The environment thread

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not arguing the strawman versions of those positions that you're building, no.

 

I guess I don't see how its a strawman. That's the logic in both arguments. On the one hand you assume BP will follow the rules, on the other you claim you know they won't follow the rules.

[Balta1701]

(despite no evidence to the contrary).

Although BP is promising to pay all legitimate claims, some business owners say they are being asked for thousands of documents, as if they were being audited. Others say their claims appear to be getting lost, and they are being passed from one adjustor to another, having to explain and re-explain their situations and submit new sets of documents every time.

 

BP says it hasn't denied any of the 42,000 claims submitted, though as of Sunday, it had only paid 10 worth more than $5,000.

 

"BP is continuously improving our claims process, and we expect to announce enhancements to the large claims process shortly," Mark Proegler, a BP spokesman, said Thursday. He would not update the number of large claims that had been paid.

 

"Those of who live on the hurricane coast and deal with insurance companies, we are beginning to see signs of the runaround, and it makes us a little cynical," says a state senator Don Gaetz, who represents the Florida Panhandle coast. Mr. Gaetz, a Republican, is chairman of the legislature's joint committee on spill response.

 

"I hope it's just the nature of bureaucracy and not a conscious effort to wear people down or slow claims down or deny them," Mr. Gaetz said Thursday.

 

On Wednesday, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen demanded BP provide more detail on how it is meeting claims for individual and business.

 

"Many of the claims adjusters are difficult to reach; they call from `blocked' phone numbers, will not accept email communications, and require that you submit papers via a fax that is usually full," says Robert Murphy, an independent insurance adjustor in Pensacola who is assisting local businesses with filing claims.

 

BP, which recently opened some walk-in centers, says it is aware of complaints and planning improvements.

 

In Orange Beach , Ala., Matt and Regina Shipp, the owners of Shipp's Harbour Grill, were passed around BP's claims office like "a hot potato," Mrs. Shipp said recently.

 

After making a claim for $10,000 in lost business on April 30, they were assigned an adjustor on May 13, only to be told that only commercial fishermen were being paid and that they weren't eligible. After they protested, they were given a second adjustor, who said their claim had been denied because they had been open for business for less than two years, they wrote.

 

A third adjustor agreed reviewed their case, before transferring them to a fourth, they said.

 

"Only because of my extreme persistence (4 days of 8-10 calls per day) did I finally speak to adjustor number four," Mr. Shipp wrote in a letter of complaint to local officials, adding that the adjustor said, "you were on my list to call but I have been busy and our phones are not working properly."

Link. It's not like these are hard to find. Remember, BP will pay all "LEGITIMATE" claims.

[Balta1701]

I guess I don't see how its a strawman. That's the logic in both arguments. On the one hand you assume BP will follow the rules, on the other you claim you know they won't follow the rules.

The way to fix that then is to make the rules foolproof. Like, for example, you require the relief well to be drilled at the time you drill the first hole. Or, you just get the country off of oil.

[StrangeSox]

I guess I don't see how its a strawman. That's the logic in both arguments. On the one hand you assume BP will follow the rules, on the other you claim you know they won't follow the rules.

 

That's a strawman of the arguments, not the actual arguments.

 

The driving logic behind both arguments is getting out ahead of future problems and attempting to prevent them instead of waiting for disaster to strike. Regulation reform has worked in the past, and so it is unreasonable to conclude that it will fail if tried here. And it doesn't assume that BP will follow the rules, it assumes that you will have to force them to follow the rules with stringent oversight. If the rules are broken, severe penalties and revocation of drilling rights stop operations before disaster strikes. Moratoriums on operations can be put in place if the company elects to fight the charges so that the situation doesn't worsen while legal battles are fought.

 

For the second argument, in just about every case* of an corporation-caused environmental disaster, the response has been to pay claims initially while the story is still in the headlines, but change tactics in the following months and years to denying and delaying as much as possible. Penalties and fees after the fact and having it drug through the courts doesn't put a moratorium on damage already caused. You can't delay the damages done to the ecology and to the millions of people who have had their livelihood affected by this. You can't reverse a bankruptcy of the company or various other means of masking liabilities in the future. Going back and cleaning up the legal mess afterwards is far worse than making sure the mess doesn't happen in the first place.

