§4301(b) Place a lien on BP's assets, liquidate them now. Payout to the people of the Gulf Coast.

[leveymg]

There's another reason BP doesn't want accurate discharge measurement: there's a $1,000/barrel EPA fine under §4301(b) of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), enacted after the Exxon Valdez spill two decades ago. Discharge estimates run from 6,000 barrels a day to 60,000. Do the math - BP's 2009 revenues were $239 billion (at 31 Dec 2009), with a reported replacement cost profit of $6 billion. Ladies and gentlemen, it appears that the US Government now owns BP . . .

Oil Pollution Act Overview | Emergency Management | US EPA
The OPA also created the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, ... §4301(a) and (c) The fine for failing to notify the appropriate Federal agency of a ... at $25000 for each day of violation or subsection (b) $1000 per barrel of oil discharged.
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/lawsregs/opaover.htm - Cached

Add triple damages for "gross negligence or willful misconduct." http://books.google.com/books?id=-mNIqv63cN8C&pg=PA104&...

If the company was forced to pay out under §4301(b), we own it, lock stock and every barrel of toxic sludge. I think we should collect that fine immediately, in full, and begin distributing it to the people of the Gulf adversely impacted, in real time. Place a lien on BP's assets, and begin liquidation. Now, not in a couple years.

Oh, yes, and then there are the potential 15 year prison sentences for BP executives under the OPA . . .

[aquart]

1. And I want them to serve every day of those sentences.

But I'm not harsh or mean. I understand rich men are used to better. They can serve their time doing community service: oil cleanup on Grand Isle. And live there for 15 years.

[dipsydoodle]

2. False reasoning

If accurate and applied it would simply force them to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in relation to BP America. How exactly would that help the current situation ? The only real beneficiaries of that would be whichever firm of auditors were appointed.

[leveymg]

6. A lien on BP's assets would allow for immediate payout to the victims.

The company's going to have to pay out, eventually, either BP, BP America, or some successor. This would simply guarantee that the money doesn't end up come out of the Treasury.

How is that false reasoning?

[TexasObserver]

16. Chapter 11 won't save them from government action.

It might give them a temporary respite, but if the fines are imposed, chapter 11 won't stop them. It may stop the immediate payment of them, but it won't stop them. It might stop the government from seizing assets until an appropriate hearing, but it won't stop the imposition of fines and penalties.

[ShortnFiery]

3. Yes, just DO IT! eom

[Skidmore]

4. You'll get to stand in line with BP shareholders who filed suit,

according to MSNBC report just now.

[leveymg]

7. Payment of a fine to a federal agency comes ahead of payout to aggrieved stockholders

And, it's enforceable immediately. All the EPA has to do is begin imposing fines.

[Vinca]

5. If only this problem could be solved by money.

The damage being done to the environment will take decades to repair. Maybe some areas will never come back. It's heartbreaking. The last time I spent any quality time with my late father it was a visit to a beach along the gulf. I remember the birds, the dolphins and the wonderful salt air. Everything now dying.

[leveymg]

8. Maybe not. But, if I were a Gulf shrimper, I'd want that check in the bank . . .

[Vinca]

9. Agreed. I guess I'm in "big picture" mode at the moment,

but BP needs to compensate everyone who is losing money.

[leveymg]

11. Agreed. :hi:

:hi:

[ima_sinnic]

10. meanwhile, BP wants Canada to waive safety requirements in Arctic drilling

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8410891

How can they even be THINKING of drilling in the Arctic at this point, let alone without safety relief valves? I mean, don't they have something more urgent to be focusing on at the moment--let alone, they apparently haven't learned anything from the Gulf disaster?

I am beyond outraged. I have never felt so helpless and so doomed. If this is the way corporations are handled, with kid gloves, while they rape and murder the planet for their own private profit, cutting corners on safety features, killing entire ecosystems with impunity, "managing" their own crises while even the fucking president of the United States stands down -- well, fuck it! enjoy each day you can breathe (fairly) clean air and drink fresh water, because those days are numbered.

Placing a lien on BP and shutting the fucker down would only make sense. But nothing is being done that is sensible now.

[TexasObserver]

12. If there's a barrel a second, that would be 86,000 barrels a day.

$86,000,000 of fines for each day sounds fair.

In 34 days, that would be about $2.9 billion in fines. That would hurt BP.

