BP could owe billions for past and future harm from the 2010 oil spill care2 - by Catherine Gill January 24, 2015 Tuesday began the third and final segment of the trial for the BP oil spill that happened in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. This portion of the trial is mostly about determining whether BP should pay $13.7 billion in Clean Water Act penalties — $4,300 for each of the 3.19 million barrels of oil that were discharged as a result of the oil disaster. To make that determination, lawyers are looking at the existing damage as well as what future harm may arise as a result of the 2010 spill. It has been almost five years since the tragic spill that claimed the lives of eleven workers, defacing the environment, wetlands, beaches and wildlife from Texas to Florida with oil. Following the spill, toxicity levels in the water were high, and experts believe that future risks to the environment are likely. BP attorneys are ruthlessly sparring with environmental researchers to avoid having to pay these penalties. BP is actually known to appeal each fine that they receive. The oil giant claims it has already spent an estimated $42 billion in costs relating to the spill, though the cleaning methods used are also suspect and harmful. During questioning, government witness, Dr. Stanley Rice, who is a retired National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) toxicology expert, denigrates BP’s report following the 2010 spill. Rice believes that the oil conglomerate failed to focus on surface waters or the deep-sea oil plumes that were following the soiling that occurred in the Gulf. When speaking about BP’s report, which glossed over the effects of the event, Rice said, “You do not get the impression that there’s anything to worry about.” Donald Boesch, a professor from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, justified his conclusions that the spill caused harm and that there are potential future hazards present. Boesch based his findings on the host of reports and data that he reviewed following the spill. Boesch was the first witness that the government called on Wednesday, and he outlined the prospective of harm to sea life populations. Boesch and his analysis were questioned by BP attorney Mike Brock, and he stuck by his expert opinion that the oil spill had a significant effect on wildlife and can cause future peril as well based on the effect of oil on microbes at the bottom of the natural food chain. BP is also making a claim for its inability to pay the steep fine, which would be the highest penalty of its kind ever to be imposed under the Clean Water Act. Government lawyers countered with the fact that BP recently told investors that price volatility is something that they can handle. It was also suggested that they pay the penalties back over time, in increments. So far, the end result is not yet known and no decisions are expected to be made in the near future. In fact, the post-trial briefing schedules will extend into April of this year. care2/causes/bp-could-owe-billions-for-past-and-future-harm-from-the-2010-oil-spill.html
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:54:11 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015