BP to pay record $4.5 bn fine over US oil spill

Nov 15, 2012 by Chantal Valery
US Coast Guard picture shows fire boats battling the blazing remnants of the BP-operated off shore oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. BP will pay the largest criminal penalty in US history to settle charges and claims arising from the resulting oil spill, a source close to the case said.

BP agreed Thursday to pay a record $4.5 billion in US fines for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill and will plead guilty to obstruction and criminal negligence in the deaths of 11 workers.

The company's reputation was ravaged after an April 20, 2010 explosion on the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers and unleashed the biggest marine oil spill in the industry's history.

It took 87 days to cap BP's runaway Macondo well 5,000 feet (1,500 meters) below the as it spewed some 4.9 million barrels (206 million gallons) of oil into the .

Thursday's settlement does not close the book on the British energy giant's lengthy and complex legal battle over the devastating spill and must still be approved by a federal judge.

BP is also still on the hook for economic damages, including the cost of environmental rehabilitation, and could pay as much as $18 billion in civil penalties.

The massive criminal fine—which will be paid over six years—will be relatively easy for BP to absorb. It has a market value of $127 billion and last month hiked its shareholder dividend after posting a bumper third of $5.43 billion.

BP also signaled it will continue to aggressively pursue damages from rig operator and subcontractor Halliburton, which was responsible for the well's faulty cement job.

"Today's agreement is consistent with BP's position in the ongoing civil litigation that this was an accident resulting from multiple causes, involving multiple parties, as found by other official investigations," the oil giant said in a statement.

BP vowed to "continue to vigorously defend itself against all remaining civil claims and to contest allegations of gross negligence in those cases."

Thursday's settlement includes an agreement to plead guilty to 14 , 13 of which are "based on the negligent of the negative pressure test conducted on board the Deepwater Horizon," BP said.

The obstruction of Congress charge stems from two false statements BP made about flow rate estimates from the runaway well.

The fines include a record $4.0 billion to settle the criminal charges and $525 million to settle securities claims with US regulator the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Group chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said the "resolution is in the best interest of BP and its shareholders."

BP shares rose slightly on the news even as the energy giant said it will increase the amount it intends to set aside to cover all compensation costs to almost $42 billion from $38.1 billion. Much of that charge has already been absorbed on its balance sheets.

Environmental group Greenpeace was quick to slam the settlement as inadequate.

"This fine amounts to a rounding error for a corporation the size of BP," Greenpeace senior investigator Mark Floegel said.

"Nothing in this proposed settlement gives any oil company incentive to be more careful in future operations. Cutting corners and skimping on safety will still be the rule of the day."

BP chief executive Bob Dudley issued a statement expressing the company's deep regret for the loss of life during the accident and for the spill's impact on the Gulf coastal region.

"From the outset, we stepped up by responding to the spill, paying legitimate claims and funding restoration efforts in the Gulf," Dudley said.

"We apologize for our role in the accident, and as today's resolution with the US government further reflects, we have accepted responsibility for our actions."

Earlier this year, BP reached an agreement to settle claims from fishermen and others affected by the disaster for $7.8 billion, but it must also still be approved by a federal judge.

Over the past two years, BP has so far sold non-core assets totaling more than $35 billion to help fund the cleanup and compensation costs.

BP recently unveiled a massive strategic deal with Russian state oil firm Rosneft in an attempt to reposition itself after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

Analysts believe that the Rosneft deal could lead to major exploration projects in the Arctic.

Explore further: Coastal defences could contribute to flooding with sea-level rise

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

BP seals $7.8 bn settlement in US oil spill

Apr 18, 2012

Oil giant BP said Wednesday it has finalized a $7.8 billion deal to settle thousands of claims from fishermen and others affected by the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

US eyes first BP criminal charges over Gulf spill: WSJ

Dec 29, 2011

US prosecutors are readying criminal charges against British oil giant BP employees over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident that led to the catastrophic Gulf oil spill, The Wall Street Journal reported online.

