If you have ever tried using the skim net to remove things off the surface, you'd know that it's an art, simply putting the skimmer in and sweeping toward the debris picks up some, but the movement or water you create moves other debris.
Now try to skim debris with the spa like jets causing currents and kids splashing and causing waves.
In theory it works, but in practicality there are so many other variables that their first step is to "corral" the oil, which in of itself is quite a difficult task.
What we need is a chemical that hardens the oil and turns it to a medium sized solid hard rock like clumps that could sink and sit harmless at the bottom of gulf until nature reclaims it.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
I believe what they try to do is aerate the water...the oil sticks to the bubbles and stays on the surface. However...like Excl said the issue is scale...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Quote: WASHINGTON — Staff members at an agency that oversees offshore drilling accepted tickets to sports events, lunches and other gifts from oil and gas companies and used government computers to view pornography, according to an Interior Department report alleging a culture of cronyism between regulators and the industry.
In at least one case, an inspector for the Minerals Management Service admitted using crystal methamphetamine and said he might have been under the influence of the drug the next day at work, according to the report by the acting inspector general of the Interior Department.
The report cites a variety of violations of federal regulations and ethics rules at the agency's Louisiana office. Previous inspector general investigations have focused on inappropriate behavior by the royalty-collection staff in the agency's Denver office.
The report adds to the climate of frustration and criticism facing the Obama administration in the monthlong oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, although it covers actions before the spill. Millions of gallons of oil are gushing into the Gulf, endangering wildlife and the livelihoods of fishermen, as scrutiny intensifies on a lax regulatory climate.
The report began as a routine investigation, the acting inspector general, Mary Kendall, said in a cover letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department includes the agency.
"Unfortunately, given the events of April 20 of this year, this report had become anything but routine, and I feel compelled to release it now," she wrote.
Her biggest concern is the ease with which minerals agency employees move between industry and government, Kendall said. While no specifics were included in the report, "we discovered that the individuals involved in the fraternizing and gift exchange — both government and industry — have often known one another since childhood," Kendall said.
Their relationships took precedence over their jobs, Kendall said.
The report follows a 2008 report by then-Inspector General Earl Devaney that decried a "culture of ethical failure" and conflicts of interest at the minerals agency.
Salazar called the latest report "deeply disturbing" and said it highlights the need for changes he has proposed, including a plan to abolish the minerals agency and replace it with three new entities.
The report "is further evidence of the cozy relationship between some elements of MMS and the oil and gas industry," Salazar said Tuesday. "I appreciate and fully support the inspector general's strong work to root out the bad apples in MMS."
Salazar said several employees cited in the report have resigned, were fired or were referred for prosecution. Actions may be taken against others as warranted, he said.
The report covers activities between 2000 and 2008. Salazar said he has asked Kendall to expand her investigation to look into agency actions since he took office in January 2009.
Salazar last week proposed eliminating the Minerals Management Service and replacing it with two bureaus and a revenue collection office. The name Minerals Management Service would no longer exist.
Members of Congress and President Barack Obama have criticized what they call the cozy relationship between regulators and oil companies and have vowed to reform MMS, which both regulates the industry and collects billions in royalties from it.
The report said that employees from the Lake Charles, La., MMS office had repeatedly accepted gifts, including hunting and fishing trips from the Island Operating Company, an oil and gas company working on oil platforms regulated by the Interior Department.
Taking such gifts "appears to have been a generally accepted practice," the report said.
Two employees at the Lake Charles office admitted using illegal drugs, and many inspectors had e-mails that contained inappropriate humor and pornography on their government computers, the report said.
Kendall recommended a series of steps to improve ethical standards, including a two-year waiting period for agency employees to join the oil or gas industry.
One MMS inspector conducted four inspections of Island Operating platforms while negotiating and later accepting employment with the company, the report said.
A spokeswoman for Island Operating Company could not be reached for comment. The Louisiana-based company says on it website that it has "an impeccable safety record" and cites Safety Awards for Excellence from the MMS in 1999 and 2002. The company was a finalist in other years.
