Govt Needs To Tell BP "We Don't Care How Much It Costs YOU... Just Do It !!"

[Blackhatjack]

The truth here is that BP is 'managing' its cost exposure and asset preservation.

IF BP were serious about stopping the environmental damage here they would be mobilizing ALL THEIR ASSETS to pump and clear the oil into oil tankers --EVEN though that oil will not be marketable and they would have to pay a high cost to responsibly dispose of it.

So how many tankers and support vessels do you see at the site?

And closing the well should be priority one without regard to how expensive it will be to tap the oil reserve in the future.

Obama does not know how to stop the oil flow, but he does know how to count vessels and support personnel. And it is time that the cost of not doing enough is raised to the level that BP will find it in their 'financial interests' to do everything possible to cap it at the earliest opportunity and clean up as much as possible.

[Wednesdays]

1. Meh

[FBI_Un_Sub]

2. Lease terms and condiitons

That should be clarified in the lease terms and conditions.

[Blackhatjack]

3. When you engage in such a potentially damaging enterprise you should have 'strict liability'...

It is not possible to compute financial costs equal to remedying the maximum possible damage which could result from the carrying on of this dangerous enterprise.

The law imposes 'strict liability' on industries like this UNLESS the parties AGREE in advance on a definite amount as liquidated damages.

Anyone would be a fool to agree to liquidated damages where you could have an oil disaster like this that could 'leak' oil for months or years.

Put it in the lease, you will be strictly liable for all damages caused by your engagement in this enterprise. IF you do not agree, do not sign the lease agreement.