BP accused of gross negligence in US spill

Sep 05, 2012

The US Justice Department has accused oil giant BP of "gross negligence and willful misconduct" in the massive 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, in court documents obtained Wednesday.

BP near settlement with US over Gulf spill

Nov 15, 2012

British oil company BP said Thursday it is in advanced talks with U.S. agencies about settling criminal and other claims from the Gulf of Mexico well blowout two years ago.

Recommended for you

Tracking giant kelp from space

16 hours ago

Citizen scientists worldwide are invited to take part in marine ecology research, and they won't have to get their feet wet to do it. The Floating Forests project, an initiative spearheaded by scientists ...

Heavy metals and hydroelectricity

18 hours ago

Hydraulic engineering is increasingly relied on for hydroelectricity generation. However, redirecting stream flow can yield unintended consequences. In the August 2014 issue of GSA Today, Donald Rodbell of ...

What's wiping out the Caribbean corals?

19 hours ago

Here's what we know about white-band disease: It has already killed up to 95 percent of the Caribbean's reef-building elkhorn and staghorn corals, and it's caused by an infectious bacteria that seems to be ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Caliban
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2012
A slap on the wrist to a giant corporation like BP, even after proof of fraud, criminal negligence and a persistent, top-down corporate culture of "Profit First".

This settlement doesn't even come close to the maximum penalties for their crimes, following conviction for criminal negligence, even based upon the per-barrel fine. To say nothing of the lives lost and decision-making that lead to the disaster.

A stark illustration of Corporate irresponsibility based upon the sure knowledge of relative immunity from punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.

Howhot
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2012
From top down, the BP disaster was negligence piled on top of negligence, on a scale of engineering all the way up to top management. From an engineering standpoint, how can anyone drill so deep without being prepared for a massive deep water blowout? From a management point of view, how do you let a drill proceed without every precaution on the surface in place. From the executive, how can you miscalculate the total risks vs profits in a venture like this and ignore the *CONTINENTAL SCALE* of the environmental risks?

BP is getting away cheap. Its too bad their CEO from that time is doing a little jail time for allowing such a project to develop without environmental fore-site to ask "if a deep sea blow out occurs, how can we spare the environment from damage?" Dig down, and I'll bet that SOB had no answers.

FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (18) Nov 15, 2012
The US should seize every BP asset in US territory and international waters. Let's make an example.
Caliban
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2012
Not only did they have no answers, they deployed --in advance-- a number of deliberate lies regarding their disaster preparedness/mitigation plans, claiming to have a fleet of rigged, manned and ready response vessels on standby -for one example. Their planning in reality only extended so far as to satisfy paper regulatory requirements, while management pushed full steam ahead to get that jackpot first strike with the well.

This is why they were indicted on criminal charges, and were supposed to be made to pay the much stiffer criminal fines for the harm done. By this judgement, they are paying only a fraction of what they are actually on the hook for, so it appears that undue influence/conflict of interest has once again deflected justice.

One need only reflect upon what would happen to an ordinary citizen if they negligently caused the spillage of even a couple hundred gallons of oil, to understand just what a travesty this judgement is.

I'm all for making an example of them.

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (29) Nov 16, 2012
Everyone who uses oil is complicit in that accident, starting with the incompetent government agency who gave that rig high safety ratings beforehand.

The offshore drilling industry has a remarkably good record through its history, up to an including that accident, despite what the reactionary far left hysterical environmentalists whine on about.

We will continue to burn coal and oil for years to come, so we need to drill for it. The ACT of drilling in difficult areas is what induces risk,.... factored into such risk is incompetence and panicked cover ups.

