Ah...it's not "approximately" 20B, it's 5B for 4 years...and...

Yeah, this isn't looking too good - it's not 20B, it is 5B per annum for 4
years, with 20B is "US assets" "assuring" the monies, and the whole thing has a
multi-stage claims process (Feinberg, a 3-person appeal panel, etc.). Another
troubling aspect is when Gibbs was asked, point-blank, what BP got out of this,
he tap-danced and finally said that was a question that only BP could answer. If
the WH doesn't know what BP got out of this, that isn't too assuring. While
Obama is a lawyer, he has never really been an attorney, and BP's team has
under-30 y.o. associates on it that have seen more of courtrooms, at a more
cutthroat level, than Obama. And the more-senior members could out-shark him if
they were in a coma and he had a week to prep. And I'd guess, but do not know,
that they didn't give without getting. Time will tell.

R

wrote in message
...
Yeah, this isn't looking too good - it's not 20B, it is 5B per annum for 4
years, with 20B is "US assets" "assuring" the monies, and the whole thing
has a
multi-stage claims process (Feinberg, a 3-person appeal panel, etc.).
Another
troubling aspect is when Gibbs was asked, point-blank, what BP got out of
this,
he tap-danced and finally said that was a question that only BP could
answer. If
the WH doesn't know what BP got out of this, that isn't too assuring.
While
Obama is a lawyer, he has never really been an attorney, and BP's team has
under-30 y.o. associates on it that have seen more of courtrooms, at a
more
cutthroat level, than Obama. And the more-senior members could out-shark
him if
they were in a coma and he had a week to prep. And I'd guess, but do not
know,
that they didn't give without getting. Time will tell.

R

how the **** does a massive oil spill, probably worse than ANYONE has let
on(see expert studies at:http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967) become
some petty level political rant? Seriously, Rick, you have your panties in a
bunch over what, exactly? First, the whole thing was overblown, now, at
least we have an initial committment for 20 billion that doesn't have to be
litigated for 20 years to obtain, yet that is some tragic error? Sorry, I
don't get it. Obama has to oversee a process, but this is hardly some
albatross to hang on his neck. What do you suggest should have been done?
Tom

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:19:42 -0400, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Yeah, this isn't looking too good - it's not 20B, it is 5B per annum for 4
years, with 20B is "US assets" "assuring" the monies, and the whole thing
has a
multi-stage claims process (Feinberg, a 3-person appeal panel, etc.).
Another
troubling aspect is when Gibbs was asked, point-blank, what BP got out of
this,
he tap-danced and finally said that was a question that only BP could
answer. If
the WH doesn't know what BP got out of this, that isn't too assuring.
While
Obama is a lawyer, he has never really been an attorney, and BP's team has
under-30 y.o. associates on it that have seen more of courtrooms, at a
more
cutthroat level, than Obama. And the more-senior members could out-shark
him if
they were in a coma and he had a week to prep. And I'd guess, but do not
know,
that they didn't give without getting. Time will tell.

R

how the **** does a massive oil spill, probably worse than ANYONE has let
on(see expert studies at:http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967) become
some petty level political rant? Seriously, Rick, you have your panties in a
bunch over what, exactly? First, the whole thing was overblown, now, at
least we have an initial committment for 20 billion that doesn't have to be
litigated for 20 years to obtain, yet that is some tragic error? Sorry, I
don't get it. Obama has to oversee a process, but this is hardly some
albatross to hang on his neck. What do you suggest should have been done?
Tom


I'll respond with this:

Good Ol' Gloria Vanderbilt, Jr. (Anderson Cooper) got his ass embarrassed, and
wound up ****ting on the NYT, on his own show (I think it was broadcast this
evening) when he asked one of the bird cleaning specialists running the pelican
rehab center about the survival rate of these birds, commenting that he had read
in the NYT that the survival rate was only 1%. His own source, right on camera,
said, "Oh, no, no - that's based upon old technology." And instead of shutting
up, he pushed the issue and finally the guy tells him that the survival rate is
at least 80%.

And this:

Also on CNN, CNN consultant Paul Begala compared Tony Hayward to a serial
killer.

