Skip to main content

View Diary: White House plans to force BP to set aside money to pay damages (272 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Can he? Doesn't that depend on the law (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sjbob, erush1345

    on this matter?

    In addition, what stops BP from just setting up a new US sub that would obviously not be covered by the ban?  Or will Obama be able to effectively issue bills of attainder against any company owned more than X% by BP?

    Finally, hasn't the administration already issues a moratorium on new permits?  If so this is not an effective threat.

    •  It would be based upon demonstrated evidence (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      True North

      that BP submitted boilerplate plans for how they planned to drill, what they would do in the case of an actual spill, etc.

      A great deal, probably a large majority, of the paragraphs in their 500 plus page drilling plan were merely copied without thought or discussion from other plans, going 20 years back. Some portions were cut and pasted from Alaska drilling plans, hence the discussion of how to save the walruses and sea otters from an oil spill. [these are cold water animals that do not live in the gulf.] There is a list of experts to contact, none of whom were contacted, and at least one of them died in 2005, four years before the plan was submitted.

      It can be shown that they did not follow, nor probably even consult, what was in their plan, some of which actually made sense. For example the plan states that should a spill occur the first order of business would be to measure it, in order to plan further actions that depend upon the volume of oil being released per day. After being asked to do this, or at least give permission for scientists to do it, they refused, saying that their prime responsibility, determining their allocation of resources, was to shut down the well.

      This now comes to bite them: had they known the spill rate was in the range of 30,000 barrels per day, instead of 1000 or later 5000, they would have had three more tankers at the surface ready to "produce" that amount of oil as it comes up from the new riser cap. Right now they have trouble handling just 10,000 per day and said it will take until mid July before the extra tankers come on site, being diverted from the North Sea.

      So the justification for taking away their license is that they filed false documents that they never intended to rely upon anyway. It therefore does not matter that the MMS approved those boilerplate documents without reading them. The act of filing them was fraudulent.

      The right to drill again in the United States would be granted after they prove that they can file truthful documents,  by rewording all their drilling plans from the past five years and then demonstrating their validity at one or two wells per year, until they have re-established their bona fides.

      Few are the number of them who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts. -- Albert Einstein

      by sjbob on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 07:26:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  PS: This is a regulatory action (0+ / 0-)

      This would start out as a regulatory disqualification, in the first instance.

      Any lawsuit challenging it would have to come from BP, and that could be tied up in court for longer than the regulation is designed to be in effect.

      Few are the number of them who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts. -- Albert Einstein

      by sjbob on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 07:47:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site