By this judgement, they are paying only a fraction of what they are actually on the hook for


BS, the costs are waaaaaay overblown.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (31) Nov 16, 2012
The US should seize every BP asset in US territory and international waters. Let's make an example - FrankHerbert


I think massive oil spills is a good thing for the U.S. and probably even Israel. :)
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 16, 2012
From Noumenon's profile:
Bonehead Post Contest..... "Iran developing a nuclear weapon would actually be a good thing for the US and probably even Israel." - FrankHerbert


I actually said that. Now complete this sentence:

Two nuclear powers have never ____ __ ____.

For every hour you don't answer the question I will spend an equal amount of time signing people up for free Obama phones.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (31) Nov 16, 2012
From Noumenon's profile:
Bonehead Post Contest..... "Iran developing a nuclear weapon would actually be a good thing for the US and probably even Israel." - FrankHerbert


I actually said that. Now complete this sentence:

Two nuclear powers have never ____ __ ____.

For every hour you don't answer the question I will spend an equal amount of time signing people up for free Obama phones.


Obama will bankrupt the nation anyway, so hand them out to the degenerate low class all you want.

I'll answer anyway,...

"Two nuclear powers have never [gone to nuclear war].

However, we're talking about Iran, who openly supports terrorist groups and is run by religious islamist fanatics, and who has stated openly they wish to remove Israel from the map. The "mutual ensured destruction" concept applies to rational governments, not the ayatollah cave men.

And even Obama, and the civilized world agrees with me, not you.

I quoted you because you 1' rate like a troll.
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2012
I'm pretty sure Iran wants nuclear weapons simply because they are scared shitless of warmongering Israel.

I quoted you because you 1' rate like a troll.

Do you enjoy being a hypocrite?

http://phys.org/n...ion.html
4.6 / 5 (33)
4.7 / 5 (36)

http://phys.org/n...uts.html
FrankHerbert gets:
0.8 / 5 (50)
0.7 / 5 (48)
while Noumenon gets:
4.6 / 5 (31)
4.6 / 5 (32)

This has gone on for years:
2009: http://phys.org/n...957.html
2009: http://phys.org/n...182.html
2008: http://phys.org/n...748.html

It's obvious you have an automated program (you are known to be a programmer) that you wait until it falls of your recent comments page so it's not as obvious. These examples were provided to me by another person you stalk around here, and I'm sure I'd be provided with more examples should I ask.

Maybe I should forward them to the moderation?
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (31) Nov 16, 2012
Do you need to troll every thread with your non-sense and half-truths?

I know of no one else that posts here that is more of a sock-puppet drive by rater than YOU. Hypocrite. If the moderators never listened to my complaints about you over the past few years, what makes you think they will listen to you.

Do you have a comment about the BP article?
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2012
The best part is that most of the examples are from years before I even registered an account here.

You are the king of puppeteering around here. I only engaged in it briefly until I realized I was no match for you. That and I had more important things to worry about like recovering from a life-threatening health problem (PS: Thanks for the free healthcare!)

Please continue to act butthurt over getting individual 1's from real posters while you dole them out in the hundreds. Hypocrite.

(It must be awfully hard for you to wait to engage your program until these posts fall off my comment page.)
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 16, 2012
I'm predicting Estevan57, one of Noumenon's many aliases will come through here to give noumenon some fives and me some ones. Let's see.

EDIT: HAHA, that didn't take long, did it? Funny that both are never logged in at the same time. The itch is just too strong, isn't it?

VVV_You look, sound, and smell like a conservative douchebag._VVV
Estevan57
2.9 / 5 (43) Nov 16, 2012
You look, sound, and smell like Otto.
Do your posts deserve a 5?
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (31) Nov 16, 2012
I only engaged in it briefly until I realized I was no match for you.


If I have ever puppet rated someone, it was only in RESPONSE to being troll rated in the first place, for no reason. In fact several categories of topics I post, I expect to get 1's as legitimate ratings from others perspectives. I simply take Ethelred's advice in dealing with your type.
Estevan57
2.9 / 5 (42) Nov 16, 2012
Noum, your opinion: is Otto Frank?
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 16, 2012
Now let's see ScooterG (another alias) come out of the woodwork. I just saw he logged on through my PM page.