"Island knows how to get the job done safely and compliantly," the website says.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called the report "yet another black eye for the Minerals Management Service. Once again, MMS employees have been found culpable of performing shoddy oversight of offshore drilling. The report reveals an overly cozy culture between MMS regulators and the oil industry."
Feinstein, who chairs a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Interior Department, said she will hold a hearing next month on Salazar's plan to restructure the agency.
I personally think with this oil spill were in big trouble, a ton more trouble then most realize. In fact, I think its certainly possible that one of the trumpet judgements from the Book of Revelation is being fullfilled right now. Please allow me to explain.
Quote:
And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. - Revelation 8:8-9 (King James Version)
1. The first part of this prophecy is clear: And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea
this is a direct correlation to the Iceland Volcano Explosion. Part of that Volcanic Eruption sent rocks into the sea that caused tsunami's and moderate damages in some coastal areas.
This was a MARKER POINT to the rest of the prophecy, which was two seperate events, as way for Jesus's flock to understand what was happening.
2. and the third part of the sea became blood;
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed
Soon after the mountain exploded(Iceland Volcano) the oil rig on the gulf exploded and now they can't get it stopped. they may not get it stopped for a long time, and by the time they do get it plugged, 1/3 of the ocean could realistically be covered with what looks like "blood"
(Oil was known as far back as ancient times as being known as "blood of the earth" they didn't know about using it to power cars and such, but there were places where it bubbled up on the surface on its own)
Look at the image below, the oil mixed with salt water looks like blood with its reddish color.
This could realistically be a one of the trumpet judgements, its too son to know for certain, but if they don't get this thing plugged in the next few weeks, it just may be....
BP has a better chance of plugging this thing then then govt does...
I will be suprised if they get this thing plugged two months from now.
I just want to put this out there, there is a 60-40 chance that the Iceland Volcano Event and this Gulf Oil Spill is the fullfillment of the prophecy, and it could realistically cover 1/3rd of the ocean, which would fullfill the prophecy...
I pray to God its not...but still the possibility exists
pray about it
think about it
and may God bless all of us....were going to really need his help on this one....
Quote: this is a direct correlation to the Iceland Volcano Explosion. Part of that Volcanic Eruption sent rocks into the sea that caused tsunami's and moderate damages in some coastal areas.
Uh ... where did you hear that?? The only thing the Iceland volcano did was eject ash into the atmosphere ... as far as volcanos go, it was hardly an "eruption".
Quote: I just want to put this out there, there is a 60-40 chance that the Iceland Volcano Event and this Gulf Oil Spill is the fullfillment of the prophecy, and it could realistically cover 1/3rd of the ocean, which would fullfill the prophecy...
I'd say more like a .000000000001% to 99.999999999999% chance. But I'll say it was a good story. You could work for the History channel on one of the Nostrodamus/Bible Code/Mayan prophecy shows.
WASHINGTON - Staff members at an agency that oversees offshore drilling accepted tickets to sports events, lunches and other gifts from oil and gas companies and used government computers to view pornography, according to an Interior Department report alleging a culture of cronyism between regulators and the industry.
In at least one case, an inspector for the Minerals Management Service admitted using crystal methamphetamine and said he might have been under the influence of the drug the next day at work, according to the report by the acting inspector general of the Interior Department.
The report cites a variety of violations of federal regulations and ethics rules at the agency's Louisiana office. Previous inspector general investigations have focused on inappropriate behavior by the royalty-collection staff in the agency's Denver office.
The report adds to the climate of frustration and criticism facing the Obama administration in the monthlong oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, although it covers actions before the spill. Millions of gallons of oil are gushing into the Gulf, endangering wildlife and the livelihoods of fishermen, as scrutiny intensifies on a lax regulatory climate.
The report began as a routine investigation, the acting inspector general, Mary Kendall, said in a cover letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department includes the agency.
"Unfortunately, given the events of April 20 of this year, this report had become anything but routine, and I feel compelled to release it now," she wrote.
Her biggest concern is the ease with which minerals agency employees move between industry and government, Kendall said. While no specifics were included in the report, "we discovered that the individuals involved in the fraternizing and gift exchange — both government and industry — have often known one another since childhood," Kendall said.
