The Blog Aquatic » BP Trial http://blog.oceanconservancy.org News, opinions, photos and facts from Ocean Conservancy Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:00:01 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 Oil Disaster Trial Phase 2: BP vs. Reality http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/10/23/oil-disaster-trial-phase-2-bp-vs-reality/ http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/10/23/oil-disaster-trial-phase-2-bp-vs-reality/#comments Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:00:17 +0000 Andreas Merkl http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/?p=6856 Seabirds in the Gulf are threatened by oil from the BP spill.

Photo: Kris Krug via Flickr

The following is an excerpt from a post that first appeared on Huffington Post:

It’s been more than three years since the BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster grabbed worldwide attention. The explosive blowout that tragically claimed the lives of 11 workers on board the rig in April 2010 also unleashed an unprecedented amount of oil that flowed uncontrolled into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days. The impacts have been staggering and ongoing.

BP’s actions to stop the oil, as well as how much actually spewed into the Gulf, were the subject of the second phase of BP’s trial in New Orleans, which concluded last week. The final phase of the trial will take place next year, after which the judge will determine the penalties. In the meantime, here are some things you need to know.

BP’s public messaging around the trial has usually fallen into one of three categories:

  1. We’ve done a lot already.
  2. We intend to pay for the damages.
  3. We’re being ripped off.

But here’s the truth:

  1. What they’ve done is far below what is needed to fully restore the Gulf economy and ecosystem.
  2. Their actions contradict their claim that they intend to pay for full restoration.
  3. The people of the Gulf are the ones who stand to be ripped off.

Read more at Huffington Post.

]]>
http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/10/23/oil-disaster-trial-phase-2-bp-vs-reality/feed/ 6
BP Trial Phase 2: What You Need to Know http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/09/30/bp-trial-phase-2-what-you-need-to-know/ http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/09/30/bp-trial-phase-2-what-you-need-to-know/#comments Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:00:15 +0000 Bethany Kraft http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/?p=6708 oil-smeared hand

Photo: Ken Cedeno / Ocean Conservancy

The second phase of the trial to determine how much more money BP owes for its Gulf spill begins today. Here’s what you need to know:

1. Phase two of the trial will cover how much oil BP actually discharged into the Gulf of Mexico as well as the effort to cap the well. (Remember the summer of “junk shots” and “top kills?”)

BP says the U.S. government’s estimate of 4.9 million barrels of oil is based on “faulty assumptions.” BP says they spilled ONLY about 2.45 million barrels. BP’s estimate of a lower volume is based on the work of London-based professor Martin Blunt, who *ahem* used to work for BP. Either way, that’s a lot of oil, so why the fuss? Penalties for discharging oil (a violation of the Clean Water Act) are based on the amount of oil discharged. A lower volume means a lower penalty—potentially around $7 billion less.

(Click here for an overview of all phases of the trial.)

2. BP agreed to a criminal settlement last fall that requires the company to pay approximately $4 billion in fines over a five-year period. One of the guilty pleas was for obstruction of Congress. In May 2010, BP officials told Congress that the company’s best estimate of the spill flow was about 5,000 barrels per day, even though BP’s own scientists said in company communications that it was likely much higher.

To put the penalty BP paid for all of their criminal counts in perspective, their profits for the fourth quarter of 2012 were $3.984 billion, down from $4.986 billion the year prior.

3. BP has launched a PR campaign designed to shore up the company’s assertion that they have “made it right” and to point fingers at Gulf residents, saying that many of the claims made as a result of losses incurred during the disaster are fraudulent and that the company has gone above and beyond in response and restoration. They took out full-page ads in several national newspapers asserting that they are being victimized.

The campaign moved into full swing during the month before phase two of the trial. According to The Hill, “Given that much of the advertising is in Washington, it may also be aimed at garnering political support to lessen pending Clean Water Act fines that are the subject of the ongoing federal trial.”