Actually I may be wrong about this. We'll see.
Estevan57
2.9 / 5 (43) Nov 16, 2012
So why do you care who is logged on or not? You sound like an insecure teenage girl fretting over some Facebook stupidity. Are you really that insecure? Oh no! Scooters online! what do I do?

Does he not like me? Should I be lite, or Frank, or Antiphilo, or Otto? What shall I do?

Grow up.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (31) Nov 16, 2012
Noum, your opinion: is Otto Frank?


They seem different to me, though FH is Anti-Philo.

I have only ever posted with one other name, and in those posts I include "Noumenon" at the bottom. Sadly, there're enough cranks on this site to utilize the rating system for its intended purpose, but legendary rating trolls like FH ruins it for everyone.

I will not engage FH in this non-sense further. If It wants to discuss an actual topic, then fine,....
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2012
Hmm...
You sound like an insecure teenage girl fretting over some Facebook stupidity.

Give me a few minutes in google to establish the pattern here.

http://phys.org/n...nce.html
"Spoken like a twelve year old girl that loves puppies, a child that lives her intellectual live in perpetual fantasy" -Erscheinung (Noumenon's only admitted sockpuppet. It is even german for "noumenon").

http://phys.org/n...one.html
"Are you like those 14 year olds trying to claim others are idiots because they didn't buy an xbox 360?" -Noumeon

http://phys.org/n...ies.html
"FrankHubris, you're logic is that of a twelve year old girl." -Noumenon, Also sockpuppeteering

http://phys.org/n...nes.html -Another example of Noumenon's mass-puppeteering

http://phys.org/n...uts.html -And another
Estevan57
2.9 / 5 (44) Nov 16, 2012
When many people say you are childish..... perhaps you are childish.

Look at your posts.

And your PMs.

"Enjoy Obama's meat in your seat, I'm sure you'll enjoy it. 10 inches of democratic steel :)" -Frankpervert.

"No, I taught it to your mom when I was plugging her in the butt with my huge cock." - Frankpervert.

This is what you send and then complain that people call you childish?

Take your meds.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 16, 2012
Maybe I should ask lite to post some of your comments he's shared with me? I've been told you could make a sailor blush.

Where's the complaint? I was simply using it as evidence that you and Noumenon are the same person.

VVV An offer you know they won't take. Also, I thought you were done with this? Keep feeding me your tears.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (31) Nov 16, 2012
I have no less than 75 PM's from FH demonstrating similar adolescence, the latest promising to lower my rating to 2. Have fun with that FH. I have offered the moderators my PM password on previous occasions. The offer still stands.

FH, the only thing I regrete from those quotes is my misuse of "live" and "you're".

I actually have more respect for Otto (lite) than you, because he at least attempts to debate, which is why I rarely rate hin despie his crusade.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (31) Nov 16, 2012
Where's the complaint? I was simply using it as evidence that you and Noumenon are the same person.


The only thing you managed to demonstrate conclusively , is that multiple posters think that you act like a child.

One would think that someone who supposedly recovered from "near death", wouldn't waste a second on such non-sense.
Caliban
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 16, 2012

FH, the only thing I regrete from those quotes is my misuse of "live" and "you're".


nonoUnme,

The only thing the rest of us here "regrete" is that you still insist upon posting your entirely superfluous, unsupported opinions here.

You probably aren't even aware that the only things that you possess fewer of than facts are faculties.

I, personally, am not the least bit offended when you are twatted by others here --even you must know that claiming some sanctimoniuos, higher moral ground for yourself is the most blatant hypocrisy.

You offer neither superior argument nor behavior, so you'll just have to get used to taking what you get, just like everyone else. You aren't special.

Well --maybe "special"--but not Special special.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (30) Nov 16, 2012
Your posts in his thread are way over the top. BP is settling in accord with rationality, not emotional environmental hysteria. That is the fact, and it is in line with my post, and not with yours.

