Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    BP Oilspill

    Uploaded by

    Alex Bran
    1. A US district judge ruled that BP committed gross negligence in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which means BP will likely have to pay $18 billion in damages rather than the $3-4 billion it wanted. 2. BP has already paid over $28 billion in cleanup costs and claims so far related to the spill. However, the company has set aside $43 billion total, leaving $15 billion remaining that it may now have to pay due to the ruling of gross negligence. 3. BP said it will appeal the ruling, arguing it did not meet the high bar for proving gross negligence, but it will be difficult to convince an appeals court to second guess the district judge's determination based on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BP Oilspill

    Uploaded by

    Alex Bran
    41 views2 pages
    1. A US district judge ruled that BP committed gross negligence in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which means BP will likely have to pay $18 billion in damages rather than the $3-4 billion it wanted. 2. BP has already paid over $28 billion in cleanup costs and claims so far related to the spill. However, the company has set aside $43 billion total, leaving $15 billion remaining that it may now have to pay due to the ruling of gross negligence. 3. BP said it will appeal the ruling, arguing it did not meet the high bar for proving gross negligence, but it will be difficult to convince an appeals court to second guess the district judge's determination based on

    Original Description:

    asdasd

    Original Title

    Bp Oilspill

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. A US district judge ruled that BP committed gross negligence in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which means BP will likely have to pay $18 billion in damages rather than the $3-4 billion it wanted. 2. BP has already paid over $28 billion in cleanup costs and claims so far related to the spill. However, the company has set aside $43 billion total, leaving $15 billion remaining that it may now have to pay due to the ruling of gross negligence. 3. BP said it will appeal the ruling, arguing it did not meet the high bar for proving gross negligence, but it will be difficult to convince an appeals court to second guess the district judge's determination based on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    41 views2 pages

    BP Oilspill

    Uploaded by

    Alex Bran
    1. A US district judge ruled that BP committed gross negligence in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which means BP will likely have to pay $18 billion in damages rather than the $3-4 billion it wanted. 2. BP has already paid over $28 billion in cleanup costs and claims so far related to the spill. However, the company has set aside $43 billion total, leaving $15 billion remaining that it may now have to pay due to the ruling of gross negligence. 3. BP said it will appeal the ruling, arguing it did not meet the high bar for proving gross negligence, but it will be difficult to convince an appeals court to second guess the district judge's determination based on

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Sorting Out BP's Gulf Oil Spill Liability: Four Blunt Points

    By Paul M. Barrett September 05, 2014

    Photograph by Jon T. Fritz/MCT via Getty Images


    The Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig burns in the Gulf of Mexico on April 21,
    2010
    Confused about where things stand in the litigation hurricane over the 2010 Gulf
    of Mexico oil spill? Not surprising. On Thursday, BP (BP) suffered a major
    setback in federal court in New Orleansthat much is clearbut what exactly the
    ruling means in terms of the companys ultimate legal bill wont be known for
    some time. Herewith: four blunt points to help cut through the murk.
    1. Environmentalists feel vindicated. U.S. District Judge Carl Barbiers
    ruling that BP committed gross negligence and bore most of the blame for the
    disaster is an historic win for the gulf coast ecosystems and economies that were
    damaged by the BP oil spill, said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental
    Defense Fund. This means that BP will finally be forced to pay what it owes to fix
    what it broke, added David Yarnold, president of the National Audubon Society.

    Barbiers interim decision that BPs conduct was reckless rather than merely
    careless means that the companys liability under the Clear Water Act could
    eventually come in at something closer to $18 billion than the $3 billion or $4
    billion BP would have preferred.
    2. Wait, hasnt BP already paid out a lot of money? Yes. The company has
    acknowledged at least some responsibility for the explosion that killed 11 rig
    workers, sullied shorelines, and shut down maritime businesses. Since 2010, BP
    has paid out more than $28 billion in cleanup costs and damage claims. As a
    matter of accounting, the company has taken a $43 billion charge to cover all the
    costs related to the spill. Thats a $15 billion difference. After Barbiers ruling, its
    far more likely that BP will need to pony up all of the $15 billionand maybe
    more.
    3. BP, however, sounds eager for more courtroom bloodshed. The
    company immediately vowed to appeal. BP believes that the finding that it was
    grossly negligent with respect to the accident and that its activities at the
    Macondo well amounted to willful misconduct is not supported by the evidence at
    trial, the company said. The law is clear that proving gross negligence is a very
    high bar that was not met in this case. This will be a difficult argument to make.
    Barbier based his determination on a detailed factual analysis of the sort
    appellate courts typically hesitate to second-guess. Moreover, the distinction
    between ordinary negligence and gross negligence, as those terms are used in
    maritime law, comes down to a subjective assessment. Persuading a higher court
    that Barbier was flat-out wrong in making this judgment wont be easy.

    You might also like