Should BP have to pay reparations to damaged fisheries on the gulf coast?

[Jade Margery]

Not to be left out of the succession of oil-spill related threads, I thought I'd throw one up that is more tie-able to ethics. In this case, business ethics.

So, everyone knows by now how the big oil companies (all of 'em, not just BP, this could have happened to any of them) fought against higher safety requirements in Congress, such that oil drilling in America is under less stringent regulations than elsewhere in the civilized world.

Now, whether they were required to or not, there were safeguards and preventative measures that BP could have installed to prevent a damaged rig from being an ecological nightmare, and they did not.

Questions:

Is it acceptable for a company not to take every precaution if the consequences of failure are so dire, but they think such problems are unlikely to occur?

Since the consequences of this lack of safeguards or a thought-out plan for dealing with a damaged rig include many innocent people losing their livelihoods, should BP be required to help pay for the lost salaries of these people who are now jobless through no fault of their own?

Things to consider:

Paying for these people on top of the money they are already losing and the cost of the fixing/cleaning the gulf may damage the company beyond their ability to recover.

If BP doesn't help pay for the out-of-work fishermen, then they will all be claiming unemployment and their wages will come out of the American taxpayer's pockets (You!).

If the fishermen can't survive until this problem is fixed and the clean up is done, then they will be forced to find work elsewhere and a significant part of the Gulf''s economy will die.


Now, I admit I don't know much more about this than what I've heard on the news. I don't know what the right thing to do for the fishermen is. So please discuss, provide sources, come up with solutions, etc.

What do you think?

 

[kiwimac]

A company must be held responsible for events which occur, which would otherwise have been avoided, if it were not cutting costs. Moreover if BP owns the crude oil it was drilling for (and it does) then it is responsible for the damage that oil is causing when the proximate cause is BP's lack of safety.

 

[BarrySoetoro]

I think that all assets of BP should be frozen and disbursed to salvaging projects in the Gulf region. No BP shareholder should be allowed to 'cut their losses' and go trading elsewhere. The stock price has already dropped 30%.

 

[Penumbra]

Is it acceptable for a company not to take every precaution if the consequences of failure are so dire, but they think such problems are unlikely to occur?

"Every precaution" is vague. Basically, I think regulation should ensure that a business that operates in a field that could cause massive damage should have safeguards against some of the biggest problems that occur.

Since the consequences of this lack of safeguards or a thought-out plan for dealing with a damaged rig include many innocent people losing their livelihoods, should BP be required to help pay for the lost salaries of these people who are now jobless through no fault of their own?

Things to consider:

Paying for these people on top of the money they are already losing and the cost of the fixing/cleaning the gulf may damage the company beyond their ability to recover.

If BP doesn't help pay for the out-of-work fishermen, then they will all be claiming unemployment and their wages will come out of the American taxpayer's pockets (You!).

If the fishermen can't survive until this problem is fixed and the clean up is done, then they will be forced to find work elsewhere and a significant part of the Gulf''s economy will die.

Now, I admit I don't know much more about this than what I've heard on the news. I don't know what the right thing to do for the fishermen is. So please discuss, provide sources, come up with solutions, etc.

What do you think?

It's hard to say. I suppose BP should have to do whatever the current law, as interpreted by a court, says they have to do in this case. I'm not knowledgeable about the legal ramifications here. I hear some say there are damage caps for how much BP could have to pay, while others say otherwise. I'd imagine that it isn't clear cut, as arguments can be made about who is affected and what the value of the damage is.

If the end result of what BP has to do according to the law is not satisfactory, hopefully the law can be changed for the next time something like this happens.

If the law is very vague, meaning that a court could do basically whatever they choose to BP, then there are numerous approaches they could take.
-Make BP pay for every inch of damage it has caused. Every inch. They will go out of business I'd imagine, and perhaps other businesses will see that this is not a game. If you mess up, you lose.
-Set up a payment plan for BP that involves a large, yet manageable lump sum payment now, and then they pay, basically indefinitely, a part of their earnings for the entire foreseeable future until the full cost of the spill, over a course of decades of damage it could do, is paid for.
-Give BP a slap on the wrist. Make them pay a few billion dollars in damage.

Second option seems unrealistic. First option seems better. Third is what I imagine will happen.

I'm a little bit less concerned with what will happen to BP as I am with whether Americans and people around the world will take this as another reason to strive for cleaner forms of energy. While this is BP's fault, they should not be used as a scapegoat. The real problem is oil dependence. Greed and ignorance that caused this problem are spread out around the globe.

-Lyn

 

[BarrySoetoro]

Not to be left out of the succession of oil-spill related threads, I thought I'd throw one up that is more tie-able to ethics. In this case, business ethics.

So, everyone knows by now how the big oil companies (all of 'em, not just BP, this could have happened to any of them) fought against higher safety requirements in Congress, such that oil drilling in America is under less stringent regulations than elsewhere in the civilized world.

Now, whether they were required to or not, there were safeguards and preventative measures that BP could have installed to prevent a damaged rig from being an ecological nightmare, and they did not.

Questions:

Is it acceptable for a company not to take every precaution if the consequences of failure are so dire, but they think such problems are unlikely to occur?

Since the consequences of this lack of safeguards or a thought-out plan for dealing with a damaged rig include many innocent people losing their livelihoods, should BP be required to help pay for the lost salaries of these people who are now jobless through no fault of their own?

Things to consider:

Paying for these people on top of the money they are already losing and the cost of the fixing/cleaning the gulf may damage the company beyond their ability to recover.

If BP doesn't help pay for the out-of-work fishermen, then they will all be claiming unemployment and their wages will come out of the American taxpayer's pockets (You!).

If the fishermen can't survive until this problem is fixed and the clean up is done, then they will be forced to find work elsewhere and a significant part of the Gulf''s economy will die.


Now, I admit I don't know much more about this than what I've heard on the news. I don't know what the right thing to do for the fishermen is. So please discuss, provide sources, come up with solutions, etc.

What do you think?

The use of peat moss has been suggested:
Oil Spill: 'Experts Overlooking Low-Cost Solutions' - Christian Newswire