Feds sue BP, other companies for oil spill damages

Sorry my mistake, Halliburton just paid $ 250 Mil. to Nigeria in bribes ( to avoid a bribery charge) so the Government knows they are a bit short on cash right now.

Sorry my mistake, Halliburton just paid $ 250 Mil. to Nigeria in bribes ( to avoid a bribery charge) so the Government knows they are a bit short on cash right now.

Nothing a few giftwrapped, no-bid contracts can't fix!

Well, they have a sippy straw,alas Sister Sarah, attatched to the U S Treasury. Sueing Haliburton would only be more money added to our National Debt! Companies like Haliburton and Blackwater are never short of YOUR money!!!

I'm curious what the idiotic Republican that apolodized to "bp" for our Govt laying a "heavy hand" on them, thinks about this action on behalf of the American People? I guess more Republican apologies will be forth coming! Why do Republicans hate America so much; yeah, I know they talk that fake patriotic "bs", but actions speak louder than words. And their actions over the last 10 years have been disgusting!!!

Halliburton will never get added to this lawsuit they are untouchable. They been doing business in Iran for years even though its Illegal for US companies to do business with Iran while they are sanctioned. They pay no federal income taxes and get 100 million + returns every year. You should look at the pictures of the 40+ million dollar buildings they built in Iraq and Afghanistan that have never been used because they are unsafe for military personnel. They have poisoned and electrocuted our troops and have not been responsible.

I'm curious what the idiotic Republican that apolodized to "bp" for our Govt laying a "heavy hand" on them, thinks about this action on behalf of the American People?

That's Joe "Big Oil" Barton, Republican crackhead from Texas, perhaps our future Energy Advisor, and I'm sure he thinks this is travesty, a crime, and we should leave poor BP alone.

I'm curious what the idiotic Republican that apolodized to "bp" for our Govt

Probably Oily Joe thinks BP should sue the US for offering them defective oceanic floorspace with inferior-quality petroleum, when BP clearly requested non-spillable petroleum reserves. Obviously the true blame lies with the American government...

Strange that Halliburton did not get sued

Agreed. Especially since a WikiLeak just revealed that a similar incident occurred in Azerbaijan 2 years ago, also blamed on a "bad cement job" (just like Hayward blamed Halliburton on) but was covered by BP, including who did the bad cement in Azerbaijan:

According to another cable, in January 2009 BP thought that a "bad cement job" was to blame for the gas leak in Azerbaijan. More recently, BP's former chief executive Tony Hayward also partly blamed a "bad cement job" by contractor Halliburton for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico [...] BP declined to answer questions put by the Guardian about the cause of the Azerbaijan gas leak and who carried out the cement job

So because the government slipped, up the oil companies thought it was OK to cut corners on safety?

So you think that federal inspectors should have to be there at all times to assure compliance with the law? So much for smaller government. Just because the govt. isn't there watching you is no excuse for breaking the law.

they bribed the government inspectors with hookers and cocaine.
BP gets doubly blamed.

StevieGee

So you think that federal inspectors should have to be there at all times to assure compliance with the law? So much for smaller government. Just because the govt. isn't there watching you is no excuse for breaking the law.

Not to mention, I'd be pretty surprised if their permit documents didn't make it very clear that the presence of government inspectors in no way relieves the permittee from abiding with all laws, etc, etc........

@#2.3

Hey Naughtia, I didn't know Sarah Palin was at those Mineral & "Mining Services" parties with the bp Executives? Poor thong,I mean thing; she's been through so much! Wink,Wink...

It is not always easy to be in charge. Sometimes you have to do things that are not in line with other things.

Sounds like he's doing his job of holding corporations accountable - it's on the first paragraph.



Don't fret, Nadia. Joe Barton will quickly apologize to the defendants on behalf of all Americans who support zero corporate accountability.

"I'm sorry BP for making you clean up your own mess. I'm sorry that the gulf residents are demanding restitution for your reckless, illegal behavior."

LOL yea, businesses care so much about doing the right thing when no human in the company can be touched. Oh wait, corporations are humans now, I forgot. /sarc

Oh wait, corporations are humans now, I forgot. /sarc

Wow, that hurt. Shot in foot. How is a corporation prosecuted as an individual? It's gotta work both ways. As long as Citizen's United stands then corporations need to suffer the consequences from their actions along with enjoying the benefits from the ruling.

Totally agree.

It became unfashionable to report on it so they moved on. But on the bright side I see Scarlette Johanson is getting divorced, now that's news.