And this:

Many pols, including Obama, have made a huge deal of the fact that BP gave them
the top dollar that they asked for - they are busy crowing about it, talking
about how they held there feet to the fire, got tough and got results, etc.,
etc. Ask any attorney you know what BP agreeing to pay exactly what it asked to
pay, after those asking said the amount paid the their "top dollar" starting
point - IOW, their "opening bid" request was granted - could mean if this ever
winds up in court.

R

It's been made clear that BP is on the hook and there is no 'ceiling' on the
amount. Lawyers can, and probably will sort that out. You, Rick, though,
seem to want to make it seem as if Obama will be in the courtroom himself. I
think the President can round up adequate lawyers to handle the situation.
You also suggest that no one should have jumped into this until such time as
there was a clear issue with claims and compensation. Well, it seems that
there has been a ton of problems already, with watermen getting $5000 checks
after presenting paperwork indicating annual harvest incomes of 25k or more.
It would seem that the administration is doing what little it can. I feel
for the folks down that way dealing with this. It isn't going to be easy,
pretty or perfect getting things right, if even possible. This seems to me
far too important an issue to get down to petty beefs about Obama.
Tom

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:42:09 -0400, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

It's been made clear that BP is on the hook and there is no 'ceiling' on the
amount. Lawyers can, and probably will sort that out. You, Rick, though,
seem to want to make it seem as if Obama will be in the courtroom himself. I
think the President can round up adequate lawyers to handle the situation.
You also suggest that no one should have jumped into this until such time as
there was a clear issue with claims and compensation. Well, it seems that
there has been a ton of problems already, with watermen getting $5000 checks
after presenting paperwork indicating annual harvest incomes of 25k or more.
It would seem that the administration is doing what little it can. I feel
for the folks down that way dealing with this. It isn't going to be easy,
pretty or perfect getting things right, if even possible. This seems to me
far too important an issue to get down to petty beefs about Obama.

My apprehension has little to do with Obama, other than the potential for him to
get his ass handed to him in a legal situation due to his lack of experience
combined with his _seeming_ belief in his press coverage about how wonderful he
is. Oddly, I think he would not have attempted any such thing _as a lawyer_ in,
say, 2007.

IAC, what concerns me is that there really wasn't much, if any, real claims
problems - in fact, more and more people are/were getting more and more money
every day (from the "BP system"). Of course, with this many people filing this
many disparate claims, there were bound to be a few clerical errors, etc., but
the simple fact was money was flowing pretty good. IMO, no court would have
found BP in any way "negligent" or showing the least bit of "bad faith" in the
claims process at this point. Hell, the process had only been in place about a
month. The Fed itself typically pays invoices in 30 days, not 29, not 31, but
_30_, and they don't typically pay partial, "tide you over" amounts on invoices.

And from a real-world perspective, additional training classes are being adding
for things like the VOO program because of the amount of people wanting to take
them. The reason they want to take them? The amounts of money involved. There
are now ads out now by the low-level subs advertising for _crew_ at 600/day plus
expenses. The work involved? Riding around in a boat for a few hours and
filing out an observation report. This isn't even "cleanup" or "haz-mat" duty -
there is, by order, no touching of oil, booms, etc. - it is simply riding around
and filing out the report. You've got school teachers and college kids home for
the summer signing up, and if they were going to suffer any economic loss at
all, it certainly wasn't 600/day _for them_ (and likely, the primes are
collecting 1000-1500/day, per).

And while there may be _claims_ that there is no "ceiling," the Fed being the
paymaster on this could easily create one for BP. Under most circumstances, no
reasonable court, and certainly not a reasonable en banc appeals panel, is going
to make a defendant continue to pay a spendthrift plaintiff, esp. when that
defendant has already paid that plaintiff the plaintiff's own "top dollar,
wildest dreams" number in negotiations and the plaintiff simply wants more
because it ****ed away the first tranche. And if a jury goes wild and tries to
do it, the courts will pop it - look at the Valdez litigation - 5B to 510M on
the punitives, with the _9th_ Circuit cutting in half and the Supremes, with
_Souter_ writing, popping it down to 1/10. Had it been in the 5th or 11th,
Alaska might have wound up owing Exxon money. BP has already popped for almost
70 times the previous _total_ legal liability limit _for each of four years_, or
280 times in total (at least in theory, if it is paid for 4 years). Plus, they
have spent a large sum (and are continuing to do so), above and beyond the
"trust fund." And whereas before, BP had control over how its "settlement
monies" were paid, now it has none. No court is likely to give a plaintiff more
because they didn't spend the first enormous sum properly. This was a political
grab by Obama (and the Congressional Dems and Rs alike). If this had been even
3-4 months down the road and a halfway reasonable claim that BP was, in fact,
"dragging their feet" could have been even cobbled together, it would be a
different story. But now, the Fed cannot reasonably argue that there was a
_need_ to take it over, only a _want_ to do so. And if any of it can be shown
to have been spent for political reasons (ala asbestos), BP will have an even
stronger case. And whereas before BP had absolutely no potentially-viable claim
of "frivolous" spending, they now have a strong basis for a absolute claim.

