Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (80647)	5/30/2010 4:45:17 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

>>You want people to start cleaning the pollution, when the pollution is occurring at more than 1000 times than people can clean. This is what I am saying. You are madly in rage against BP. And that is not productive.<< I am not madly in rage against BP, or any other corporation for that matter. What I am trying to convice you of is that BP is and will game the system. They have no interest in cleaning up the spill at all. I am just facing reality. I expect nothing from them. I expect my government to regulate them. But let me explain why the government should do the cleaning and bill BP. And I know BP is doing everything they can to cap that well, but not the clean up. BP will not do a first rate job in cleaning because they can't do a satisfactoy job without bankrupting the company. They know this. So their strategy will be to do some cleaning (to give them a defense in court), but drag their feet. It is in BP's best interest to do a minimum and then litigate the rest. That is what Exxon did. They had no interest in cleaning up that spill. Everything they did was the minium they could get away with politically and then litigated the rest and they came away great. They only had to pay a minimum for clean up and then almost nothing in punitive damges. They just found friendly judges along the 20 year trip to reverse other judges. Like I said, the supreme court finally reduced their punitive damages from 5 billion to 500 million---after 20 years of litigation. Carol Browner of EPA today said (what some of us have been saying all along) it was in BP's best interest to not tell people how much oil is actully coming out. Think about it as a lawyer would. If BP says there is only 5,000 barrels coming out, then they can argue in court the damages people sue for would be less than if there was say 20,000 or 40,000 barrels a day. Everything BP is doing is in light of how their lawyers feel is their best way forward to minimize their cost. Worked for Exxon who had 45 billion in profits last year and got away from the Valdez spill very cheap. All a matter or legal strategy.