It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"This disaster has taken their ability to make a living away from them," he said. "We need to do this quickly, and we have to make sure that whatever money goes into that — that in no way caps what BP is responsible for. Whatever money they owe to anybody in the Gulf, they're going to have to pay regardless of the amount."
"This disaster has taken their ability to make a living away from them," he said. "We need to do this quickly, and we have to make sure that whatever money goes into that — that in no way caps what BP is responsible for. Whatever money they owe to anybody in the Gulf, they're going to have to pay regardless of the amount."
Originally posted by andy1033
I wonder how much compensation americas victims all over this world get, you guessed it. Nought.
Imagine how many innocent people have been tortured by americans for no reason other than americans can do what they want.
Originally posted by jibeho
This is merely setting the stage folks. Eliminating the cap on BP sends a clear message to the other companies operating on US soil in this industry. The message is simple. "Get Out or Shutter up your business!"
Say bye bye to the companies and the jobs that they provide because the risk will far outweigh the benefit.
Furthermore, in a disaster as great as this, how do you determine who is a victim and who is not? Who should be compensated more than the next person?
Originally posted by maybereal11
Originally posted by jibeho
This is merely setting the stage folks. Eliminating the cap on BP sends a clear message to the other companies operating on US soil in this industry. The message is simple. "Get Out or Shutter up your business!"
Ummm. I think the message would be more like...Corporations that make 17 Billion in profits each year should not be limited to 75 Million when they Ef up (less than their average daily profits by the way)
Corporations which forgoe the expense of taking appropriate safety measures..who decide it is cheaper to buy-off the Mineral Management Services than implement safety measures...corporations who engage in campaigns of fraud and corruption to save a few dollars on safety...they should pay for when they *&^% up the lives of thousands of Americans.
Say bye bye to the companies and the jobs that they provide because the risk will far outweigh the benefit.
Yes...BP has done wonders for the employment status of the Fisherman, Restaurant owners, tourist industry et al. along the entire gulf coast.
Seriously wtf are you talking about?
Furthermore, in a disaster as great as this, how do you determine who is a victim and who is not? Who should be compensated more than the next person?
My first thought is tax returns and financials. What did a given Fisherman/restaurant owner etc. make pre-spill? post spill? plus clean-up costs, re-imburse taxpayer dollars for Coast Guard deployment etc.
The cleanup had already begun in the last months of the Bush administration, but President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar still had their work cut out for them. Not only did they have to enforce ethics rules, they had to ensure responsible management of the offshore oil platforms that are a key part of the MMS portfolio, a huge contributor to the national economy, and a continuing environmental risk.
The problem was, Obama and Salazar were more interested in pursuing their vision of a clean energy future. Under Obama, the Minerals Management Service, driven by a strongly ideological commitment to green energy sources such as wind and solar power, chose to stress "renewables" while de-emphasizing the tough and dirty work of managing the nation's existing offshore oil wells.
"What they did essentially was divert the attention of the agency away from regulating offshore drilling and focus it on the expansion of offshore renewables," says one well-informed Republican House aide.
It started early in the new administration. Salazar's first departmentwide order, issued March 11, 2009, was to declare "facilitating the production, development, and delivery of renewable energy top priorities for the Department."
Salazar chose Elizabeth Birnbaum to head the MMS in large part because of her record of environmental and green-energy advocacy. "We have changed the direction of MMS," Salazar told the Senate last month, "by balancing its ocean energy portfolio to include offshore wind and renewable energy production." Given the considerable size of the existing offshore oil industry, "balancing" the MMS portfolio meant putting a heavy emphasis on new offshore wind projects. "They were more into renewables offshore than they were into oil and gas," says a GOP Senate aide who works in the area.
Birnbaum, who is so far the only Obama administration official to lose a job over the Gulf oil spill, spent an enormous amount of time working on the controversial Cape Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts. After years of regulatory wrangling, it was approved April 29 -- nine days after the oil-rig explosion that set off the Gulf spill.
Birnbaum came in for heavy criticism of MMS' handling of the Deepwater Horizon/BP Gulf oil project. The general tone of the critique was that MMS had not paid enough attention to regulating such environmentally sensitive undertakings. What received less attention was why that attention wasn't paid, and that was because Interior and MMS were busy pushing offshore renewable energy projects.
Shortly after Birnbaum was fired, her defenders told the trade publication Environment and Energy Daily that "she had not been ordered to clean house at the scandal-stained agency, but to promote renewable energy." When Salazar paid half-hearted tribute to Birnbaum the day she left, all he could come up with was that she had helped Interior deal with "the very difficult issues on standing up offshore wind in the Atlantic."
Wind, not oil, was the MMS offshore energy priority. Even when MMS addressed oil industry problems, it seemed only half interested. For example, on June 17, 2009, MMS began a procedure for coming up with new rules that would "require operators to develop and implement a safety and environmental management system for their oil and gas operations on the Outer Continental Shelf." Nothing came of it.
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, lawmakers were fighting the last war. After the sex, drugs and influence scandal that rocked MMS in September 2008, senators and representatives came up with plans to reform the agency. They proposed to turn the director of MMS -- currently appointed by the secretary of the interior with no input from Congress -- into a position nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Other proposals involved cleaning up the way MMS handles the enormous amounts of revenue it collects from oil companies.
All were good ideas and would have improved MMS had they been enacted. But they would not have addressed the problems that led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. And they would not have awakened an administration that, dazzled by the dream of renewable energy, neglected the dull but crucial work of keeping watch over the nation's offshore oil industry.