Their relationships took precedence over their jobs, Kendall said.
The report follows a 2007 investigation that revealed what then-Inspector General Earl Devaney called a "culture of ethical failure" and conflicts of interest at the minerals agency.
'Deeply disturbing' Salazar called the latest report "deeply disturbing" and said it highlights the need for changes he has proposed, including a plan to abolish the minerals agency and replace it with three new entities.
The report "is further evidence of the cozy relationship between some elements of MMS and the oil and gas industry," Salazar said Tuesday. "I appreciate and fully support the inspector general's strong work to root out the bad apples in MMS."
Salazar said several employees cited in the report have resigned, were fired or were referred for prosecution. Actions may be taken against others as warranted, he said.
Salazar said he has asked Kendall to expand her investigation to look into agency actions since he took office in January 2009.
BP said Tuesday it is briefing federal authorities on the first results of its internal investigation into the accident that started with an oil rig explosion April 20, killing 11, and has turned into an environmental disaster. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This paragraph is especially interesting...
..."The report follows a 2007 investigation that revealed what then-Inspector General Earl Devaney called a "culture of ethical failure" and conflicts of interest at the minerals agency."
Once Bush and Cheney deregulated the Big Oil in 2000, the folks working in Mineral Management kept their jobs, even when they had nothing to do...so what were they supposed to do but party, view porn and do some meth?
I feel for the people down there, if this happened in my neck of the woods I'd want to drop some oil executives down an abandoned mine shaft. But ya know, this is what we get for being a fat, greedy society. Oil is our master. We want - we believe we need - two cars in our damn driveway, we want the internet and cable, we want everything plastic and disposable, delivered fast and cheap to our doorstep. We are chained like freaking dogs to oil and our economic health is so tied to it, that we are slaves.
Quote: This paragraph is especially interesting...
..."The report follows a 2007 investigation that revealed what then-Inspector General Earl Devaney called a "culture of ethical failure" and conflicts of interest at the minerals agency." Just admit that the only reason you find it particularly interesting is because it is a date that pre-dates the Obama administration and ties directly to Bush.. see, saying it can be therapeutic... if the same exact facts had a mid 2009 date, you wouldn't find it nearly as interesting..
Democrats Prepare Bill to Remove $75 Million Damages Limit for Oil Spills
By Lisa Lerer
June 3 (Bloomberg) — U.S. House Democrats, responding to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, are preparing legislation to eliminate the $75 million cap on damages that large companies must pay over oil spills and tighten regulation of the industry, Democratic aides said.
The plan will be introduced after Congress returns next week from its Memorial Day recess, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposal is still being revised.
The legislation would lengthen the 30-day review process for new drilling permits, require new environmental safeguards and increase congressional authority over the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that oversees offshore drilling, the aides said. They said Democratic leaders haven’t decided whether the plan will be introduced as one legislative package or several bills.
BP Plc and federal officials have been unable to stop the flow of oil from the leaking well in the Gulf. The spill, which began in late April, has soiled about 140 miles of coastline, shut down a third of fishing areas in the region, halted new deep-water oil exploration in the Gulf and cost BP at least $1 billion.
The legislation would apply to BP and Transocean Ltd., which leased the well to BP.
Economic Losses
Under current law, oil companies must pay up to $75 million for economic losses caused to states, businesses and residents. There is no limit on the amount companies can be required to pay to clean up oil spills.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration would ask Congress to eliminate the cap on economic damage payments.
“One of the things that we called for was the lifting of the economic liability cap to an unlimited level,” Gibbs told reporters June 1. “That’s where we feel comfortable, given the enormity of the disaster that we’re looking at.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said last week Congress should consider eliminating the cap on economic damages caused by oil spills.
“There is a movement afoot in Congress for that,” Pelosi said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt” on May 29. “Why have a cap?”
Republicans have blocked efforts to raise the cap to $10 billion.
‘Cumulative Effect’
“We also must consider the cumulative effect of the different levels of liability, which could be economically devastating,” said Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on oil-spill liability issues last week. “Thousands of jobs, particularly along the Gulf coast, could be lost.”
Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, also has argued that the additional costs could hurt smaller oil refiners operating offshore.
Oil companies oppose raising the liability cap, saying it would discourage domestic exploration and make independent oil and natural gas operations in the Gulf uninsurable.
Raising the cap, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said on May 13, “would limit Gulf operations to only the largest companies, forcing mid-size and smaller firms who cannot self-insure from the market.”
$150 Million Proposal
Republican Senators David Vitter of Louisiana and Jeff Sessions of Alabama have introduced a bill that would raise the cap to $150 million or an amount equal to the last four quarters of a company’s profits, whichever is greater.
Other proposals would increase the per-barrel tax paid by oil companies into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a federal fund established to ensure that there is money available to clean up spills. The House passed legislation last week increasing the fee to 34 cents a barrel from 8 cents.
The U.S. asked a federal judge in Houston on June 1 to reject a bid by Transocean to use a 159-year-old law to cap its liability at $27 million for environmental claims tied to the spill.
web page ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BP should be responsible for damage they have done...end of story...no limit.
...they should be held responsible for damages to the American people who have lost their livelihood due to BP's oil spill.
...they should be held responsible for the damage and clean up to our country's environment...whatever the cost....jmho...mac
If Emocxrat Leaders are serious about this bill, they will introduce it as one bill, stripped down to the essential elements, with clear and exacting standards and penalties spelled out. Oh .. and no pork.
I, however, would bet that this comes out as several bills ..... all with hidden taxes, few standards, and all kinds of pork. Do you think that I'll be right ... or wrong? Let's get you on record here mac.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
But I keep trying for a direct answer to a direct question ......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
I'm absolutely all for removing any liability cap.... you break it, you pay for it - regardless of the cost, even if it destroys your company.
Sadly, I'm going to be in YTown's corner on this, and believe that until it is shown otherwise, this will either be purely empty rhetoric for the media, or whatever bills they produce won't actually accomplish the stated goals and will end up costing us taxpayers more money.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
In the free enterprise system, there should be responsibility as a key factor in business.
Also, in any business, if one company fails, there will be others willing to come along and pick up the pieces. If BP failed, the drill sites wouldn't just shut down. Someone else would buy those, along with other assets, and life would go on.
It scares the hell out of me that we, as a country, refuse to let anyone and anything fail. We bail out people with social programs .... we bail out companies and industries with bailout programs ..... and a relatively few people get stuck holding the bill while certain other people and businesses prosper at our expense.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: If Emocxrat Leaders are serious about this bill, they will introduce it as one bill, stripped down to the essential elements, with clear and exacting standards and penalties spelled out. Oh .. and no pork.
I, however, would bet that this comes out as several bills ..... all with hidden taxes, few standards, and all kinds of pork. Do you think that I'll be right ... or wrong? Let's get you on record here mac.
I would support a stripped down bill with no earmarks...but that is not how republicans operated when they last controlled congress....is it?
I consider tax cuts for those who don't need them as "pork too"...are you Republicans against tax cuts for those who don't need them?
If you're making $200k (or more) per year and can't make it without your tax breaks...you deserve to go under...I'm sure Repubs agree with that.
But, getting back to the subject, there should be "no limit" to the damages BP should have to pay.
Quote: If BP failed, the drill sites wouldn't just shut down. Someone else would buy those, along with other assets, and life would go on.
No doubt that's true, but I guarantee you, they will have plenty of caviats in the sales agreement.. like "hold harmless" clauses to shield themselves against more mistakes and missteps by BP...
No other oil company want's to fix BP's problems and the more I read, the more it appears that BP left a lot of safety precautions slid..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
I would support a stripped down bill with no earmarks...but that is not how republicans operated when they last controlled congress....is it?
Again with the history. Who controls Congress now? Will they support it with no earmarks.
Are you in 5th grade or something? You sound like it with the "Well Billy did it, so why can't I?" attitude.
Quote:
I consider tax cuts for those who don't need them as "pork too"...are you Republicans against tax cuts for those who don't need them?
If you're making $200k (or more) per year and can't make it without your tax breaks...you deserve to go under...I'm sure Repubs agree with that.