The $20 billion is mentioned in the article. Unwritten NV rule. Read article, then comment.

Why do you think that is?

I think the government saw an easy target in BP because they are British based and decided they could be brought down to distract from the administrations real goal which is to make fuel so expensive that people are forced to convert to non petroleum alternatives.

It's no coincidence that while the focus is kept on BP that the other companies being sued are among the largest exploration and drilling outfits that are also used by the US companies. The sudden reversal of the offshore drilling in other areas, the "carbon tax" cap and trade legislation their pushing, and so on are all designed to raise fuel prices above the means of the average consumer to buy it.

Even with government subsidies ethanol is $3 a gallon. Electric only cars have extremely limited ranges and are unsuitable for most people. And hydrogen fuel cell technology is still basically in its infancy. The alternatives to gasoline and diesel are all so expensive that only sustained very high gas prices will push consumers into these alternatives that the administration is pushing.

I think the government saw an easy target in BP

You think the 4th largest corporation in the world is an easy target?

I'm curious where you got that they are worlds fourth largest corporation? GE, Walmart, Exxon, Mitsubishi, Sony, and a few others are far larger than BP was. Today BP only has 1/3 the assets they had at the beginning of this year.

But to answer your basic question the answer is yes. BP has actually made themselves an easier target for litigation by trying to do the right thing. Most corporations would have started out at day one defending themselves and denying blame. BP has openly and repeatedly taken full responsibility which will make it very hard to mount a legal defence.

I'm curious where you got that they are worlds fourth largest corporation?

Fortune magazine.

Lets not pretend that BP can't afford the best lawyers on the planet. Exxon's lawyers was able to keep the valdez spill in court for 25 years.

I'm sure they can and will hire the best and most expensive lawyers they can. But that goes right back to the point that by forcing them to defend against yet another lawsuit, the government is making them waste resources that could have been being used instead to continue restoration in the gulf.

What would have been the harm for the Justice department to wait and see if BP completed their own voluntary efforts first, the sued them if they didn't fulfill their obligations? There was no danger of time running out to file the suits. This is a political ploy and nothing more but a way to make this administration appear to be accomplishing something.

AmusedinVa - Dude, seriously, do you work for BP?

BP is the only major company ever to have stepped up to the plate voluntarily and taken full responsibility

What a joke.

for the accident, paid for every cost involved in the shutting down the well, cleaning up the oil, and repairing damages, plus did all the work with their own crews and equipment

The US Coast Guard, the US Navy and thousands of Gulf Coast volunteers had nothing to do with any of this? By the way, where was BP's responsibility - a company with an abysmal safety record before this happened - before the spill occurred? If they were so responsible, it wouldn't have happened in the first place.

For those that remember the Valdez spill which was the second worst in US history cost Exxon a $5 million fine and the government did half the cleanup work. Compare that to the $40 billion BP has already spent.

Yeah, that would be a distant... distant... @#$% DISTANT second, and that they got away with such a dismal fine is criminal in itself. I'm not even sure your number is correct, but whatever it is, you're right, it isn't enough. I think the Alaskan fishermen whose livlihoods were lost would agree. Exxon's corporate lawyers did a great job of tying that one up in the courts until a lot of the original plaintiffs were, well... dead. Don't you worry. I'm sure BP's corporate lawyers are up to task to do the same thing regarding this spill.

Even with government subsidies ethanol is $3 a gallon.

Yeah, I think even the people you'd characterize as environmental whackos would agree that ethanol is a pork barrel joke intended to line the pockets of the likes of ADM.

The alternatives to gasoline and diesel are all so expensive that only sustained very high gas prices will push consumers into these alternatives that the administration is pushing.

That would be the Obama administration, right? As if the current head of the executive branch is wielding such phenomenal power during his three-year tenure. How about this... instead of making this a political issue, why don't we just hold a multinational corporation accountable for its negligence in a court of law? In the meantime, don't worry, they'll come out on top, just like Exxon did.

The administration is not going to stop until they have completely destroyed BP and a few others over this. Isn't strange that BP is the only major company ever to have stepped up to the plate voluntarily and taken full responsibility for the accident, paid for every cost involved in the shutting down the well, cleaning up the oil, and repairing damages, plus did all the work with their own crews and equipment, yet now the government is suing them before they have finished the job they willingly started.

They didnt do it out of their good heart, they did it due to the law. THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990

First there is no oil company that has broken more rules in the US than BP and this is by far.. THey arent even close to #2.. but that doesnt matter what matters is the Oil pollution act, passed by daddy bush in the wake of the exxon valdez.

