The company said it considers the methods used to calculate the damages "seriously flawed, not supported by the legislation and to substantially overstate the claims."
~~
(Reuters) - BP Plc has tallied up claims made by states and local governments on the U.S. Gulf Coast for economic and property damages from the Macondo oil spill, and come up with a figure of $34 billion, which it deems "substantially" overstated.
The company has struggled with political, financial and legal fallout ever since the April 2010 explosion, which caused the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.[Yahoo News]
2 comments:
Now begins the civil case that BP will fight for years and years and years and years and...
...and it is this very same company, BP, that will argue in the little town of Cape Vincent that their laws are overly protective of the community's health and safety.
I hope BP's safety record becomes an upfront issue during the Article X hearings.
How can the company with the worst corporate record on safety have the nerve to recommend washing-down our law?
This from BP's Code of Conduct:
SAFETY: Safety is good business. Everything we do relies upon the safety of our workforce and the communities around us. We care about the safe management of the environment. We are committed to safely delivering energy to the world.
RESPECT: We respect the world in which we operate. It begins with compliance with laws and regulations. We hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards and behave in ways that earn the trust of others. We depend on the relationships we have and respect
each other and those we work with. We value diversity of people and thought. We care about the consequences of our decisions, large and small, on those around us.
This is as good an example of corporate bullshit as exists on the planet. "We care about the safe management of the environment"; and if so, don't squash our laws.
If BP respects the world in which they operate, beginning by complying with laws and regulations, then they can also begin by leaving Cape Vincent.
How can BP reconcile what they are proposing for Cape Vincent and their Code of Ethics? How can they put aside the wishes of a community's elected officials over the wishes of their paid leaseholders? How can that behavior ever mesh with any corporate Code of Ethics?
Post a Comment