 

*I can't think of any cases where the offending company didn't try to snake their way out of responsibility, but please cite examples if you know of any.

 

Moreover, if your argument is that regulation will simply not work, then the only alternative is to stop all Gulf drilling and all other drilling with substantial risk of severe environmental impact.

[Jenksismyhero]

Link. It's not like these are hard to find. Remember, BP will pay all "LEGITIMATE" claims.

 

There's reality, and then there's some idealistic world that you think exists wherein every company should just assume liability of any claim ever brought to its doorstep. I'm not ignoring the fact that big companies screw with the little guy all the time, but there's recourse for that kind of behavior.......the courts.

 

But I know. Big bad corporation = evil white guys in a board room lighting their cigars with money.

[Jenksismyhero]

The way to fix that then is to make the rules foolproof. Like, for example, you require the relief well to be drilled at the time you drill the first hole. Or, you just get the country off of oil.

 

And in 30 years when a company skips over some regulation regarding that relief well, we'll pass more regulation so that there's TWO relief wells, just in case the first doesn't work, then three, then 4 and on and on.

 

In the meantime you've just increased the price of doing business for the other XX amount of companies that are doing things the right way. But hell, they're big companies, so they have tons of extra money to spend right?

Edited June 21, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

That's a strawman of the arguments, not the actual arguments.

 

The driving logic behind both arguments is getting out ahead of future problems and attempting to prevent them instead of waiting for disaster to strike. Regulation reform has worked in the past, and so it is unreasonable to conclude that it will fail if tried here. And it doesn't assume that BP will follow the rules, it assumes that you will have to force them to follow the rules with stringent oversight. If the rules are broken, severe penalties and revocation of drilling rights stop operations before disaster strikes. Moratoriums on operations can be put in place if the company elects to fight the charges so that the situation doesn't worsen while legal battles are fought.

 

For the second argument, in just about every case* of an corporation-caused environmental disaster, the response has been to pay claims initially while the story is still in the headlines, but change tactics in the following months and years to denying and delaying as much as possible. Penalties and fees after the fact and having it drug through the courts doesn't put a moratorium on damage already caused. You can't delay the damages done to the ecology and to the millions of people who have had their livelihood affected by this. You can't reverse a bankruptcy of the company or various other means of masking liabilities in the future. Going back and cleaning up the legal mess afterwards is far worse than making sure the mess doesn't happen in the first place.

 

*I can't think of any cases where the offending company didn't try to snake their way out of responsibility, but please cite examples if you know of any.

 

Moreover, if your argument is that regulation will simply not work, then the only alternative is to stop all Gulf drilling and all other drilling with substantial risk of severe environmental impact.

 

 

Strawman. Shifting goal posts.

 

Seriously though, as to the bold, didn't this situation just prove to you that it's meaningless unless all parties do their job? Here the governmenet failed to inspect a rig that was clearly dangerous. Had that been done, this wouldn't be an issue. So there's no need for MORE regulation, why not just expect the government to do its job the first time around?

 

And just about every case. GMAFB. You hear about the bad ones, not the ones that just follow the rules. I love how you guys are actually arguing that the courts in a situation like this are a bad thing, but giving all that power to one guy is a good thing. Christ has our country changed political philisophies quickly.

[Balta1701]

There's reality, and then there's some idealistic world that you think exists wherein every company should just assume liability of any claim ever brought to its doorstep. I'm not ignoring the fact that big companies screw with the little guy all the time, but there's recourse for that kind of behavior.......the courts.

 

But I know. Big bad corporation = evil white guys in a board room lighting their cigars with money.

And the courts is exactly the issue here. Going to the courts for the victims of Exxon took 20 years. Exxon spent $500 million on attorney fees, and it wound up saving them on the order of $3 billion. Victims who wound up losing their whole livelihoods wound up with about $8000.

 

Hell, even in a much, much, much smaller case, the Texas refinery explosion, BP spent 3 years litigating before reaching final settlements with injured workers and 4 years later BP was still litigating over an OSHA fine for $87 million. ANd in that case, they set up a $2.1 billion escrow account, so that was years of litigating with a much smaller case even though BP had put money aside to pay for claims.