.. claiming some sanctimoniuos, higher moral ground for yourself


I don't know what this means.
Caliban
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 16, 2012
Your posts in his thread are way over the top. BP is settling in accord with rationality, not emotional environmental hysteria. That is the fact, and it is in line with my post, and not with yours.

.. claiming some sanctimoniuos, higher moral ground for yourself


I don't know what this means.


Not at all surprising. I had just pointed out that the "...only things that you possess fewer of than facts are faculties."

Also, we could interpret that as additional evidence of your "special"-ness.

BP has managed to wangle a settlement for well below the maximum criminal fines to which they were subject.

That is the fact, and in line with the undue influence that their resources as one of the very largest Transnational Corporations in the world makes possible, and the very fact that your post so conveniently ignores.

Now, go see if you can collect a sufficiency of facts -on any topic- and, even more importantly, enough faculties to make an intelligent argument.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (29) Nov 16, 2012
you must know that claiming some sanctimoniuos, higher moral ground for yourself is the most blatant hypocrisy.
I don't know what this means.


I meant I don't know what you're referring to in relation to me. I don't claim any "higher ground". What are you talking about. The issue with FH is between me and it from years ago.

Do you mean like this, when you claim to speak for all posters on this site and generalize about my posts,...

The only thing the rest of us here "regrete" is that you still insist upon posting your entirely superfluous, unsupported opinions here.


Seems like you're claiming undue ground in claiming to speak for "the rest of us here".
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (30) Nov 16, 2012
BP has managed to wangle a settlement for well below the maximum criminal fines to which they were subject. That is the fact, and in line with the undue influence that their resources as one of the very largest Transnational Corporations in the world makes possible, and the very fact that your post so conveniently ignores.


You don't know the difference between a fact and unfounded speculation. A fact is that if approved, the US justice system would have determined that the maximum penalty of $4,300 per barrel was not warranted in this case.

Unfounded speculation is your non-sense that the US justice system was some how bought off or unfairly influenced by BP, which resulted in a lessor criminal penalty. You've provided zero evidence of your conspiracy that the US justice system made anything but a rational and unbiased settlement.

The company does not deserve to be completely disassembled and ruined.. they're already paying $30 billion (?).
Caliban
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2012
You don't know the difference between a fact and unfounded speculation. A fact is that if approved, the US justice system would have determined that the maximum penalty of $4,300 per barrel was not warranted in this case.


In the case of Criminal -as opposed to simple-- negligence, and which BP was convicted of, you are correct -the maximum fine per barrel spilled is 4300USD. The total spill was 4.9M bbls. You do the math.

This settlement either substantially reduced those fines, or didn't impose any of the other fines levied in cases of criminal negligence --especially those involving loss of life and limb.
Why do you think that would be, nonoUNme? Was poor little BP being abused too much by the mean old US Criminal Justice system?
Were Mr. Hayward's copious tears made of some incalculably valuable substance?

Of course not. BP used its cosiderable power and influence to obtain a remarkably favorable settlement, you moron.

contd

kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2012
The US should seize every BP asset in US territory and international waters. Let's make an example.
The US did seize BP's assets, when BP was called IRANIAN OIL
Caliban
1 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2012
contd

...The company does not deserve to be completely disassembled and ruined.. they're already paying $30 billion (?).


They have 20BUSD(or so it is claimed -but I haven't seen the certificate of deposit) in escrow, against a speculative claim for damages by the US Government. So far, not a penny of that money has been transfered to the US Treasury.

