You are here

Gulf of Mexico oil disaster - "it's not a leak, it's a volcano of oil"

Gulf of Mexico oil "spill" (actually a geyser shooting up nearly a million gallon/day) is destined to be one of the greatest man-caused environmental catastrophes in the history of mankind.

It isn't just BP, it's the criminal enterprises of Goldman Sachs and U.S. Department of Interior that chose to exploit by shorting against the oil disaster (the former) and permissive 'rubber-stamp' attitude with exemptions and waivers regarding off-shore oil drilling safety & procedure regulation (the latter).

The effect of this disaster will be felt in terms of negative economic and ecological impact.

Wildlife and tourist & fishing industry lose big time. Seafood price may be marked up soon.

Corporate recklessness and irresponsibility in quest to exploit "black gold" disregarding regulatory safeguard -- condoned by a corrupt government, no less -- continues to damage and destroy the Earth with catastrophe after ecological catastrophe in mining, chemical, air exhaust, etc while withholding the revolutionary technologies in reliable, affordable, and least damaging renewable energy and no-fuel transportation, only because exorbitant profiteering is all that matter.

"Greed is good," indeed.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolph Hitler

British Petroleum announced today plans to release new BP Fish Sticks in grocery stores. The move, viewed as putting into the practice the saying “If life gives you lemons, make lemonade” has many environmental groups furious.

“It’s absolutely unconscionable for BP to do this,” said Roger Pretpopp, head of the Gulf Coast Environmental Protection League. “The company should have all its efforts focused on the clean-up of its massive oil spill, not product diversification.”

Terrance Fawdalraw, VP of Communications at BP disagrees. “We are doing everything in our power to clean up the unfortunate Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the result of a burst of anger from Mother Nature and not negligence on the company’s part. It is simply coincidental that our product development people discovered a revolutionary way to pre-oil fish so they bake up crispy, flaky and delicious in your oven in minutes.”

When asked if these fish sticks were made from fish that suffered as a result of the spill, Mr. Fawdalraw began patting perspiration from his brow with a monogrammed silk handkerchief. “Of course not,” said the company spokesperson, “that would be opportunistic and somewhat evil. I will say, however, that new BP Fish Sticks offer premium performance and improved mileage in all makes and models. Hence our slogan: New BP Fish Sticks, good in your tank, or your car’s tank!

In the case of Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. The punitive damages amount was equal to a single year's profit by Exxon at that time.

Meanwhile, Exxon appealed the ruling, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge, Russel Holland, to reduce the punitive damages. On December 6, 2002, the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and was not grossly excessive. Exxon appealed again and the case returned to court to be considered in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which caused Judge Holland to increase the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest.

After more appeals, and oral arguments heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on January 27, 2006, the damages award was cut to $2.5 billion on December 22, 2006. The court cited recent Supreme Court rulings relative to limits on punitive damages.

Exxon appealed again. On May 23, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied ExxonMobil's request for a third hearing and let stand its ruling that Exxon owes $2.5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.[2 On February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 90 minutes. Justice Samuel Alito, who at the time, owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case. In a decision issued June 25, 2008, Justice David Souter issued the judgment of the court, vacating the $2.5 billion award and remanding the case back to a lower court, finding that the damages were excessive with respect to maritime common law. Exxon's actions were deemed "worse than negligent but less than malicious." The judgment limits punitive damages to the compensatory damages, which for this case were calculated as $507.5 million. Some lawmakers, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, have decried the ruling as "another in a line of cases where this Supreme Court has misconstrued congressional intent to benefit large corporations."


"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer