Video - BP relies on top kill
DailyKOS | It's become increasingly obvious that everything BP says or does at this point is being vetted through the prism of litigation strategy.
That's why they initially sent their minions to the Louisiana Coast to bilk poor Cajun watermen out of their ability to sue. That's when they thought the damage could be contained from a financial perspective. That was Plan "A."
"Plan "A" is long since moot.
I would argue that at this point in the disaster the die is cast, and it makes little if no difference to BP's ability to operate as a going concern whether the gushing volcano is stopped now or months from now. The sheer magnitude of the lawsuits is going to be staggering--think of the hundreds of billions of dollars in permanently despoiled property alone. All of these claims will ultimately find their way to BP's door, or the door of their excess insurance carriers.
Which is why it makes sense, from the standpoint of defending itself, for BP not to stop the gushing, and in fact to take half-measures which by their very nature will not succeed, yet prolong the appearance of BP "making an effort." The nature of this type of liability litigation practically demands that BP do this to survive.
If BP were able to stop the flow of oil through either its "top hat," "junk shot," or any of the other creative methods being bandied about, the line of attack at trial would be "Why weren't you able to do this sooner?" That's an argument that BP, with all of its hired experts, can never win. The sole question the plaintiff's lawyers will rely on (in addition to their case on causation of the explosion itself) will be "Was the technology available to stop this a month earlier?" The answer is obvious--yes, it was. Of course it was.
"Then, BP, why didn't you employ that method sooner?"
DailyKOS | It's become increasingly obvious that everything BP says or does at this point is being vetted through the prism of litigation strategy.
While BP struggles to stop the oil gushing from its exploded well in the Gulf of Mexico, lawyers throughout the New Orleans area are gearing up for what could be the biggest environmental and maritime litigation case the nation has ever seen.* Dartagnan's diary :: ::*
Defense firms have been working their oil and gas contacts to position themselves as local counsel for corporations with exposure to the April 20 explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. And plaintiffs attorneys formed a litigation group and immediately chartered planes to photograph the fire on the rig, began collecting water and air samples, and started advertising to sign up clients. More clients increase the potency of the suit, allowing attorneys to collect more fees.
That's why they initially sent their minions to the Louisiana Coast to bilk poor Cajun watermen out of their ability to sue. That's when they thought the damage could be contained from a financial perspective. That was Plan "A."
"Plan "A" is long since moot.
I would argue that at this point in the disaster the die is cast, and it makes little if no difference to BP's ability to operate as a going concern whether the gushing volcano is stopped now or months from now. The sheer magnitude of the lawsuits is going to be staggering--think of the hundreds of billions of dollars in permanently despoiled property alone. All of these claims will ultimately find their way to BP's door, or the door of their excess insurance carriers.
Which is why it makes sense, from the standpoint of defending itself, for BP not to stop the gushing, and in fact to take half-measures which by their very nature will not succeed, yet prolong the appearance of BP "making an effort." The nature of this type of liability litigation practically demands that BP do this to survive.
If BP were able to stop the flow of oil through either its "top hat," "junk shot," or any of the other creative methods being bandied about, the line of attack at trial would be "Why weren't you able to do this sooner?" That's an argument that BP, with all of its hired experts, can never win. The sole question the plaintiff's lawyers will rely on (in addition to their case on causation of the explosion itself) will be "Was the technology available to stop this a month earlier?" The answer is obvious--yes, it was. Of course it was.
"Then, BP, why didn't you employ that method sooner?"
0 comments:
Post a Comment