[Jenksismyhero]

And the courts is exactly the issue here. Going to the courts for the victims of Exxon took 20 years. Exxon spent $500 million on attorney fees, and it wound up saving them on the order of $3 billion. Victims who wound up losing their whole livelihoods wound up with about $8000.

 

Hell, even in a much, much, much smaller case, the Texas refinery explosion, BP spent 3 years litigating before reaching final settlements with injured workers and 4 years later BP was still litigating over an OSHA fine for $87 million. ANd in that case, they set up a $2.1 billion escrow account, so that was years of litigating with a much smaller case even though BP had put money aside to pay for claims.

 

Fair enough. You've proven to me the court system is a joke. Let's give the President the power to take over companies and pay out claims as he/she sees fit.

 

Done.

 

Edit: In all seriousness, as an attorney, those dates mean nothing. Lawsuits take years for a reason. There's a lot of wasted time, no doubt, but 3 years for injury claims? That's not bad at all.

 

And I'm still not swayed by the Exxon example. So those guys were a bunch of pricks (believing everything you say. I'll reserve the option to go read and find out why it took so long). That doesn't mean these guys were/are/will be. They've paid out claims. Regardless of how much, or of how much running in circles claimants have to do, they're still paying those out. Hell, just setting up the claim system means they've already moved on from that. And with or without Czar Obama's 20 billion escrow fund, they knew they couldn't take the additional PR hit of putting it off.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Fair enough. You've proven to me the court system is a joke. Let's give the President the power to take over companies and pay out claims as he/she sees fit.

 

Done.

Wow, a Republican arguing that it's a great thing for hundreds of millions of dollars to be dumped into legal fees. Remarkable.

 

Anyway...there would be 2 problems with this being tied up in the courts. First, time. If you don't escrow funds, BP has every reason to drag it out as long as it can, as the longer they drag it out, even if nothing changes, the less their settlement will be relative to their company.

 

Second, BP doesn't have enough cash on hand right now to cover the size of the fine the Federal Government is required by law to give them, not even counting the costs of cleanup and the destruction of the livelihood of a couple million people. So quite literally, bankruptcy avoidance here is a major issue. If BP winds up facing costs on the order of several tens of billions of dollars, and they don't have that money, they have every right to use bankruptcy protection from their creditors (aka...the people who's lives they've destroyed). There's a reason BP's stock price went up 10% on the day that the escrow fund was announced...it helps keep the company solvent.

[Jenksismyhero]

Wow, a Republican arguing that it's a great thing for hundreds of millions of dollars to be dumped into legal fees. Remarkable.

 

Anyway...there would be 2 problems with this being tied up in the courts. First, time. If you don't escrow funds, BP has every reason to drag it out as long as it can, as the longer they drag it out, even if nothing changes, the less their settlement will be relative to their company.

 

Second, BP doesn't have enough cash on hand right now to cover the size of the fine the Federal Government is required by law to give them, not even counting the costs of cleanup and the destruction of the livelihood of a couple million people. So quite literally, bankruptcy avoidance here is a major issue. If BP winds up facing costs on the order of several tens of billions of dollars, and they don't have that money, they have every right to use bankruptcy protection from their creditors (aka...the people who's lives they've destroyed). There's a reason BP's stock price went up 10% on the day that the escrow fund was announced...it helps keep the company solvent.

 

Of course the flipside of that is that you've just taken 20 billion of operating capital out of their coffers, and forced them to pay that money today, versus paying out claims slowly over time so they have more of a chance to recover.

[StrangeSox]

Strawman. Shifting goal posts.

 

No, actually stating my position instead of the caricature you drew.

 

Seriously though, as to the bold, didn't this situation just prove to you that it's meaningless unless all parties do their job? Here the governmenet failed to inspect a rig that was clearly dangerous. Had that been done, this wouldn't be an issue. So there's no need for MORE regulation, why not just expect the government to do its job the first time around?

 

Well, I believe I said regulation reform. Restructuring the existing regulation schema and how its implemented is a big part. But so is new regulation increasing the safety standards and reliability of the materials and methods used.