The only money that BP has paid out to date is what they would have had to pay to their "response vessels" that were on "standby" as part of the "emergency response" force required under the Spill Preparedness and Response" plan required to receive a permit for drilling. In other words -money that they would have had to spend anyway. And the money the paid out in quit claims to distressed residents and business owners in the area that were put out of work or lodged health claims from exposure to all those toxic hydrocarbons, at a rate of pennies on the dollar for their lives and/or livelihoods. And no further recourse.
contd
Caliban
1 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2012
contd

Those quit claims were paid out to desperate people that had no other income except for that provided by their traditional subsistence enterprises of fishing and related industries, tourism, and the communities for which those two industries constituted the main engines of the community economy. And just to make the point again --BP had these people over the "barrel", and as a condition of settlement, they are prohibited from taking any further legal action against BP as a result of the spill --no matter what may still come. And there has, and will be, plenty yet to come. The total amount of these payouts remains a mystery, of course. I'll leave you to speculate as to why that is.

All of this information is easily available for anyone with an interest to become familiar with.

Since, nonoUNme, you claim to have an interest in this topic, why the fuck don't you have even the basic facts of the matter at hand --much less any understanding of them?

ewj
1 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2012
I wonder if BP have litigation insurance? And now our car insurance is going to jump up?
ewj
1 / 5 (1) Nov 17, 2012
so the cost is passed onto us?
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (27) Nov 17, 2012
Since, nonoUNme, you claim to have an interest in this topic, why the fuck don't you have even the basic facts of the matter at hand --much less any understanding of them?


Obviously I am providing facts while you are providing ad-hominem attacks and wild speculation as if they were facts,... as in this quote,...

BP used its cosiderable power and influence to obtain a remarkably favorable settlement, you moron.


I asked you for evidence that the US justice system was negligent in its duties by being rendered bias through the influence and power of BP, which you can't provide because like a typical liberal you operate on emotional speculation and idealist naiveté.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (27) Nov 17, 2012
The justice system, apparently does not see the maximum penalty being warranted here,... that is a fact.

Because of your emotionally driven activist mentality, you refuse to accept this and instead insinuate that the US justice system was somehow corrupted in its decision, without anymore proof than that it does not accord with your own self inflicted ignorance.

You actually think it is a fact that BP "should have" received the maximum criminal penalty. That's your opinion, not a fact. The US justice system does not use hate of an industry, nor environmental activist talking points to render decisions. They base it on well defined standards and facts presented in court.

BP, intelligently, is arranging damage settlements so that it does not result in endless perpetual claims. Those businesses affected will receive compensation to such an extent that they effectively entered the oil business.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (27) Nov 17, 2012
they are prohibited from taking any further legal action against BP as a result of the spill --no matter what may still come


Of course, that is Standard Practice, as well as not publishing on the award amount, so that BP doesn't get picked apart by vultures and corruption, and only pays out to those actually hurt. Recall FEMA after hurricane Katrina, where several $ billion, yes with a B, went unaccounted for.

BP, intelligently, is arranging to protect itself against the real threat of corruption, fraud, and environmental activists aiming to use this oil spill disaster to attack it.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (28) Nov 17, 2012
Actually, in stead of 'oil spill disaster', I would rather say 'unrequested commodity surplus'. Besides, those people clamoring to join the oil business by steeling our profits, should have kept their gross smelly business away from BP's colourful and pretty oil slick.
Caliban
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2012
Actually, in stead of 'oil spill disaster', I would rather say 'unrequested commodity surplus'. Besides, those people clamoring to join the oil business by steeling our profits, should have kept their gross smelly business away from BP's colourful and pretty oil slick.


And this comment perfectly displays your blissful idiocy, and your role of sympathy towards- and apologist for- corporate wrongdoers.

And, since you have failed to provide any "Facts" with regard to the matter of this debate, I'm sure you can understand, perfectly-why I don't feel the need to do your work for you. As I said --the information is freely available for anyone. Unfortunately for you, in order to get to all the pertinent facts, you will have to go outside FUXNewsSpace.
Caliban
1 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2012
Since, nonoUNme, you claim to have an interest [...] facts of the matter at hand --much less any understanding of them?


Obviously I am providing facts while you are providing ad-hominem attacks and wild speculation as if they were facts,... as in this quote,...