[leveymg]

13. Estimates for total release range up to 30 million barrels - $30 billion in fines

plus the cleanup costs. (The most commonly cited figure for the spill to date is 3 million bls.)

[TexasObserver]

14. To date, it's probably closer to 3 million barrels and $3 billion in fines.

I think that kind of disincentive is required to make sure companies don't bet their existence cutting corners a mile deep in the ocean.

[leveymg]

15. BP would be a good one to make a useful example of.

We should have done that with AIG, the other spewer of toxic assets, as well.

The 3 million barrel discharge figure you have was seconded by my Congressmen in a speech at the JJ Dinner the other night. He said the estimate he was given for the spill is "150 million gallons". That's 3 million bls, approx.

[TexasObserver]

17. These big companies should be forced to fail when they earn it.

AIG, the big banks, BP. Let them fail. They earned it and the free market demands they be sacrificed on its altar.

[leveymg]

18. If only there were an Abraham willing to do so

We look at politicians as High Priests. They're just goats and asses.

[onenote]

19. unfortunately, the law doesn't allow fines to be collected 'immediately'

the law requires a hearing, and allows for judicial review.

[leveymg]

20. That's why EPA needs to start administrative process immediately

I'm well aware of how federal enforcement actions work. In a manner of speaking, we need to ratchet up the stakes for BP to put more resources into this -- now, not later.

[onenote]

21. i agree. but you suggested that fines could be collected now, not in a couple of years

and that's just not realistic given the complexity of the facts and the law and the requirement for due process. Yes the process of imposing sanctions and liability should begin now, but realistically it will take a long time before it would result, if ever, in the liquidation of BP or in the collection of money that can be paid out to the residents of the gulf. I'm surprised that you would suggest that could happen "now" and in 'real time'.

[leveymg]

22. EPA could issue the order today for $3 billion. Hearing in 60 days, add another $6 billion

at that time. Gawd help us. The feds could make this a priority enforcement with a US District Ct Judge entering a judgment by 3 months, no stay of order. BP would have to start paying out by end of the summer. US Circuit Ct of Appeals could act within 2-3 mos. That puts this before the Supreme Ct by the end of the year. In federal judiciary time, that's "immediately." But, the EPA's gotta take the first step . . .

[onenote]

25. if they issued the order today for $3 billion it would be tossed out tomorrow

You're dreaming. The EPA often investigates for a year or more before levying fines. Not because it wants to, but because if it doesn't do a full investigation and build its case, its wasting everyone's time. And the cases in which it has taken a year or more to develop a record to sustain its action are typically far less complex than this one, in which there are several companies each pointing the finger of blame at each other and the precise cause of the blowout, and thus the basis for apportionment of responsibilty is far from clear. The fines under 4301(b) can only be imposed following an action brought in district court and that action would be reviewable by the court of appeals and the SCOTUS (if they took the case). The district court action alone, with discovery and pre-trial activity, likely would take more than a year in a case as complex as this.

It would be nice to smackdown all of the companies involved tomorrow. But in the real world that isn't how things are done.

[leveymg]

26. If EPA and DOJ wanted this fast-tracked through the courts, they could.

This is no ordinary pollution spill, as we are now all realizing. The agencies need to stop futzing around and deferring to BP on issues such as flow rates. The US Navy and USCG have every right to board the replacement platform in order to determine to what extent the flow presents a hazard to navigation and safety - that means sending down adequate instrumentation to determine the flow rate.

That must be done. BP will not stop cooperating, as far sterner measures can be taken if they do, including criminal prosecution.

This whole thing can be done with speed, and if it isn't, there will be a hell of a price to be paid by the Administration.

[onenote]

30. no. they really can't

The EPA can't tell the courts to fast track a case. The EPA can't tell the court to ignore the federal rules of civil procedure. A case brought under 4301(b) based on this spill would be a complex piece of litigation involving tens of thousands of pages of documents, expert witnesses, and the like.

Yes more needs to be done. But what you think can be done can't.

[Wizard777]

23. Everyone is trying to hide their assets. BP will not pay the costs of the clean up. Consumers will.

[nashville_brook]

24. it's what the law calls for -- do it now.

[Demeter]

27. ABSOLUTELY!

[Ignis]

28. Jail time for BP executives? I'd pay 2x my taxes to see that happen.

But I think we all know there's not a chance in hell.

[amborin]

29. K&R