 

And just about every case. GMAFB. You hear about the bad ones, not the ones that just follow the rules. I love how you guys are actually arguing that the courts in a situation like this are a bad thing, but giving all that power to one guy is a good thing. Christ has our country changed political philisophies quickly.

 

We're talking about the cases of severe environmental impact, because those are the comparable situations. Like I said, I can't think of any, but please do cite some examples. I'm arguing that the courts have consistently sided with the large corporations in similar past cases, and that by the very nature of the system, the process takes years upon years. Giving all the power to a foreign private corporation who has one interest (shareholders) seems no better to me than having the executive branch appoint an administrator of an escrow fund agreed to by said company. Was his administration of the 9/11 fund terrible? Subject to widespread fraud and political manipulation?

[Balta1701]

Of course the flipside of that is that you've just taken 20 billion of operating capital out of their coffers, and forced them to pay that money today, versus paying out claims slowly over time so they have more of a chance to recover.

Actually, no they haven't, they're going to build up the escrow account by suspending dividend payments for the next year, because they have no where close to the cash-on-hand available to fill up that escrow account right now. If they weren't forced to suspend that dividend, then they'd be paying out the money to shareholders (including me) that would need to go to paying for the destruction of the gulf.

[StrangeSox]

Fair enough. You've proven to me the court system is a joke. Let's give the President the power to take over companies and pay out claims as he/she sees fit.

 

Done.

 

Edit: In all seriousness, as an attorney, those dates mean nothing. Lawsuits take years for a reason. There's a lot of wasted time, no doubt, but 3 years for injury claims? That's not bad at all.

 

So you'd be willing/ able to wait 3+ years for compensation for your job, local economy and environment being destroyed?

 

And I'm still not swayed by the Exxon example. So those guys were a bunch of pricks (believing everything you say. I'll reserve the option to go read and find out why it took so long). That doesn't mean these guys were/are/will be. They've paid out claims. Regardless of how much, or of how much running in circles claimants have to do, they're still paying those out. Hell, just setting up the claim system means they've already moved on from that. And with or without Czar Obama's 20 billion escrow fund, they knew they couldn't take the additional PR hit of putting it off.

 

You're describing the first phases of what Exxon did. Make an appearance of paying out claims while the story is still hot, but once the relief wells are drilled and the spill is controlled, it will be much easier to back off without a serious PR backlash.

[StrangeSox]

I'll try to find the link again, but financial analysts were putting an upper limit of about $100B on the cost to BP for all of this.

[Jenksismyhero]

So you'd be willing/ able to wait 3+ years for compensation for your job, local economy and environment being destroyed?

 

 

 

You're describing the first phases of what Exxon did. Make an appearance of paying out claims while the story is still hot, but once the relief wells are drilled and the spill is controlled, it will be much easier to back off without a serious PR backlash.

 

You don't have a choice. If a natural disaster hit they'd still have to wait. That's life man. s*** happens. It sucks, but it happens. They should be compensated, but it happens.

 

I don't think the entire system should be flipped on its head just to speed things up. I think you have to respect the rights of all parties involved, including the party that f***ed up in the first place.

 

And making an appearance. GMAFB. What more should they do right now besides hand the people of the Gulf a blank check and say "we trust you to fill in the amount based on your actual damages." This situation is entirely different than Exxon's. It's not Alaska, it's the Gulf. It deals with Florida, where tons of old people (voters) live. That on top of the fact that the news cycle is radically different.

 

Not the same situation at all.

[Jenksismyhero]

Actually, no they haven't, they're going to build up the escrow account by suspending dividend payments for the next year, because they have no where close to the cash-on-hand available to fill up that escrow account right now. If they weren't forced to suspend that dividend, then they'd be paying out the money to shareholders (including me) that would need to go to paying for the destruction of the gulf.

 

Fine. But there's still an economic impact of having to do that right now versus over time (in manner that makes the most business sense for them).

[StrangeSox]

Ultimately, BP voluntarily agreed to this fund and this manner of fund oversight. Think of it like arbitration to avoid protracted legal battles.

[StrangeSox]

Fine. But there's still an economic impact of having to do that right now versus over time (in manner that makes the most business sense for them).