I don't need tax cuts. What I need is to quit having my taxes raised, both the obvious and the hidden taxes. And I'd like to see any administration, regardless of party, cut spending. I can't believe we are trillions in debt, yet we still write checks. In the rreal world that wouldn't fly.
And for the record, I'm an independent, not a Republican.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
In my ever so humble opinion .. if you're going to give out tax breaks ... they ought to go to people who actually pay taxes! "Tax Breaks" for those who pay no federal income taxes are just more pork ... and welfare.
I really don't know where the hell you get off just thinking that it's OK to take peoples' money anyway. Whether they make $200 or $200,000, it's their money. Just deciding that you want it, so you're going to take it is stealing ... no matter whether or not it's supposedly "right".
No one should lose half of what they make to the government. No one. That's complete and utter crap. Unfortunately, we have a system that gives "refunds" to those who don't pay taxes ... and we penalize production ... and that's considered "fair".
It's ridiculous, and unsustainable as an economic system.Productivity drives our economy, yet we penalize those who produce.
Ah well. One day we won't be able to afford all of the crap we spend money on ..... and there will be no one who works left, because no one will be able to work ..... and then we'll see how well you get along without "rich" people paying your bills.
Now, back to the bill ..... as long as there are no tax increases, no pork spending, and it merely makes sure that those who create disasters also pay for cleaning them up, then I;'m on board.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: ...they should be held responsible for the damage and clean up to our country's environment...whatever the cost....jmho...mac
The article clearly states that there is no limit on what they have to pay for clean up...
Quote: ...they should be held responsible for damages to the American people who have lost their livelihood due to BP's oil spill.
In theory I agree with that, in practicality I see something that is going to be abused. What about the guy that owns a seafood restaurant in Kansas City that claims he has to raise his prices because of decreased supply and claims that his business suffered? Should BP have to pay him?
I know its fashionable to hate big business, Democrats have made a living doing it for many years.. I know that its even more fashionable to hate big oil companies... I'm all for holding them 100% accountable for clean-up and I'm all for jacking that limit way up.. $75 million isn't nearly enough.. but no cap? Unlimited liability? I can't get behind it because it's too easy to abuse... I feel for the folks whose jobs are gone or seriously affected by this, I do... BP should be punished severely but I don't exactly see how putting thousands of BP employees out of business by destroying that company forever is going to help.... See I think you are punishing the wrong people... the upper level executives at BP are millionaires and they are going to be millionaires long after this is over... the people you are punishing are the rig workers, the administrative folks, the truck drivers and the refinery workers that you are going to hurt by killing BP...
Quote: What about the guy that owns a seafood restaurant in Kansas City that claims he has to raise his prices because of decreased supply and claims that his business suffered? Should BP have to pay him?
Not in my opinion....
But I don't think that's even remotely what anyone is really talking about.
Fisherman that make there living fishing those waters.. Seafood distributors that buy thier product from those fisherman.. The families that have lost business in that area directly related to the oil spill, Hotels and other tourists destinations that were killed by this.. any money spent by any governent enitity to protect various areas.. (including, Federal, State, Local and some charity orgainzations as well..)
All of those and many others need reimbursed.
The thing is, it's pretty clear that BP has taken shortcuts. I'm sure that other oil companies do the same or similar.
It may just be MY opinion, but I think the penalty for taking those shortcuts should be so severe that it's not financally responsible to do anything less then the very best to insure it never happens again.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
But I don't think that's even remotely what anyone is really talking about.
Fisherman that make there living fishing those waters.. Seafood distributors that buy thier product from those fisherman.. The families that have lost business in that area directly related to the oil spill, Hotels and other tourists destinations that were killed by this.. any money spent by any governent enitity to protect various areas.. (including, Federal, State, Local and some charity orgainzations as well..)
Well I went to the very end to prove my point.. where do you stop?
So let me try another example.. a line of beaches and hotels on the gulf coast of Florida have people bailing and cancelling reservations.. they lose a ton of revenue because of it.. but the oil never gets to those beaches or doesn't get there for a long time after... does BP have to pay for that?
