• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much and what should BP pay for as a result of the oil spill?

What and how much should BP pay for as a result of the oil spill?

  • A 100% of the cost of the clean up.

    Votes: 36 80.0%

  • Some of the cost of the clean up(please specify)

    Votes: 5 11.1%

  • A 100% of what the fishermen lost as a result of the spill

    Votes: 16 35.6%

  • Only some of what the fishermen lost as a result of the spill(please specify)

    Votes: 9 20.0%

  • A 100% loss of what any business/company lost as a direct result of that spill.

    Votes: 16 35.6%

  • Some of the what those other businesses lost as a direct result of the spill(please specify)

    Votes: 8 17.8%

  • none of the above

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • other

    Votes: 6 13.3%
  • Total voters
    45
jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
How much and what should BP pay for as a result of the oil spill

A 100% of the cost of the clean up.
Some of the cost of the clean up(please specify)
A 100% of what the fishermen lost as a result of the spill
Only some of what the fishermen lost as a result of the spill(please specify)
A 100% loss of what any business/company lost as a result of that spill.
Some of the what those other businesses lost(please specify)
none of the above
other



I believe that company should pay a 100% for the clean up, what it cost the fishermen and any other businesses that lost revenue as a result of that spill. I also picked other, the loss of tax revenue that some of those states and towns may have lost as a direct result of the spill. Of course I am not saying BP should pay what ever the companies and fishermen and cities say they lost.What they lost should be proven by looking at what they made on the average for the past couple of years(or similar company/business if it is a new company or fishing business.)

That said it is going to be we the consumer who pays since that oil company will pass those costs onto us through the products we pay for.
 
Last edited:
100% of the cleanup costs.

A proportion of the lost revenue for other businesses in proportion to their fault. Meaning that if they are found to have done everything right and it was a total fluke than none but if they were found to be completely negligent, than all. But really it will be somewhere in between. What that amount ends up being is beyond my expertise though.
 
Last edited:
Look at how much companies now have to pay for the pollution that they create. Compare impacts. Try to state how many times greater this pollution is. Come up with a price from there.
 
megaprogman said:
100% of the cleanup costs.

A proportion of the lost revenue for other businesses in proportion to their fault. Meaning that if they are found to have done everything right and it was a total fluke than none but if they were found to be completely negligent, than all. But really it will be somewhere in between. What that amount ends up being is beyond my expertise though.
Click to expand...
This.

Although determining what amount of fault to assign will obviously be a long drawn-out process.
 
Transocean, Halliburton and BP all bear partial responsibility to total 100% of the costs. How it's divided between them has yet to be determined.
 
They should pay for all the clean up.

I talked to my friend on the phone today, her father works for BP and knows some men who work on the platform. I guess they were running tests, and I guess some failed. And they were in the process of trying to fix the problem when, well you know what happened.
 
Trial lawyers are loving this.

Think of all the money they will make off of this incident.
 
The Mark said:
Trial lawyers are loving this.

Think of all the money they will make off of this incident.
Click to expand...

Do you think Obama will say that those lawyers made too much?
 
Ideally they'd pay 100% of the cleanup and 100% of the incidental damages, but that probably isn't realistic. Hopefully they'll at least have to pay for the total cost of the cleanup and SOME of the incidental damages.

It's not just BP though. Halliburton and Transocean are liable as well.
 
I think BP should be bared from doing business in the US plus pay the clean up.
 
They should be banned from off-shore drilling until they can assure they've implemented the safety methods that the Norwegians have been using for years. Profit, when you're drilling a hole in the Earth, should be secondary.

They should pay 150% of costs associated with clean-up.

They should pay for lost business in the gulf of mexico until the clean-up is complete.
 
From what I understand, they are only liable for 75 million, which is why I expect the American taxpayer will pick up the tab for the rest of the damages and lost wages/industry.
 
lizzie said:
From what I understand, they are only liable for 75 million, which is why I expect the American taxpayer will pick up the tab for the rest of the damages and lost wages/industry.
Click to expand...
We should be accustomed to it by now...
 
Arch Enemy said:
They should be banned from off-shore drilling until they can assure they've implemented the safety methods that the Norwegians have been using for years. Profit, when you're drilling a hole in the Earth, should be secondary.

They should pay 150% of costs associated with clean-up.

They should pay for lost business in the gulf of mexico until the clean-up is complete.
Click to expand...

Excellent! I think the Obama admin will go after BP with a vengeance. However, BP has thrown a lot of $$ around Washington and Obama so, we shall see.
 
I'm curious as to why a foreign firm was drilling in American waters? Don't U.S. oil companies have this capability? Aren't we trying to decrease our dependence on foreign oil? Why were we putting the fate of our ecosystem in the hands of foreigners?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I'm curious as to why a foreign firm was drilling in American waters? Don't U.S. oil companies have this capability? Aren't we trying to decrease our dependence on foreign oil? Why were we putting the fate of our ecosystem in the hands of foreigners?
Click to expand...

Actually the oil rig is owned by TransOcean, which is an American company. BP was just leasing it. But I don't see what their nationality has to do with anything. Would the spill be any better if it had been ExxonMobil instead of BP?
 
I say make them pay 100% of everything.

Use them as an example to show other oil companies that they better have their **** together and better be making sure their equipment works right.
 
This is funny, hearing everyone talk about these guys needing to pay for 100% of the damage costs. Why don't we hear the same cry for air pollution or water pollution? No, we need to cap those instead. Seems to me that's a lot of hypocrisy.
 
phattonez said:
This is funny, hearing everyone talk about these guys needing to pay for 100% of the damage costs. Why don't we hear the same cry for air pollution or water pollution? No, we need to cap those instead. Seems to me that's a lot of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It's a lot harder to measure the monetary damages from air pollution, and it's a lot harder to determine who exactly is causing it (and in what proportion). If you can come up with an effective way of doing that, then I totally agree that companies should be held accountable for their pollution as well.
 
Kandahar said:
It's a lot harder to measure the monetary damages from air pollution, and it's a lot harder to determine who exactly is causing it (and in what proportion). If you can come up with an effective way of doing that, then I totally agree that companies should be held accountable for their pollution as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, measure the pollution before they expel it.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
I'm curious as to why a foreign firm was drilling in American waters? Don't U.S. oil companies have this capability? Aren't we trying to decrease our dependence on foreign oil? Why were we putting the fate of our ecosystem in the hands of foreigners?
Click to expand...

Most of our foreign oil comes from Canada, I like Canadians and they seem to like us.

What's the beef?
 
phattonez said:
Yeah, measure the pollution before they expel it.
Click to expand...

That's essentially what cap-and-trade attempts to do. I'm somewhat skeptical of this approach because 1) it's expensive to measure, 2) many of the measurements only work for factory smokestacks and other "obvious" sources of pollution, and 3) even if you could accurately measure the amount of pollution, it's difficult to attach a specific monetary value to it.

I'm certainly open to the idea, but I have my doubts as to how well it would work from a practical standpoint.
 
I'm mostly concerned about the innocent fishermen who have lost their livelihoods. These are not wealthy people and cannot get along without income.
 
phattonez said:
Yeah, measure the pollution before they expel it.
Click to expand...

I think in this case, we are talking about what to do after the fact. I cannot imagine that anyone would prefer that this oil be spilled over it not. So with the cat out of the bag, it than becomes time to discuss remediation instead of prevention.

However, prevention is always better.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Most of our foreign oil comes from Canada, I like Canadians and they seem to like us.

What's the beef?
Click to expand...

So, in other words, 'foreign oil' really means 'Middle Eastern oil', correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom