% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

BP p.l.c. Message Board

  • esuntexas esuntexas Jun 7, 2010 8:23 AM Flag

    BP's Environmental Liability Grandfathered at 75 mil

    A grandfather clause allows the current status of something pre-existing to remain unchanged, despite a change in policy which applies in the future.

    BP's liability is 75mil, even though it is voluntarily paying out most of cleanup cost, it can as easily voluntarily withdraw any new payouts exceeding liability limitation. Even if Congress passes a new law to retrospectively bind BP to new liability standards, BP can fight in court for years that the new regulation is unconstitutional when applied to this accident.
    That supremen court fight will take years if not decades.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • The nlaw does not include gross negligence, and BP has plenty of that in the gulf already. BP is going to lose. Wait and see.

    • Hey as long as you believe that, you should have a golden opportunity to make a killing.
      The rest of the world including BP thinks their iability is in the BILLIONS,,and that liability is factored into the price of shares now.
      So if you bought ALL YOU COULD stand, imagine how much money you would make once they discover what you already know that $75 million is all the liability they had.
      Hell they would first get Over a Billion in refunds from the Feds for the money they already spent..
      Buddy, you are sitting on a Gold Mine.. I say cash out the 401K, sell the house, sell the car BUY BP shares with both hands..
      You are gonna have more money than you can imagine as soon as others realize what you know.

    • If someone in power told them to destroy the gulf of Mexico then paper money will be used to make it look good.

      Trust in Jesus is all we need going forward.

    • That law most likely would not cover gross negligence, punitive damages, private lawsuits, etc...
      BP is not agreeing to pay the first 1.25 bil installment to cover the disaster as an act of good will. They are paying it in order to start the process of damage control.
      BP is on the hook and they know it. And the US government behind a now froithy Obama, is now publicly reminding BP of their legal responsibility to cover damages. If BP really thought that they had a legal means for getting out of paying for this mess, the legal team would already be working the media and challenging the assumption that BP is responsible for damages. regardless of what you might believe about BP acting out of desparation to save its image by writing billion dollar checks, no PR is worth the amount of damage that BP will eventually cover based entirely on good will.
      The $75 million liability cap would only apply to standard situations. In this case, prior history of gross negligence, and their mistakes and gross negligence in not maintaining functioning back ups and controls to manage potential leakage or explosions from drilling, has most certainly convinced BP's legal team that they would lose if they challenge their liability above $75 million. No my friend, no corporation willingly hands out billions unlesss they HAVE to.

    • Perhaps you did not hear what the president has said? The president is going to make Bp pay for the clean up costs. The government has ways and administrative ways to make people and ompanies do what they want. While the law might limit the cost to Bp, if they hope to do buisness and have acess to drill again in north america they will have to comply with the presidents order to cover all costs. jmho.

    • And who initiated and passed that law needs to be dropped in GOM without life preserver IMHO.

      • 1 Reply to lionqueen40
      • Great point - we don't seem to demand much in the way of accountability from our "employed gove't executives". Did we notice SEC people getting fired after Madoff? Did they apply the $75 million limit to three mile island? How about Valdez?
        Can anyone imagine how such activities could occur without an EIS being done ever again? If you want an example of what can happen to a water area when environmental issues are ignored just put your hand into the water in Baku, Azerbaijan - you don't see the "oil plume" but the oil smell and presence is undeniable.
        IMHO Who is going to force BP to fix what they did or do we just wink and nod as they walk away in a few months?

    • BULLSHIT - Take a moment to review tort law on negligence. This was not an accident was it? Don't forget punitives and consider how hard it would be to find a jury that thought killing off the Gulf was OK besides BP shareholders of course!

    • You need to read a little more before you put out your best effort to make an ass of yourself this early in the morning..
      If they are capped at $75 million, maybe you can explain to the rest of us why they already spent $1.2 Billion.

      • 1 Reply to MAllen1998
      • Ok guys. 1.25 billion is not the total expense thus far spent on the environmental liability portion is it? It icludes that of construction costs on domes, new well drillings, incremental labor, and other variable costs. So, please wisen up! Any environmental payout above the 75mil is done by BP out of goodwill. Negligence needs to be proven in the courtroom. From what I can see, there is no negligence, since BP got all the govenmental clearance. It is not BP's fault, the deepwater regulations were not up to date.

    • Thats why they already paid 1 1/4 BILLION ?

33.61-0.07(-0.21%)Sep 27 4:00 PMEDT