Tar ball in the Gulf of Mexico

Photo courtesy Gulf Restoration Network

4. Despite ads to the contrary, there is still oil lurking in the Gulf of Mexico and on our coast. We are just now starting to see science on the impact of the spill in the marine environment, like this study of its effect on sediment in the Gulf. Organizations like the Gulf Restoration Network regularly find oiled shorelines on their patrols, like this picture taken in April of 2013 at Elmer’s Island, La.

Ultimately, the amount of money available for restoration of the Gulf of Mexico via the RESTORE Act comes down to two things: How much oil did BP discharge, and were they grossly negligent in the actions leading up to and during the disaster? Let the facts, not a slick PR campaign, determine the fate of the Gulf of Mexico.

As the next phase of this critical trial begins, please do your part to #makeBPpay. Let the world know that the Gulf of Mexico deserves full restoration and recovery by sharing the following:

Make BP Pay!
As BP enters their second phase of trial, I stand with Ocean Conservancy for restoration done right. Let’s let the facts determine the fate of the Gulf, not their slick PR campaign.

Share on Facebook

We must #makeBPpay! Let facts decide the fate of the Gulf & @OurOcean, not @BP_America’s slick PR. #BPtrial
Share on Twitter

]]>
http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/09/30/bp-trial-phase-2-what-you-need-to-know/feed/ 8
No Truth in Advertising: BP Avoiding Gulf Restoration http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/08/22/no-truth-in-advertising-bp-avoiding-gulf-restoration/ http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/08/22/no-truth-in-advertising-bp-avoiding-gulf-restoration/#comments Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:47:24 +0000 Bethany Kraft http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/?p=6554 Boom and pelicans in the Gulf of Mexico

Photo © Cheryl Gerber / Ocean Conservancy

Have you seen the BP commercials about the company taking responsibility for the worst oil disaster in U.S. history? I for one usually see at least one every week. That’s because for the past three years, the company has spent hundreds of millions on advertising trying to clean up their image. But unfortunately, BP hasn’t been as diligent about spending money to actually clean up the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon disaster they claim to be taking responsibility for.

Even as their advertisements continue to run on air, BP is now fighting its own settlement and refusing to provide much-needed funding to the people impacted by the disaster and to restoration efforts critical to bring back the health of Gulf ecosystems and marine life.

Why? Because BP claims that the people who lost their jobs and their way of life are trying to scam the company. This despite the fact that while BP makes about $4 billion in profit every three months, many people who lost their livelihoods have waited more than three years to receive compensation for their losses.

Instead of taking responsibility for the oil disaster in the Gulf and all of the repercussions to the people and wildlife who call the Gulf region home, BP is going out of its way to shirk responsibility for paying economic claims they already agreed to in court.

Now BP is taking a step even further by suing the U.S. government, claiming that being barred from pursuing new federal contracts (keep in mind that this was part of the punishment the company received for the oil disaster in the first place) is potentially costing them billions of dollars.

Despite BP’s completely astonishing legal maneuvers recently, there is progress being made. This week the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council released its Comprehensive Restoration Plan. Ocean Conservancy (and about a thousand of our supporters—thank you!) provided comments on what the plan should include to ensure that restoration is truly comprehensive. Read more about our recommendations here.

RESTORE Act funding is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something great for the Gulf. The task before the council is to use the plan as a blueprint to guide the development of a science-based process to ensure that projects ultimately selected for funding will contribute to a vision for comprehensive restoration of the Gulf ecosystem from coastal areas to the marine environment.

But a plan is only as good as the funds to implement it. As the news reports regarding BP continue to come out—detailing their court battles over settlement payments to oil spill estimate—one thing is for sure: We need to ensure the communities and livelihoods that were damaged by this disaster get the resources they need to recover. Restoring the Gulf to health after decades of degradation, including, most recently, the BP oil disaster, will ensure that we enjoy these benefits for many years to come.

We look forward to the council meeting next week and sharing our insight with members regarding what is now needed to get the plan to a place where it can be funded and implemented.