THIS LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT TO A SUPERVISORY ROLL AS BP IS REQUIRED TO CLEAN UP, THEN THE GOVERNMENT CAN SUE FOR RECOVERY OF THE MONEY IT SPENT.

See when the government got involved in the valdez spill there was questions of liability due to the government being involved.

THE OPA was set up in order to make sure we could recover our money.

AmusedinVa - Dude, seriously, do you work for BP?

Not hardly or even in a close field.

The US Coast Guard, the US Navy and thousands of Gulf Coast volunteers had nothing to do with any of this? By the way, where was BP's responsibility

And what exactly was the involvement of these agencies? The spotter planes were chartered and paid for by BP. The mini subs used to shut off the well belonged to BP and other oil companies paid for by BP. The skimmers either belonged to or were contracted to and paid for by BP. The booms were bought and placed by BP.

Oh yeah I remember now the Coast Guard slowed down the process of containing and cleaning up the oil by making BP wait for permission to use various equipment, chemicals, or techniques, while the bureaucrats decided whether or not to ok it.

As far as volunteers are concerned though, yes they had a big contribution in cleaning beaches and such but most of that work to was done by workers who were contracted to BP. The volunteers however were not something which was directly under the control of bP or requested by them.

In regard to the political part though you tell me. What other administration before this one has pushed so hard for the cap and trade legislation or railed so strongly about "carbon" pollution and the need to get off fossil fuels?

They didnt do it out of their good heart, they did it due to the law.

That would be the same law that also capped BP's liability at $75 million. The cap that BP from day one said they would not limit themselves to. My point wasn't that it might not be needed to in the future bring a suit, it was that at this point it was a political ploy and not a necessary action. They could have filed a lawsuit in 2012 or 2014 and had the same effect without diverting attention from restoration to legal defence.

I've done some looking into their past problems and would agree that BP had a terrible safety record in the past. They openly admitted fault and lax safety in this incident. But I still think that regardless of past performance their current actions in dealing with their mistakes was admirable given how other companies have gone to great extremes to avoid responsibility. They are a company with problems no doubt. But one could hope that maybe they've learned much from this and will institute a top down restructuring of how they operate in the future.

by forcing them to defend against yet another lawsuit, the government is making them waste resources

This doesn't make any sense. Waste resources?? Listen very carefully...@!$%# BP!!!

If they wanted to be all responsible and "do the right thing" they shouldn't have been cutting the corners that caused the problem in the first place. Instead they were being good capitalists and making a profit by any means necessary.....now they are paying the price for their greed.

BP goes down soon...there are still a few others to take out.

If they wanted to be all responsible and "do the right thing" they shouldn't have been cutting the corners that caused the problem in the first place.

That's a very valid argument. But it's also not really addressing future realities to focus on past misdeeds. They were negligent and they've admitted that. And they've paid a terrible price for that negligence as have many tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with them. By the same token though they have removed the guys responsible for the negligence as far as can be seen and have attempted to correct the damage done. How would bringing them down now benefit anyone if it's done before they finish making good on their pledge to make things right again in the gulf?

finish making good on their pledge

Because neither you or I CAN trust them.

If they were negligent the first time around, they can't be trusted to act in good faith now.

I say seize all their assets, wells, property, finances, any actual oil/oil products they have.....everything. Sell it off at a Marshall Service auction....R.I.C.O. they can take it all...just like they do gangsters and drug dealers.

By letting them off "easy", we set a bad example for the other crooked ass corporations out there. It's just like prison should be a terrible place if you commit a crime.....we can't send BP to prison, but we can do the equivalent by shutting them down.

AmusedinVa

AmusedinVa - Dude, seriously, do you work for BP?

Not hardly or even in a close field

Maybe a stockholder? Or family ties? Your support for BP is misguided, or do you just like rooting for the uderdogs.

I wish I had enough money to be able to buy stock. My only interest in BP is in the fact I admire the way they've tried to handle this situation for the most part.

Wouldn't it be a much better world if all corporations could admit their mistakes and try to make atonement for them instead of running from responsibility? I think what we have or at least had here in this incident was a chance for BP to show the other corporations that making things right because it's the right thing to do was the correct choice. We stand to possibly lose if not already have lost that lesson by the way BP has been hounded since the spill.

So here's the question about them and the likely outcome of the next corporation that commits some great tragedy. Should they have done what was legally required of them only and shut off the well then paid the $75 million maximum fine? Or should they have done what they did and are doing spending tens of billions of dollars to repair damage they caused? I don't know about you but I prefer option 2 there.

