Individual+Post+Questions

The factor in the matrix that shaped the disaster recovery efforts that I have chosen to focus on is the legal aspects, such as laws and lawsuits. The goal is to understand three objectives: what laws were or should have been associated with the recovery effort, why the cleanup effort initially took so long, and why it was taking so long for the victims to receive compensation.  ** What three quotes (from three different sources) help explain the causal factor you have identified? **  1. ** ) “He [Kenneth Feinberg] has acknowledged that the system is clogged by the sheer volume of oil spill claims, along with inflated or outlandish requests” (“Gulf oil spill claims process under fire,” 2011, pg. 2).  **  This provides a partial explanation as to why claims were taking to so long to be processed. With people applying for either more money than they were entitled to or money they weren’t even entitled to at all, finding the claims that were actually valid was a challenge in itself.    Though other acts and laws played a role in the recovery process, this act in particular played a major role in the initial cleanup efforts, or lack thereof. With such a large quantity of laws, problems begin to develop in deciding which laws apply under the given circumstances, which laws take precedence over the others, and which laws will cause liability and limitations.   By hiding some information that should be available to the public, many concerns are beginning to rise as to how honest and committed to resolving the problems BP really is. Between tricking people into taking quick pay instead of going through lawsuits and failing to tell applicants that there are trial dates and deadlines set, people will be fooled into accepting a lesser amount of money than they may be entitled to. **
 * __Lead Question __ **** :  **
 * __<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Supporting Questions __ **** <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">:  **
 * <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">2.) “The Jones Act, the maritime law that requires all goods be carried in U.S. water by U.S.-flagged ships, has prevented Dutch ships with spill-fighting equipment from entering U.S. coastal areas” (Donovan, 2010, pg. 1).  **
 * <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">3.) “It is clear that during settlement negotiations, Mr. Feinberg has failed to disclose facts pertinent to plaintiffs’ settlement decision[s]” (The Bernard Law Firm, 2011, pg. 1).  **

What people and organizations were key actors? What other stakeholders should be noted?

** <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> When put into groups, the two biggest key actors of this recovery are the government and the citizens. As a result of American laws and acts the clean up and compensation for death or damage took much longer than anyone would have expected. The people, who were not always truthful in filing claims, also caused a major delay in monetary payout. When broken down, the people become many new groups including restaurant and other business owners, retail stores that relied on the now decreased tourism, fisherman and fisheries, and boating companies, to name just a few of those who were affected by the spill. Another major stakeholder in this event is of course British Petroleum, whose reputations, and the reputation of its employees, was put on the line for a significant amount of time. The shareholders in BP are also an important stakeholder because although BP was responsible for cleaning up the mess, it was also necessary to appease the shareholders, which seemed to take priority over helping the victims. In an event of this magnitude it seems fair to say that just about anyone and everyone was a key actor or stakeholder in one way or another; everyone was impacted, some more severe and personal than others. What further details from your sources convey the significance of the problem you have identified? Provide at least five details, with references. ** <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">As previously stated, the main focus of my research is to find the laws associated with the BP recovery effort, as well as the regulations and legal acts which delayed and limited the cleanup response and compensation payments. One important factor that contributed to the delay in compensation responses was the corruption within the GCCF. Kenneth Feinberg, head of the fund, misguided applicants, tricked them into collecting less money than they deserved, and refused to disclose information as to whether or not BP was distributing money fairly (“Important Conflict of Interest Arises with Oil Spill Claims Process,” 2011, pg. 1). <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> Additional problems with claim filing was a result of false applications, poor documentation, or exaggerated claims, such as a man claiming money for deckhands that he did not actually have and another man claiming $20 billion (“Gulf oil spill claims process under fire,” 2011, pg. 1). As if deciphering between the real and fake lawsuits for property damage, lost businesses and income, and wrongful death were not bad enough, there were also claims being filed against the dispersant used, insisting that the chemicals were problematic to human health and could cause death (“BP Oil Spill Clean Up Could Lead to More Personal Injury Lawsuits,” 2010, pg. 1). Another reason why people were not receiving as much money as they expected was because laws and regulations, such as the Death on the High Seas Act, limit a company’s liability to pecuniary payments, but does not include any non-pecuniary payments (Burtka, 2010, pg. 2 and Searcey, 2010, pg. 1). <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> The poor cleanup effort at the start of this incident was largely due to the Jones Act, which prevented non-American vessels and workers that were equipped with the necessary skimmers and barricading techniques to enter the U.S waters (Bader, 2010, pg. 1). An EPA regulation furthered the prevention of skimmers initially because the organization did not permit water containing oil residue to be put back into the ocean, even though it would have been better than nothing (“Inflexible EPA regulations prevented oil spill cleanup,” 2010, pg. 1). <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> A big problem that I learned more about was the corruption that exists within American business, industry, and government. Despite the fact that BP cause unimaginable damage to the Gulf coastline and ruined the lives of thousands of people, the company was still trying to find ways in which they could benefit from the disaster. Under the U.S. Corporate Tax Law, BP can legally claim tax credits or tax returns of up to 35% of its losses, which happens to be nearly $10 million (“BP seeks $9.9 billion tax credit for spill costs,” 2010, pg. 2). <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">

** <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">What could have offset the problems you have identified? Provide at least one reference in responding. ** <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">The majority of, if not all of the problems that were encountered during the BP recovery process could have been avoided in relatively simple ways. With regard to the Jones Act preventing the initial foreign aid assistance, the president had the right to waive this act and refused simple because “for Obama, politics always comes first” and “the unions [who support Obama] see it [not waiving the act] as. . . protecting jobs” (Bader, 2010, pg. 1). Even the president, who should be doing his best to ensure the safety and happiness of Americans, is putting his personal needs before the needs of others. Had he simply waived the act this problem, though perhaps not unavoidable, could have been far less disastrous. If the government had played a better role in the recovery of this incident, the effects could’ve been reduced drastically. In the Netherlands, for example, if there is an oil problem the company is allotted twelve hours to respond. “If the response is inadequate or the companies are unprepared, the government takes over and sends the companies the bill” (Donovan, 2010, pg. 2). Unfortunately, it almost seems as if the majority of the American government was siding with and helping out the oil company rather than protecting the country and citizens. Many articles contain information about reform and policy changes that will be taking place as a result of the spill. In my opinion, if the government should have had these proper policies already in action so a problem such as this oil spill would have been avoided completely. A final, though certainly not the last, nuisance was the EPA regulation that stated water with oil residue could not be pumped back into the ocean. By standing by this rule it became clear that “. . . in the twisted logic of our government, it was better not to skim off the oil at all than to skim a lot of it but put a little back” (“Inflexible EPA regulations prevented oil spill cleanup,” 2010, pg. 1). Had the EPA acted leniently with that one rule, the outcome could have been far more favorable. These few simple solutions, along with many more simple solutions, could have made the BP recovery actions more efficient, more effective, less extensive, and much less painful for many people. ** <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">

How has this analysis advanced your understanding of the 2010 BP disaster and of oil politics more broadly? ** <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Following an event through forms of media, such as newspapers and news channels on television, can be incredibly informative, yet can also be incredibly untrue or invalid on facts. Although I knew the basics of the spill (i.e. what happened, what’s happening as the oil spills, the cleanup techniques, the length of time it was taking, etc.). I never truly knew why most of these things were taking place. This research helped me to answer questions such as: Why did the cleanup take so long to accomplish? What influenced the decisions throughout this process? What more could have been done? I have learned about the positive and negative influences that both politics and oil can have on nearly every aspect of the American society and yet I know there is still plenty more to be learned before the semester is over. ** <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">

What lessons can be drawn for disaster prevention and response in the future? ** <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">As far as prevention of future disasters go, I feel that the biggest lesson to be learned he is Precaution. Taking the steps to ensure that the equipment being utilized is in top condition and routinely checked on should not be a matter of convenience as it appeared to have been in this case, but rather mandatory government-inspected actions. Had everything been maintained and monitored more carefully, an incident such as this more than likely could have been avoided entirely. In the case of the response actions taken, the main concept that needs to be realized is not only plan ahead, but always plan for the worst. It is better to be over prepared that under prepared regardless of the circumstances at hand. While some members of BP may have thought they had an idea of what to do, did any of them plan for the storm that carried the oil great distances? That’s doubtful. We all learn from our mistakes and the moral of this story, overall, is “it’s better to be safe than sorry.” Another point that could have a story written about it is that the government is clearly in need of reform, or at least reformatting how situations are handled. There should have been a stronger enforcement of the rig maintenance, the rig cleanup, and the victim payout (to say the least). I believe that if the government simply tightens down the regulations for drilling and ensures that all companies meet these requirements, the episode of mass chaos witnessed during the BP oil spill will not happen again and therefore there should be no need to even think about what should be done differently the next time this happens; there should not be a next time. <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">