Add to it all that both state and federal pols are on record as saying, as of
this point, there is no reason for people not to continue to vacation, etc.,
down here, it is going to be a hard, uphill climb claiming that BP's actions,
even if (legally) (simple) negligent, were a direct, foreseeable cause for a
decline in tourism. And speaking of negligence, if the Fed ****s this up, and
there is _any_ indication of "recklessness" in doing so, this could get REALLY
interesting.

Long story short, this could wind up demonstrating the maxim, "Be damned careful
about what you ask for, lest you get exactly that..."

TC,
R
Tom

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:42:09 -0400, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

It's been made clear that BP is on the hook and there is no 'ceiling' on the
amount. Lawyers can, and probably will sort that out. You, Rick, though,
seem to want to make it seem as if Obama will be in the courtroom himself. I
think the President can round up adequate lawyers to handle the situation.
You also suggest that no one should have jumped into this until such time as
there was a clear issue with claims and compensation. Well, it seems that
there has been a ton of problems already, with watermen getting $5000 checks
after presenting paperwork indicating annual harvest incomes of 25k or more.
It would seem that the administration is doing what little it can. I feel
for the folks down that way dealing with this. It isn't going to be easy,
pretty or perfect getting things right, if even possible. This seems to me
far too important an issue to get down to petty beefs about Obama.
Tom

And as a side note, Feinberg is the "wild card" in a deck of jokers - if he
manages to handle this properly, and the pols (of all parties, levels, and
political ambitions) actually stay the hell out and away (or are kept at bay),
there is a chance of success for those affected AND BP. And yes, Obama would
deserve the credit for his selection, separate and apart from whether or not he
deserved any for his success. And yes, the idealist in me hopes he succeeds
beyond expectations. Unfortunately, the realist in me has seen enough to be, at
best, cautious.

TC,
R

On 6/17/10 9:20 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:42:09 -0400, "Tom
wrote:

It's been made clear that BP is on the hook and there is no 'ceiling' on the
amount. Lawyers can, and probably will sort that out. You, Rick, though,
seem to want to make it seem as if Obama will be in the courtroom himself. I
think the President can round up adequate lawyers to handle the situation.
You also suggest that no one should have jumped into this until such time as
there was a clear issue with claims and compensation. Well, it seems that
there has been a ton of problems already, with watermen getting $5000 checks
after presenting paperwork indicating annual harvest incomes of 25k or more.
It would seem that the administration is doing what little it can. I feel
for the folks down that way dealing with this. It isn't going to be easy,
pretty or perfect getting things right, if even possible. This seems to me
far too important an issue to get down to petty beefs about Obama.
Tom

And as a side note, Feinberg is the "wild card" in a deck of jokers - if he
manages to handle this properly, and the pols (of all parties, levels, and
political ambitions) actually stay the hell out and away (or are kept at bay),
there is a chance of success for those affected AND BP. And yes, Obama would
deserve the credit for his selection, separate and apart from whether or not he
deserved any for his success. And yes, the idealist in me hopes he succeeds
beyond expectations. Unfortunately, the realist in me has seen enough to be, at
best, cautious.

TC,
R

Ooooo! You're cautious! I wish BP had been cautious, and I imagine they
do, too.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Jun 17, 10:20*am, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:42:09 -0400, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

It's been made clear that BP is on the hook and there is no 'ceiling' on the
amount. Lawyers can, and probably will sort that out. You, Rick, though,
seem to want to make it seem as if Obama will be in the courtroom himself. I
think the President can round up adequate lawyers to handle the situation.