But here's the problem with what's being done and said about them right now. The next time there's a spill ( and there will be a next time by some oil company ) the offender will immediately deny all blame, roll out the lawyers, and you'll see a repeat of the Valdez incident with the government ending up doing the cleanup and the court cases dragging out until the plaintiffs are dead.

Amused I get where you are coming from....the problem in this whole thing is one thing "the $75 million maximum fine".

But even then it probably won't help them in this case. Please see http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/04/news/companies/bp_legal.fortune/index.htm

PA limits the liability of the responsible party -- BP in this instance -- to $75 million in economic damages, but there are several mammoth exceptions. To begin with, the limitation does not apply to any of BP's liability for state and federal cleanup costs, for which BP (BP) is 100% responsible. As of early June, these costs had already come to about $990 million, according to BP, and the company seems to be just getting started. (BP has also committed to spending another $360 million to fund the building of barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana.)

So while I believe the 75 million rule is stupid and shouldn't never have been enacted in the first place. It doesn't limit their total payout to 75m.

Also if you read further down;

Has BP really waived the $75 million limitation?

Given the public relations fiasco BP would face if it tried to invoke the limit, however; and given the likelihood that the limitation would be legally breakable anyway; and given BP's conduct so far -- as of early June the company had already paid out $42 million in private claims for economic damage, according to its press statements and SEC filings -- it seems likely that, one way or another, BP won't be getting the benefit of the limit.

It's all PR and image at this point....damage control.

It's all PR and image at this point....damage control.

I'd speculate that's all it was from day one to be honest but regardless of the motives I think they were setting a good example for other companies to follow. And look at it this way too if the PR works out for them and they survive this thing in good shape, then other companies will see that as a positive thing to do themselves.

The real hundred thousand dollar question now though is has BP actually learned from this. The PR says they have and their actions to date suggest they have, but it remains to be seen if they go back to samer old shortcut sloppy ways after the gulf incident is no longer news. I tend for now to say we give them the benefit of the doubt and let's see if their actions continue to uphold their words.

And I wasn't even looking for anything particular. I honestly was just checking out the rest of the MSNBC news and came across this about BP, the fine upstanding corporate model that they are.

Amused,

And what exactly was the involvement of these agencies? The spotter planes were chartered and paid for by BP. The mini subs used to shut off the well belonged to BP and other oil companies paid for by BP. The skimmers either belonged to or were contracted to and paid for by BP. The booms were bought and placed by BP.

That noone incurred any costs but BP is probably a bit of a stretch, but let's assume you're right. Even if you are, BP doesn't get "cool points" for doing what they damn well should've been doing anyway.

Oh yeah I remember now the Coast Guard slowed down the process of containing and cleaning up the oil by making BP wait for permission to use various equipment, chemicals, or techniques, while the bureaucrats decided whether or not to ok it.

Was this bureaucratic buffoonery, or was there a legitimate concern at that point that these knuckleheads were only going to make the problem worse? Maybe 20/20 hindsight makes the caution seem overblown, but I don't think it was totally unwarranted.

In regard to the political part though you tell me.

I don't think the suit itself is politically motivated, though the current administration may make more political hay out of it than a Republican administration would. But even if Sarah Palin were President, BP et al would still be getting hauled into court. I'm pretty sure of that.

Not that it's going to make a difference anyway. They'll all have their day in court, incur some legal costs, and they'll thrive in the years to come in spite of it all. And we'll all forget about it until the next spill.

I believe on #5.18 we can be in near agreement. The only problem I saw then or afterwards with the delays was that it appeared at times to be being over cautious at a time when action was more appropriate. Things could have possibly been made worse but they also could have possibly been made significantly better. For instance a lot of oil that made it to the beaches might have never gotten to them to begin with if the government hadn't slowed the process of bringing in foreign flagged ships to assist. Many of the major pieces of equipment needed to contain the spill were moved from all around the world to the gulf and the company could have done that much faster if laws hadn't prevented it and caused the reviews.

On the lawsuit we can agree there. The suit would have happened no matter who was in the White House because it is being brought about by US law. The only problem I have with it is the timing. I don't advocate that BP shouldn't be fined or held liable for any as of yet unknown damages. I do believe though that the suit could have waited to be filed as there was no time line about to expire forcing a need to do it now. In that respect the government may be jumping the gun where caution is truly called for.

For instance let's say they settle this thing fast and in a year or 2 the cases are over and the fines are paid. But then 3 years from now they find hidden damage on the gulf floor or in the ecosystems that isn't known today. If that happened then the government has no recourse because they've already filed their suits and gotten the fines. BP faced the same penalties today that they would have faced in 2 more years, but if they are smart and they settle fast they will avoid a lot of future liability by the governments quick filings now.