You have done nothing of the sort.

BP used its cosiderable power and influence to obtain a remarkably favorable settlement, you moron.


So how do reconcile this statement of yours, then?:

BP, intelligently, is arranging to protect itself against the real threat of corruption, fraud, and environmental activists aiming to use this oil spill disaster to attack it.


Damned out of your own mouth.

I asked you for evidence that the US justice system was negligent in its duties by being rendered bias through the influence and power of BP, which you can't provide because like a typical liberal you operate on emotional speculation and idealist naiveté.


And your approach differs how?
Caliban
1.1 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2012
The justice system, apparently does not see the maximum penalty being warranted here,... that is a fact.


Correct.

Because of your emotionally driven activist mentality, you refuse to accept this and instead insinuate that the US justice system was somehow corrupted in its decision, without anymore proof than that it does not accord with your own self inflicted ignorance.


Did I say otherwise?

You actually think it is a fact that BP "should have" received the maximum criminal penalty. That's your opinion, not a fact.


Again -did I say otherwise?

The US justice system does not use hate of an industry, nor environmental activist talking points to render decisions. They base it on well defined standards and facts presented in court.


This is, indeed, the case. Given the fact that BP was found to be -criminally- negligent, then I certainly do wonder why the maximum fines weren't levied. Otherwise, there is no point to a class of "criminal" penalties.
Caliban
1 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2012
BP, intelligently, is arranging damage settlements so that it does not result in endless perpetual claims. Those businesses affected will receive compensation to such an extent that they effectively entered the oil business.


and:

BP, intelligently, is arranging to protect itself against the real threat of corruption, fraud, and environmental activists aiming to use this oil spill disaster to attack it.


Of course BP seeks to defend itself. They were CRIMINALLY negligent.

And since their negligence resulted in very real and lasting harm both in terms of direct harm to human life, livelihood, and environmental health, are you saying that reparations for that harm is not rightly being sought by those harmed?

I will give you a chance to respond, before I again state the obvious.

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (24) Nov 18, 2012
This is, indeed, the case. Given the fact that BP was found to be -criminally- negligent, then I certainly do wonder why the maximum fines weren't levied. Otherwise, there is no point to a class of "criminal" penalties.


That is patently false. Why are you willfully ignorant while the vast internet lays bare before you?

As I stated above the settlement was based on preexisting standards. In fact the Clean Water Act stipulates a range of between $1,100 to $4,300 per spilled barrel DEPENDING on the defined extent of the criminal negligence. There were subcontractors involved as well, and individuals received manslaughter charges.

The US justice system reviewed the facts, not off the internet, but as presented in court, to determine if it was a General Policy of BP to skirt safety regulations, etc, and rule accordingly.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Nov 18, 2012
are you saying that reparations for that harm is not rightly being sought by those harmed?


Why would you asked such a stupid question when I had clearly stated ,...

Of course, that is Standard Practice , as well as not publishing on the award amount, so that BP doesn't get picked apart by vultures and corruption, and ONLY PAYS OUT TO THOSE ACTUALLY HURT. - Noumenon


In other words, the only way a company can prevent fraudulent claims is to defend itself against those claims. This does not mean that they deny having caused injury, but must sift through claims to determine extent and validity of claims. I shouldn't have to explain this.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Nov 18, 2012
Actually, in stead of 'oil spill disaster', I would rather say 'unrequested commodity surplus'. Besides, those people clamoring to join the oil business by steeling our profits, should have kept their gross smelly business away from BP's colourful and pretty oil slick.

And this comment perfectly displays your blissful idiocy, and your role of sympathy towards- and apologist for- corporate wrongdoers.


Actually, with your help, the only thing that displays, is your lack of Faculties in identifying even such an obvious joke.

If you weren't "special", you would have instantly recognized that post as one mocking you (by my Being the straw-man, you imagine as big evil corporate oil). Duh.

