Guard watches coast for oil slick's first wave

I am curious, has anyone on here stopped using BP, or any other BP related, companies. I haven't really heard of a national or international boycott effort, though I know there are protesters.

Yes, I do feel like inserting a "BP Clean OUR Coast" truck sign joke at this juncture. Maybe Kapipal has an account for that?

I was wondering the same thing. NPR had a story about that recently, that BP gas stations have suffered and could suffer more.

Local BP Gas Station Owners Fear Boycott (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/95549369.html)

But seriously, ultimately JTF is gonna wind up paying his part for this whole mess. BP's ceo will slither his royal behind back to Britain and be knighted, if he has not already been knighted. God bless America.

From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety, do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?

I was wondering the same thing. NPR had a story about that recently, that BP gas stations have suffered and could suffer more.

Local BP Gas Station Owners Fear Boycott (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/95549369.html)I feel bad for the station owners, but I won't stop at a BP anymore. It may be a very small hit to BP, but if enough people join in, the individual station owners will change to another provider when their contracts are up, or will file lawsuits against BP to allow them to change suppliers.

From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety, do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?

If I was them I would be quiet. BP is one of the most poweerful entities on the planet. They have killed before.

From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety, do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?

I would hope at this point, that the companies would work together to end this nightmare....this is practically a world war effort they are doing here....every single company needs to work together or this may never end...

From a public relations standpoint, if you're another big oil company (say Sunoco or Exxon), how do you approach this situation?

Do you take this opportunity to tout your commitment to safety, do you offer to help BP solve the problem, or do you just keep quiet?

I think that's a good question and that's where all of this headed. On one hand, Sunoco and Exxon can't start running ads about how much safer they are than BP in terms of drilling. That just won't fly, but they can start some internal campaigns and double down on saftey standards and let the watchdog groups and the EPA vouch for them.

As far as helping out, yeah, I would stay away from that too unless the government mandated it, which I doubt they will. Simply because I wouldn't want my company's name attached in any way, shape, or form to this incident in the smallest way. Let BP own this 100% from start to finish. I will say this though, if the other to oil giants get involved, it should be with the clean-up effort ONLY. I would ensure that oil has been stopped 100% before we start with the clean-up effort.

im no business attorney but from an elementary stand point, LLCs and what not protect the individual assets of the corporation's CEO, president etc from lawsuits that arise from their corporate activities. (you cant take BP's ceo's mansion for an oil spill)

im sure some people alot smarter than me can come up with something. cmaybe you can you attach a judgment to the ceo's mansion if his decisions and actions rise to a level of reckless endangerment (not complying with safety regs and employees are killed).

if a metro bus driver rear ends you, you can sue WMATA and the bus driver.

if a metro bus driver punches you in the face, you can sue the bus driver but you cant sue WMATA b/c punching people in the face is not within the course and scope of employment as a bus driver.

maybe, somehow, it can be shown that BP's ceo punched someone in the face (disregarding and covering up safety hazards which results in foreseeable deaths is not within the corporate activity of drilling and refining oil?)

Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

Piercing the corporate shield to impose personal liability is difficult and should be so. However, it can be done. I think this is one of those situations where it should be made perfectly clear to BP executives that, unless it changes its tune, the Feds and States are going to be looking awfully hard to pierce the corporate veil in order to impose personal liability and criminal penalties.

Clearly, the corporate shield protects (and for many very good reasons) individuals within the corporation from liability by the corporate entity or by corporate employees. There are situations, however, when it is appropriate and legally correct to "pierce the corporate veil". In those situations, the corporate managers can be held personally liable for the corporations actions.

This spill is not the equivalent of a Greyhound bus driver rear-ending someone. (FYI - The MTA is a govt. entity and soveriegn immunity is a whole different legal concept). I would suggest it is more akin to a decision by the Greyhound Board saying - "There is no statute or regulation requiring us to check our brakes and based on a cost/benefit analysis (lawsuits losses v. cost to inspect/fix/maintain brakes on the entire fleet) its cheaper not to do so. Therefore we (the CEO and Board) chose not to do so in order to increase our profits even if we know someone is likely to be killed."

Piercing the corporate shield to impose personal liability is difficult and should be so. However, it can be done. I think this is one of those situations where it should be made perfectly clear to BP executives that, unless it changes its tune, the Feds and States are going to be looking awfully hard to pierce the corporate veil in order to impose personal liability and criminal penalties.

Good luck trying to convince Rand Paul and the Tea Party revolution to do that. They are gonna take the House and Senate. If you take a long hard look Republicans and Democrats are falling to the Tea Party. They operate on principle. They would never vote for this on principle alone. It will never happen because in November we all can do whatever we want and pay no taxes.

I think that's a good question and that's where all of this headed. On one hand, Sunoco and Exxon can't start running ads about how much safer they are than BP in terms of drilling. That just won't fly, but they can start some internal campaigns and double down on saftey standards and let the watchdog groups and the EPA vouch for them.

As far as helping out, yeah, I would stay away from that too unless the government mandated it, which I doubt they will. Simply because I wouldn't want my company's name attached in any way, shape, or form to this incident in the smallest way. Let BP own this 100% from start to finish. I will say this though, if the other to oil giants get involved, it should be with the clean-up effort ONLY. I would ensure that oil has been stopped 100% before we start with the clean-up effort.

Not sure I agree. There certainly is the risk of being tainted with BP's foul ups. On the other hand, as CRedskin pointed out, there would be a serious financial incentive to be the team that comes up with some technological breakthrough that resolves this mess (Just a thought: A government incentive for the company that finds a way to stop the leak or expedite clean up?). There could be some serious upside to the company that stops the leak - both from a purely financial/technological stance and from a public perception basis.