BP Points to Thriving Tourism to Reduce Settlement Payments

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/bp_points_to_thriving_tourism_to_reduce_settlement_payments_20110715/

Just over one year out from the BP oil spill that wreaked havoc up and down the Gulf Coast, the tourism industry there is so far having one of its best summers in years. BP is latching on to the good news, using it to argue in a court filing recently that “there is no basis to assume that claimants, with very limited exceptions, will incur a future loss related to the spill.”

But with so little time having passed, is it too soon to make such assumptions? Could the good fortune of the tourism industry this summer be a fluke, or more likely yet, an effect of the upward swing of the U.S. economy in general since 2009?

Furthermore, while BP is fighting for the right to pay Gulf-area claimants less for possible future losses, the issue of whether or not to remove underwater mats of oil, discovered even recently sitting just off shore, keeps residents worried for their future. In the event that a tropical storm or hurricane passes through the Gulf, those submerged mats of oil and tar could wind up sitting on the beach yet again. —BF

The New York Times:

Since the spill last year, messages from the coast have been somewhat mixed, with some businesses arguing that it is continuing to hurt the coast and that more assistance is needed, and others, often led by tourism officials, emphasizing the positive to entice visitors and consumers.

More at the link --

[TheKentuckian]

1. BP America should be nationalized without compensation and it's board thrown under the jail

The broader entity should lose all rights to operate in US controlled territory and should in no way be protected by our military. The larger board should all be charged as well.

[Cool Logic]

2. That's a rather disturbing point of view...considering...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[provis99]

4. you post appears to have nothing to do with Kentuckian's post...

did you mean to post in the guns forum, and hit the wrong button?

[Cool Logic]

5. Your post appears to indicate that you are unable to comprehend. Let me try to help you.

"it's board thrown under the jail" is in conflict with:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

"nationalized without compensation" in in conflict with:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[TheKentuckian]

6. I'm fine with a trial, they can be held under the prison until such time as they are flight risks

Of course with Bagram and Gitmo, such old fashioned notions have become more suggestions than functional law.

As far as taking the property without compensation, I consider it a fine beyond their means to pay. There isn't enough money to compensate for the damage done much less punitive awards so I'm very comfortable with taking what they have.

If we can confiscate a pot grower's family lands and the contents of their home then I think we can get away with similar steps for mass murdering ecosystem destroyers.

[undeterred]

3. Is the ecosystem coming there for "ecotourism"?

Sheesh.