- This topic has 170 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
mike92104.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 25, 2010 at 3:27 PM #554774May 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM #553812
briansd1
Guest[quote=Arraya]
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/24/news/economy/oil_spill_tax/
The House is expected to vote this week on whether to quadruple the oil tax to pay for the damages from the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[/quote]
Not fair to pass it on to consumers. The shareholders of the oil companies should pay out of their equity.
May 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM #553918Guest[quote=Arraya]
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/24/news/economy/oil_spill_tax/
The House is expected to vote this week on whether to quadruple the oil tax to pay for the damages from the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[/quote]
Not fair to pass it on to consumers. The shareholders of the oil companies should pay out of their equity.
May 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM #554406Guest[quote=Arraya]
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/24/news/economy/oil_spill_tax/
The House is expected to vote this week on whether to quadruple the oil tax to pay for the damages from the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[/quote]
Not fair to pass it on to consumers. The shareholders of the oil companies should pay out of their equity.
May 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM #554504Guest[quote=Arraya]
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/24/news/economy/oil_spill_tax/
The House is expected to vote this week on whether to quadruple the oil tax to pay for the damages from the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[/quote]
Not fair to pass it on to consumers. The shareholders of the oil companies should pay out of their equity.
May 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM #554780Guest[quote=Arraya]
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/24/news/economy/oil_spill_tax/
The House is expected to vote this week on whether to quadruple the oil tax to pay for the damages from the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[/quote]
Not fair to pass it on to consumers. The shareholders of the oil companies should pay out of their equity.
May 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM #553822Arraya
ParticipantOr EPA fines… Do the math of 50K bbl per @ $4300 a pop. Like 220 million a day or six billion a month.
For every barrel of oil that flows from the damaged Macondo well, threatening contamination of beaches and marshes from Louisiana to Florida, BP could a face civil penalty from the Environmental Protection Agency of up to $1,100. If gross negligence were proved to have caused the spill, the maximum per-barrel figure would rise to $4,300.
This translates into a range of potential BP liabilities that stretches into the tens of billions of dollars, a scary level of uncertainty for any company to face.
If the 5,000-barrel-a-day official estimate is accurate, and there are many reasons to believe it is higher, and if BP’s attempt to cap the well this week is successful, the maximum penalty would be just $220 million, according to a commentary from analysts at Canaccord Genuity. That is relatively modest compared with the $760 million BP has spent on the cleanup so far.
May 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM #553928ParticipantOr EPA fines… Do the math of 50K bbl per @ $4300 a pop. Like 220 million a day or six billion a month.
For every barrel of oil that flows from the damaged Macondo well, threatening contamination of beaches and marshes from Louisiana to Florida, BP could a face civil penalty from the Environmental Protection Agency of up to $1,100. If gross negligence were proved to have caused the spill, the maximum per-barrel figure would rise to $4,300.
This translates into a range of potential BP liabilities that stretches into the tens of billions of dollars, a scary level of uncertainty for any company to face.
If the 5,000-barrel-a-day official estimate is accurate, and there are many reasons to believe it is higher, and if BP’s attempt to cap the well this week is successful, the maximum penalty would be just $220 million, according to a commentary from analysts at Canaccord Genuity. That is relatively modest compared with the $760 million BP has spent on the cleanup so far.
May 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM #554416ParticipantOr EPA fines… Do the math of 50K bbl per @ $4300 a pop. Like 220 million a day or six billion a month.
For every barrel of oil that flows from the damaged Macondo well, threatening contamination of beaches and marshes from Louisiana to Florida, BP could a face civil penalty from the Environmental Protection Agency of up to $1,100. If gross negligence were proved to have caused the spill, the maximum per-barrel figure would rise to $4,300.
This translates into a range of potential BP liabilities that stretches into the tens of billions of dollars, a scary level of uncertainty for any company to face.
If the 5,000-barrel-a-day official estimate is accurate, and there are many reasons to believe it is higher, and if BP’s attempt to cap the well this week is successful, the maximum penalty would be just $220 million, according to a commentary from analysts at Canaccord Genuity. That is relatively modest compared with the $760 million BP has spent on the cleanup so far.
May 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM #554513ParticipantOr EPA fines… Do the math of 50K bbl per @ $4300 a pop. Like 220 million a day or six billion a month.
For every barrel of oil that flows from the damaged Macondo well, threatening contamination of beaches and marshes from Louisiana to Florida, BP could a face civil penalty from the Environmental Protection Agency of up to $1,100. If gross negligence were proved to have caused the spill, the maximum per-barrel figure would rise to $4,300.
This translates into a range of potential BP liabilities that stretches into the tens of billions of dollars, a scary level of uncertainty for any company to face.
If the 5,000-barrel-a-day official estimate is accurate, and there are many reasons to believe it is higher, and if BP’s attempt to cap the well this week is successful, the maximum penalty would be just $220 million, according to a commentary from analysts at Canaccord Genuity. That is relatively modest compared with the $760 million BP has spent on the cleanup so far.