Why? I didn't realize that the rig that failed was staffed or designed by hedge fund managers. Or to turn it around, I think all drivers (or users of petroleum products) should be held liable. Your statement is nonsensical.

BlackRock Holdings 1.1 Billion shares of BP and 3.2 Million shares of Nalco maker of COREXIT the Highly Poisonous Dispersant 2.2 Million Gallons and counting. They spray every night because the leak is only Bandaided. The EPA and NOAA RUBBER STAMPED it's use. COREXIT is responsible for 1000's of deaths from the EXXON VALDEZ spillwhich was a Fraction of the Gulf. The head of NOAA JANE LUBCHENCO should've known better having seen the results of VALDEZ. There should be 10's of 1000 Class Action suits for COREXIT exposure alone. The game is spray at night pristine by day light.

Then the chef at Bernard Madoff's favorite restaurant should help pay off the ponzi scheme victims because he helped keep Bernard alive by feeding him.

nice!

probably not due to competition.
if we sued them all, sure.
But what is BP going to do, raise it;s price 20 cents while everyone else is 20 cents cheaper.

Naughtia, … I'm guessing your also willing to attribute the current rise from 2.58 to 3.29 like Bush's 4.00 a gal. gasoline to the placebo, competition. When the oil companies keep rising petroleum prices across the board, while reducing their acquisition cost and then blaming the price increases on market forces, is that also just the effects of competition or greed?

ray.burchard

So the American government will sue oil giant BP and others to recoup the cost of damage and penalties. Where will these untold billions come from … could it just be passed along to the public in the form of escalating gasoline pump price.

I don't have a clue how it could be done but there needs to be a mechanism in place to prevent this. Otherwise, fines mean nothing to these gigantic corporations. I still say jail time is appropriate for anyone, anyone responsible. Everybody from the lowliest rig hand who knew things were't right all the way to the top. The Whistleblower Act has to have much sharper teeth and a lot bigger bite that it currently provides.

Stand up, … I agree with you that criminal liability should be assessed when a corporation puts their greed as their paramount consideration over their communal responsibility. But unfortunately we've already allowed America's politicians to sell their legislative authority to create a corporate immunity from being held either civilly and/or criminally responsible for their actions in the incorporated pursuit of profit. How else would you expect these select few to economically prosper if it were a level playing field for all Americans.

But unfortunately we've already allowed America's politicians to sell their legislative authority to create a corporate immunity from being held either civilly and/or criminally responsible for their actions in the incorporated pursuit of profit.

Doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

You are too violent in your thinking and I see that you have bought into the president's inflammatory rhetoric. What a shame.

What on (this) earth are you talking about?

president's inflammatory rhetoric

Where/when/what did Obama say promoting violence against BP? Did he suggest it's time we reload on them? Or that we best utilize our 2nd amendment rights to make sure they clean up the environment? Or that we should get BP in our scope and shoot it? Just asking, as those are three times that the Dems "are" known for calling for violent retribution... oh, wait... not Dems?... hmmm... uh... nevermind...

It was the use of the president's "fat cats" to which I was referring. The violence that I referenced was

burn their business to the ground.

I got the unnecessary violence part you were referring to with the "burning houses down" part. I just don't get how it was actually spurred by some imaginary inflammatory rhetoric from Obama. Oh, and last time I checked, referring to insanely rich corporations as "fat cats" is not inflammatory rhetoric. On the other hand, using actually-violent imagery (as in the three GOP/TP incidents I alluded to) related to shooting people, especially specific individuals, is inflammatory. Making allusions that our president is committing a "shakedown" of BP, as though he's some mob boss, that's pretty inflammatory too, at least more so than "fat cats"...

Yes, it is. It fans the flames of class warfare. This president has, unlike any other in our history, vilified entire segments of the US population for political gain. He is a divider.

This president has, unlike any other in our history, vilified entire segments of the US population

He's getting a lot of help though.

It fans the flames of class warfare

You mean like calling unions "thugs", or by implying unemployed/poor/welfare people are "lazy", or declaring all Dems as "socialists"? A Repub prez might not be doing that, but just about every single Repub politician and talking head has. But in any case, "class warfare" is still nowhere near as inflammatory as the GOP's acidic rhetoric fomenting racial, sectarian and xenophobic conflict, nor the outright violent/gun imagery I mentioned (and which you still have failed to address).