Quote: It may just be MY opinion, but I think the penalty for taking those shortcuts should be so severe that it's not financally responsible to do anything less then the very best to insure it never happens again.
I believe the cap should be tied to the due diligence a company takes to ensure it doesn't happen... if you do everything right, have all of the safeguards in place, get all of the permits and inspections the right way.. and it happens anyway, because accidents DO happen... then what? Do you get a break?
I haven't read any of the replies in this thread, but I gotta ask... Am I the only one thinking this?...
It's 2010... We have the technology to shoot a missle from here to Afghanistan, and hit a target the size of a piece of paper... Why can we not figure out how to stop this thing?
No No,, I got your point.., and I hear ya when you say that (paraphrasing) that lots of folks will lose thier jobs at BP if we kill it..
I have no doubt about it. But as was so well pointed out by another poster, someone will come along, another oil company probably, and pick the bones.. they will create jobs.. maybe not as many as that will be lost, but probably most.
As for the top brass being millionaires now and probably remaining that way,, Probably true,, but not if I had my way.
The ones that made decisions that were contrary to the good of the corpooration should held accountable as well... Personally.
I know that sounds a lot like "wealth bashing" but I'm not suggesting that a person that isn't found culpable be held accountable.. but those at the very top that should know what's happening should.
We have to make the cost of thier actions so high that it's not worth the risk. Which to me means, No cap on liability..
If you put a cap on it, this is what will happen.. they will do a study,, find that by taking a shortcut here and a shortcut there, they can earn an extra 2 billion.. if you put a cap of 150 million.. it's an easy decision.., take the risk...
No CAP...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
I am NOT in support of what MAC and the Dems or Repubs want.
in fact it is ILLEGAL to raise the liability Cap Limit on BP.
Quote:
Article 1 Section 9 of United States Constitution
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Yes it says Congress CAN NOT pass a Ex Post Facto Law
Quote:
Legal Definition of Ex Post Facto
An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.
Ex Post Facto
adj. Latin for "after the fact," which refers to laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it was legal when done, or increasing the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Therefore, if a state legislature or Congress enacts new rules of proof or longer sentences, those new rules or sentences do not apply to crimes committed before the new law was adopted.
Ex post facto is a Latin term meaning "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto often refers to a law that applies retroactively
BP can only LEGALLY be held accountable for 75 million dollars worth of damage according to the CAP
LEGALLY BP can only be held accountable to the penalty under law AT THE TIME THE SPILL OCCURED
I personally think this higher cap clearly violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the constitution
I am by no means supporting BP, but If Congress passes this I hope BP takes this to the Supreme Court and Wins....we can't let a precedent of retroactive laws get started in this country, its bad for everyone.....I know it sucks..but the law was 75 million at the time the spill occurred, you cna't tell me this doesn't violate ex post facto.....If congress wanted more money in damages they should have raised the limit sooner
sorry but thats my opinion, let the states and individuals sue BP on their own, they will most likely get a better deal for themselves anyway...
Quote: If you put a cap on it, this is what will happen.. they will do a study,, find that by taking a shortcut here and a shortcut there, they can earn an extra 2 billion.. if you put a cap of 150 million.. it's an easy decision.., take the risk...
And that, my friend is essentially how we got into this mess in the first place.
There were rules. There were regulations. There were inspections. There was a fine schedule in place (similar to the wrist-slaps that pro football players get for league rule infractions). There was "oversight."
And what we've learned to date is probably just the tip of the iceberg. So far, there's been a thread throughout this debacle: that of dishonesty, corner-cutting, graft, and a wanton disregard for the safety of their employees and the entire population of the gulf coast.
The pain should start with the wrongful death suits from the survivors of those killed in the blast/sinking, and should continue well beyond. Where it should end, I don't know. It's murky legal waters (no pun intended) we're navigating here.
On the surface, I'm all for a capless limit. Scratch that surface, and I'm not sure. By DC's example, even you and I might have a "case," because we don't want to pay higher prices for our bluefin at the local fishmonger's.
I wish I knew what was fair here, but I don't. One thing's certain: nothing in any of this is fair.
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