]]>
http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/08/22/no-truth-in-advertising-bp-avoiding-gulf-restoration/feed/ 8
Lessons Learned from Exxon Valdez: The Devilish Details of Why We Must Keep BP on the Hook http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/03/06/lessons-learned-from-exxon-valdez-the-devilish-details-of-why-we-must-keep-bp-on-the-hook/ http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/03/06/lessons-learned-from-exxon-valdez-the-devilish-details-of-why-we-must-keep-bp-on-the-hook/#comments Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:18:19 +0000 Ivy Fredrickson http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/?p=4883

A sea otter swimming near the Exxon Valdez

There was a great deal of excitement in the courtroom across the street from Ocean Conservancy’s Gulf restoration office during BP’s first week at trial. Objection after objection from BP’s legal team have been over ruled by Judge Barbier, a culture of BP putting profit before safety has steadily emerged, and BP has found itself in perhaps one of the world’s largest finger pointing game with Halliburton and Transocean. The trial has allowed everyone the opportunity to begin learning exactly why 11 men died and oil began gushing into the Gulf of Mexico when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire and sank. But as we learn about the past, we must also think about our future.

We know the people of the Gulf Coast and the coastal and marine ecosystems of the Gulf could feel the effects of the BP oil disaster for years, maybe even decades. That’s why it’s critical that however BP settles up , either in or out of court, the resolution of this disaster must keep options open for addressing any damages that may not be discovered until well into the future. One way to do this is to include a reopener clause in any form of a resolution.

A reopener clause is a sweetener to facilitate resolution of the case.  It represents an additional sum of money that may be accessed in the future, thus “reopening” the issue, but only if additional injuries not known at the time of the settlement manifest. It has advantages for both sides. With a reopener clause, the federal and state parties can rest assured that if any environmental problems from the spill show up later, the government isn’t left empty handed. The polluter, BP, can seek comfort in the fact that it won’t be held accountable for potential injuries that have yet to be proven or even hypothesized at this time. This may sound logical and simple, but the devil is in the details.

After the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, the settlement over natural resource damages included a reopener clause, which would require Exxon to pay an additional $100 million to fund restoration or rehabilitation of resources whose injuries were not foreseeable at the time of the settlement in 1989. However, nearly 25 years later and despite ongoing attempts, the reopener funding has never been accessed, in part because the government has been unable to meet the very high standard set by the clause.  The Exxon Valdez reopener read: “. . . injury to the affected population, habitat, or species could not reasonably have been known nor could it reasonably have been anticipated by any Trustee from any information in the possession of or reasonably available to any Trustee on the Effective Date.”

One of the main problems with this language is the word “anticipated.” The Trustees did not in fact anticipate that the Pacific herring population would collapse in 1993 or that there would still be essentially unweathered, buried oil on beaches in 2001, more than a decade after the spill. By rejecting anything that could have reasonably been anticipated, the clause denies a reopener claim for anything but an injury that was unprecedented or wholly new to science. If, for example, there was any mention in the pre-settlement scientific literature of oil persisting on a decadal scale or of impacts to fish at a population level, such mention could be cited as a reason to not invoke the reopener clause. The result of the Exxon Valdez reopener is that Trustees were left with no recourse for injuries from the spill that became evident after settlement.

The problematic “anticipated” language should not be included in reopener language for the BP spill case. Instead, the clause must put the focus on the ability to scientifically detect injury.

We suggest reopener language such as this: “Injury to the affected ecosystem, population, habitat, or species was not manifest or could not reasonably have been documented scientifically from information in the possession of or reasonably available to any Trustee on the Effective Date.” With this clause, rather than having to anticipate injury, the Trustees would have to prove that the injury could not have been scientifically documented at the time of settlement.

As with the recovery of Prince William Sound in the months, years and decades after the Exxon Valdez spill, it will take many years to understand the impacts to the natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico from the BP disaster. Including an effective reopener clause in any form of resolution to the BP oil disaster will help to protect the Gulf of Mexico, one of the world’s greatest natural treasures.

]]>
http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/03/06/lessons-learned-from-exxon-valdez-the-devilish-details-of-why-we-must-keep-bp-on-the-hook/feed/ 6