And, since you have failed to provide any "Facts" with regard to the matter of this debate,...


And knock it off with this dumb guy tactic of feigning a lack of "facts" on my part,.... while you provide none that the justice system was corrupted.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Nov 18, 2012
BP used its cosiderable power and influence to obtain a remarkably favorable settlement, you moron. - Taliban


So how do reconcile this statement of yours, then?:

BP, intelligently, is arranging to protect itself against the real threat of corruption, fraud, and environmental activists aiming to use this oil spill disaster to attack it. - Noumenon
Damned out of your own mouth - Taliban


What?! You think it was wrong for BP to "protect itself against the real threat of corruption, fraud, and environmental activists aiming to use this oil spill disaster to ATTACK it"?

Your dopy contention is that the USA justice system was influenced in a bias way to favour BP, a-priori, which is to say that the settlement was arranged on a corrupt bases.

The defense which BP is required to put forward is NOT such a corrupting influence of BP,... its is facts presented to an unbiased court. You're dishonestly conflating things because you were defeated roundly.
Caliban
1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2012
nonoUNme,

It is apparent that you argument is so weak that it cannot sustain any reasoned debate, and that you have resorted to simply repeating yourself.

This is a very tiresome approach, so from this point forward, I'll just simply state that you need to pull your head out of the smelly hole it's stuck in, since no amount of counterargument will budge you from your deliberate inversion of reality, and I have better things to do than refute, over and over, the same wild assertions from you in post after post.

Plus, I'm really getting tired of all your spelling, syntactical and grammar errors.

Roundly so.

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (24) Nov 19, 2012
Your above post is 100% ad hominem non-sense, and is obviously engineered to give the 'impression' that my argument was faulty, en lieu of providing a coherent counter argument yourself.

I asked you to provide proof that the US justice system was derelict in its duties on account of being influenced by BP, rather than rendering a settlement based on rational analysis of the facts presented to it. You are the one who has failed to back up your opinion with facts.

Plus, I'm really getting tired of all your spelling, syntactical and grammar errors.


More distraction from your inability to debate. I only see one spelling error in the previous 10 of my posts. As to syntactical and grammar errors, who cares anyway, this is a comment forum. My use of "roundly" above was correct, you dope.

Looks like you could use a little help yourself, hypocrite, and I only had to look back to your last post...

It is apparent that you argument is so weak...

Caliban
1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2012
Your above post is 100% ad hominem non-sense, and is obviously engineered to give the 'impression' that my argument was faulty, en lieu of providing a coherent counter argument yourself.

I asked you to provide proof that the US justice system was derelict in its duties on account of being influenced by BP, rather than rendering a settlement based on rational analysis of the facts presented to it. You are the one who has failed to back up your opinion with facts.

Plus, I'm really getting tired of all your spelling, syntactical and grammar errors.


More distraction from your inability to debate. I only see one spelling error in the previous 10 of my posts. As to syntactical and grammar errors, who cares anyway, this is a comment forum. My use of "roundly" above was correct, you dope.

Looks like you could use a little help yourself, hypocrite, and I only had to look back to your last post...


Can't hear you, nonoUNme -seems your head is stuck in a smelly hole.
Howhot
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2012
Not to change the subject; but if BP can get away with a slap on wrist with only a Mitt Romney scale fine of 4.2 billion what else can they get away with? Given the damage done CO2 DUMPING, what fine will be imposed on BP and the other criminal oil extraction companies that are Chemical DUMPING of GIGA-TONS of sequestered CO2 into atmosphere? What fine do they deserve? I think they owe the world a hell of a lot of money for what they have done and what they are doing.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (25) Nov 20, 2012
The oil companies are not dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. People who are burning it are, including you. There will never be a fine on oil companies for that, apart from not meeting regulations, because use of oil is a necessity for energy. It's not the oil companies fault,.. it is really no ones fault, except humanity using what's available it it. What are you talking about ?