 

The costs are accumulating in real-time. We're already at $2B and they are still months away from stopping the leak and have barely begun paying out damages. $20B is a short-term down payment on the true cost.

[Jenksismyhero]

Ultimately, BP voluntarily agreed to this fund and this manner of fund oversight. Think of it like arbitration to avoid protracted legal battles.

 

It's a moot point, I agree. But I don't think it was voluntary at all. They had no choice. They couldn't take the PR hit, and they couldn't take the US revoking its licenses/permits.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

An intractable position is different from the government nationalizing them or taking unilateral action. Leverage is worth something in negotiations.

[Balta1701]

It's a moot point, I agree. But I don't think it was voluntary at all. They had no choice. They couldn't take the PR hit, and they couldn't take the US revoking its licenses/permits.

Really, you're right here, but it wasn't the U.S. revoking its permits that was the worry, I think it was outright bankruptcy. Right now, the government has every legal justification and in fact is required to fine them on the order of $4300 per barrel spilled. Right now, that's on the order of $10 billion dollars, plus or minus...just for paying the fine. Not to mention the royalties they owe the government on extraction (it doesn't matter what you do with the oil, if you extract it and dump it into the ocean, you owe the government extraction fees). And then the cleanup on top of it.

 

Getting the escrow account started now stabilizes the company and keeps them from being taken over.

[southsider2k5]

Wow, a Republican arguing that it's a great thing for hundreds of millions of dollars to be dumped into legal fees. Remarkable.

 

Anyway...there would be 2 problems with this being tied up in the courts. First, time. If you don't escrow funds, BP has every reason to drag it out as long as it can, as the longer they drag it out, even if nothing changes, the less their settlement will be relative to their company.

 

Second, BP doesn't have enough cash on hand right now to cover the size of the fine the Federal Government is required by law to give them, not even counting the costs of cleanup and the destruction of the livelihood of a couple million people. So quite literally, bankruptcy avoidance here is a major issue. If BP winds up facing costs on the order of several tens of billions of dollars, and they don't have that money, they have every right to use bankruptcy protection from their creditors (aka...the people who's lives they've destroyed). There's a reason BP's stock price went up 10% on the day that the escrow fund was announced...it helps keep the company solvent.

 

If this was so important, why does the federal government operate the exact same way as BP when it comes to thinks like Social Security claims? They actually deny a majority of them on the first claim.

[Balta1701]

It's not oil spill related but I missed this while I was conferencing. Yowza. No wonder the Japanese keep winning those votes.

A SUNDAY TIMES investigation has exposed Japan for bribing small nations with cash and prostitutes to gain their support for the mass slaughter of whales.

 

The undercover investigation found officials from six countries were willing to consider selling their votes on the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

 

The revelations come as Japan seeks to break the 24-year moratorium on commercial whaling. An IWC meeting that will decide the fate of thousands of whales, including endangered species, begins this month in Morocco.

 

Japan denies buying the votes of IWC members. However, The Sunday Times filmed officials from pro-whaling governments admitting:

 

- They voted with the whalers because of the large amounts of aid from Japan. One said he was not sure if his country had any whales in its territorial waters. Others are landlocked.

 

— They receive cash payments in envelopes at IWC meetings from Japanese officials who pay their travel and hotel bills.

 

- One disclosed that call girls were offered when fisheries ministers and civil servants visited Japan for meetings.

 

Barry Gardiner, an MP and former Labour biodiversity minister, said the investigation revealed “disgraceful, shady practice”, which is “effectively buying votes”.

 

The reporters, posing as representatives of a billionaire conservationist, approached officials from pro-whaling countries and offered them an aid package to change their vote.

 

The governments of St Kitts and Nevis, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Grenada, Republic of Guinea and Ivory Coast all entered negotiations to sell their votes in return for aid.

 

The top fisheries official for Guinea said Japan usually gave his minister a “minimum” of $1,000 a day spending money in cash during IWC and other fisheries meetings.

[FlaSoxxJim]

It's not oil spill related but I missed this while I was conferencing. Yowza. No wonder the Japanese keep winning those votes.

 

Yup. If you haven't seen The Cove yet you'll get an eyeful of all the different ways japan buys IWC votes. It is beyond criminal.