May 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM #554791ParticipantOr EPA fines… Do the math of 50K bbl per @ $4300 a pop. Like 220 million a day or six billion a month.
For every barrel of oil that flows from the damaged Macondo well, threatening contamination of beaches and marshes from Louisiana to Florida, BP could a face civil penalty from the Environmental Protection Agency of up to $1,100. If gross negligence were proved to have caused the spill, the maximum per-barrel figure would rise to $4,300.
This translates into a range of potential BP liabilities that stretches into the tens of billions of dollars, a scary level of uncertainty for any company to face.
If the 5,000-barrel-a-day official estimate is accurate, and there are many reasons to believe it is higher, and if BP’s attempt to cap the well this week is successful, the maximum penalty would be just $220 million, according to a commentary from analysts at Canaccord Genuity. That is relatively modest compared with the $760 million BP has spent on the cleanup so far.
May 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM #553842carlsbadworker
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
Currently there is a cap of $75Million on BP’s liability (likely to be changed by Congress)… I’d say they’re still pretty darn profitable.[/quote]
The $75 million cap does not include cleanup costs.
It’ll be interesting to watch the fishermen, boaters and others getting no compensation if BP claims that the $75 million cap is maxed out.
[/quote]Some legislators are talking about changing the legal limit to the amount of third-party damages the company can be sued for. This limit, which was set after the Exxon Valdez spill, now stands at $75m; damages above that figure are meant to be met by a federally managed disaster fund which gets its money from a small tax on oil production and imports.
Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who opposes drilling off that state’s shores, talks of increasing the cap to $10 billion, which would open the way for compensation claims as large as the clean-up costs. BP, aware both of the potential downside and of the harm Exxon did to its reputation as it fought off claims against it after the Exxon Valdez, says it will pay all “legitimate” claims, suggesting it is willing to go beyond the current cap, but not lose sight of it.
May 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM #553948Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
Currently there is a cap of $75Million on BP’s liability (likely to be changed by Congress)… I’d say they’re still pretty darn profitable.[/quote]
The $75 million cap does not include cleanup costs.
It’ll be interesting to watch the fishermen, boaters and others getting no compensation if BP claims that the $75 million cap is maxed out.
[/quote]Some legislators are talking about changing the legal limit to the amount of third-party damages the company can be sued for. This limit, which was set after the Exxon Valdez spill, now stands at $75m; damages above that figure are meant to be met by a federally managed disaster fund which gets its money from a small tax on oil production and imports.
Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who opposes drilling off that state’s shores, talks of increasing the cap to $10 billion, which would open the way for compensation claims as large as the clean-up costs. BP, aware both of the potential downside and of the harm Exxon did to its reputation as it fought off claims against it after the Exxon Valdez, says it will pay all “legitimate” claims, suggesting it is willing to go beyond the current cap, but not lose sight of it.
May 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM #554435Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
Currently there is a cap of $75Million on BP’s liability (likely to be changed by Congress)… I’d say they’re still pretty darn profitable.[/quote]
The $75 million cap does not include cleanup costs.
It’ll be interesting to watch the fishermen, boaters and others getting no compensation if BP claims that the $75 million cap is maxed out.
[/quote]Some legislators are talking about changing the legal limit to the amount of third-party damages the company can be sued for. This limit, which was set after the Exxon Valdez spill, now stands at $75m; damages above that figure are meant to be met by a federally managed disaster fund which gets its money from a small tax on oil production and imports.
Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who opposes drilling off that state’s shores, talks of increasing the cap to $10 billion, which would open the way for compensation claims as large as the clean-up costs. BP, aware both of the potential downside and of the harm Exxon did to its reputation as it fought off claims against it after the Exxon Valdez, says it will pay all “legitimate” claims, suggesting it is willing to go beyond the current cap, but not lose sight of it.
May 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM #554532Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=UCGal]
Currently there is a cap of $75Million on BP’s liability (likely to be changed by Congress)… I’d say they’re still pretty darn profitable.[/quote]
The $75 million cap does not include cleanup costs.
It’ll be interesting to watch the fishermen, boaters and others getting no compensation if BP claims that the $75 million cap is maxed out.
[/quote]Some legislators are talking about changing the legal limit to the amount of third-party damages the company can be sued for. This limit, which was set after the Exxon Valdez spill, now stands at $75m; damages above that figure are meant to be met by a federally managed disaster fund which gets its money from a small tax on oil production and imports.
Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who opposes drilling off that state’s shores, talks of increasing the cap to $10 billion, which would open the way for compensation claims as large as the clean-up costs. BP, aware both of the potential downside and of the harm Exxon did to its reputation as it fought off claims against it after the Exxon Valdez, says it will pay all “legitimate” claims, suggesting it is willing to go beyond the current cap, but not lose sight of it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.