Animosity between US and UK over oil spill?

[jackson33]

I'll try and get back to this tomorrow, but Governments are restricted to some degree on assets based outside their territory (The UK is home base for BP). No country, would invest or employ Americans, without some international assurances. I believe Exxon/Mobile has sued Venezuela, over assets held in the US and not getting very far. Aside from that any legal team could hold up proceedings under the US Judicial Systems for decades and any attempted seizures made by the US Government would have catastrophic ramifications around the World on American Interest, including the Military.

[abeefaria]

jackson33, good post.

 

iNow, this discussion bears no fruit as you haven't (cannot?) translate the seizure of money into cleanup aid. The money is there and BP is promising to use it.

[John Cuthber]

"Seizing assets ensures money is available."

If the assets are not there then the money is not available.

If the assets are there then the money is already available.

What difference does it make if BP sells the assets to pay for the clean-up or if the government seizes assets, sells them and pays for the clean-up?

Since there's no advantage to the seizure and it might be unconstitutional why even suggest it?

Could it be a desire for punitive revenge?

[iNow]

You left out a key piece in your outlay.

 

Assets are there, company lawyers up and doesn't offer it.

 

 

While I agree some of this may be punitive in nature, there is a logical argument to be made that seizure would guarantee funds. That's all I'm going for. As noted twice already in this thread, I'm not a proponent and think the company will offer money without having to resort to that. I'm simply laying out the logic behind it in response to a direct question.

[Sisyphus]

I think the idea is that "seizure" would be an option only if BP fails in their responsibilities themselves. I don't see where the confusion is in this argument.

[abeefaria]

iNow,

 

As I see it, we define our terms differently and that is the problem. You think a seizure of assets is aid, I do not. Am I wrong?

 

I probably won't post anymore in this thread, but will be back to read your responses.

 

Stay cool in Texas.

[iNow]

I think the idea is that "seizure" would be an option only if BP fails in their responsibilities themselves.

Bingo.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You think a seizure of assets is aid, I do not. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. My argument is not hard to grasp. I encourage you to review it once more.

 

Seizure itself is not aid, and to suggest that this accurately reflects my position is silly on its face.

Seizure ensures asset availability to pay for the aid if assets/monies are not made available voluntarily.

 

Are we aligned now?

Edited June 15, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[abeefaria]

The seizure WOULD, in fact, aid in the cleanup, if nothing else by ensuring the funds are in place to execute that cleanup.

 

Seizure ensures asset availability to pay for the aid if assets/monies are not made available voluntarily.

 

Now, I do not need to return to this thread (especially since I will be spared the condecension).

[jackson33]

The Federal Government has hundreds of Trade/Travel/Treaties with most every Nation, many of which include wording for business operating in each others country and I feel sure including liabilities. Under the US Constitution these agreements, if ratified by Congress must be complied with and yes that's in the Constitution.

 

As for seizures, the process can be achieved, but through "due process", only. Last I heard the US Constitution still requires due process, even to invoke the commerce clause. Since this has been suspended and under the premise of an Emergency (The Civil War), to temporarily suspend due process and for a specific reason (not yet proven or really investigated) this is simply not conceivable or IMO, would SCOTUS (fast track) sign off on the action. Then if they did, no International Company would be willing to do business with the US, more importantly would any insurance giant be willing to insure any Company doing business on US territory.

 

Side note; As for the "so called victims" (aside from the injured and killed employees, all insured), not one claim can be validated as BP's sole responsibility, even for punitive damages for the dead and injured (they will try, based on fault) will have to go through the courts.

 

BP has agreed to pay what it believes are their responsibilities (will be argued in the Courts) for bringing on the problem, creating a solution and any clean up problems linked to the actual spill itself. It's not only covered by law, they do this (with cost limits), but in their best interest to achieve a publicly acceptable conclusion. Setting up an escrow account in England (think 7B$) I believe being controlled by BP.

 

The creation of an escrow account sounds, in theory, like a neat solution to the stand-off between BP and the US administration. President Obama can claim a victory by presenting the vehicle through which compensation will be paid to victims of the Gulf of Mexico spill; the company can pursue a truce with the White House and finally talk to its shareholders with more confidence, especially on its dividend policy. [/Quote]

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/14/bp-escrow-account-problems/print

 

For a brief review on the Exxon/Valdez spill in 1989, which at best, will be much the same in this case, at worst filing Bankruptcy and NO Claims will be paid.

 

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/15/the-exxon-valdez-spill-bp-escrow/

 

Once again; The typical conclusion for admittedly far less costly liability cases, comes when everything is known, who is responsible for what (2-5 year estimate), all the involved Companies submit figures for they would voluntarily pay including their insurance companies and those reinsures would contribute and the viable or legally prosecuted cases are in (including appeals), those funds will be paid averaged out in percentages of the total, possibly even the full amount. This could take 20 years, but if agreed to by all involved (not likely) in far less time.

 

I can tell you one thing, the Hotel Owner anyplace on the Coast that blames Transocean or BP for lost business, or the Memphis Hotel owner that claims partial loss in Business because people weren't heading south and the thousands of frivolous claims that WILL BE made, will never be paid, my opinion. As for the workers and there will be very high unemployment figures in many areas and all wanting compensation, they best start collecting unemployment paychecks.

 

I'm posting this ahead of Obama's "Oval Office Message", expecting much of what's going to be said to be election year politics...Somebody in the Government, better starting leading the Government response (clean up) and telling the truth on what's possible, shutting down all media's coverage of untruths and impossible solutions, while the only real solution is out in the gulf trying to STOP THAT LEAK...

[iNow]

Now, I do not need to return to this thread (especially since I will be spared the condecension).

So, instead of answering my direct question about whether or not we understand one another clearly, you're going to play victim and call me a bad guy... all the while completely ignoring my request for information about whether or not we're aligned.

 

Okay. Whatever. No skin off my knuckle.

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As for seizures, the process can be achieved, but through "due process", only. Last I heard the US Constitution still requires due process, even to invoke the commerce clause. Since this has been suspended and under the premise of an Emergency (The Civil War), to temporarily suspend due process and for a specific reason (not yet proven or really investigated) this is simply not conceivable or IMO, would SCOTUS (fast track) sign off on the action.

 

Jackson - You raise a valid point on constitutionality. Thank you for actually answering my question and for pointing out to me issues of due process. When I asked how this might be unconstitutional, that was the type of response I was hoping for... an actual content-based response. Again, thank you.

 

My immediate thought, though, is that it doesn't so much matter. The president is an executive, which basically means he executes stuff... he does things. As we learned during the Bush years, very often the president will do something of questionable constitutionality and then only worry about the consequences later when it's done (i.e. warrantless wiretaps).

 

The president did it, and later asked for forgiveness, but he still did it.

 

 

Similarly, back in 1952 Harry Truman nationalized the steel industry to ensure steel was available during the Korean war.

Yes, it was knocked down by SCOTUS two months later, but he still did it, and guaranteed production for the next two months until that decision of unconstitutionality was made.

 

My point is... If Obama really needed to, and to repeat myself again... I don't think he will need to... but let's just say IF he needed to... he could seize BP, take their equipment, sell their stuff, and put it to use in cleanup efforts. His actions would very likely later be ruled unconstitutional, but that would be later when the cleanup was done.

 

Again, Bush showed us very clearly... The President has enormous authority, and has the option to push that authority if they deem the "cost" of the consequences to be of lower magnitude than the "benefits" of the action itself... You know, like moving forward as if water boarding isn't torture because we place higher priority on information gathering... That sort of thing.

Edited June 16, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.