the spill.
BP has a legal obligation and will pay for the cleanup from the results from the spill.
BP is within its rights to spend its money as it sees fit to best contain the spill. I would rather have BP deciding on the best way to contain this spill then some government entity with no experience in this matter, nor a government entity which does try and minimize cost and the effects of the spill.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
British Petroleum should not be allowed to determine the funds that are given for boom plans in oil spill areas in the Gulf of Mexico. It should be the other way around, and the proper government agency the costs of containment, removal and clean-up of oil spill is the Environment Protection Agency in coordination with United States Coast Guard.
The overall continuing costs should be reimbursed by British Petroleum. It is not right for them to dictate the terms of this environmental tragedy that may exceed the Exxon Mobil oil spill. If they refuse to pay they should be hailed to court and pay the reasonable amount of damages.
The overall continuing costs should be reimbursed by British Petroleum. It is not right for them to dictate the terms of this environmental tragedy that may exceed the Exxon Mobil oil spill. If they refuse to pay they should be hailed to court and pay the reasonable amount of damages.
images:
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
@turkreno, you know that media is in business to make money, don't you? What makes money? Big disaster claims, murder and mayhem. Some so-called journalists take the position that if it isn't true now, it will soon be so, and by being the first to "report" it, they get to scoop the competition, even if their claims are not yet true. Also, it is possible, I suppose, that they did find at least some stretch of the coast where it is true. Maybe.