In court suit, BP claims if BP is found guilty then US gov't is equally guilty

[Robbien]

from
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100602/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2365

A Louisiana fishermen who fell ill and had to be hospitalized after working on BP's Gulf oil cleanup crew — filed a restraining order against the oil giant. The order demanded that the company cease spraying dispersants into the Gulf unless BP managers also provide "appropriate personal protective equipment," and cease alleged harassment campaigns and termination threats targeting workers who chose to wear their own protective masks.

Attorneys for BP have now filed a motion to block the restraining order. In a 12-page response obtained by Yahoo! News, the attorneys argue that even though "Mr. Wunstell claims personal injuries from exposure to a dispersant, he was neither handling the dispersant nor in the immediate vicinity of it." BP's legal team contends that "dispersant use has been specifically approved by both the Coast Guard and EPA" — and that it would be "counterproductive to interfere with remedies selected or approved by EPA while a cleanup effort is underway."

BP's attorneys also suggest that the federal authorities overseeing the Gulf spill would be implicated in any finding for Wunstell: "Any injunctive relief against the BP defendants would inherently also operate against the federal decision-makers and executive branch officials."

. . .

BP officials have previously asserted that the air in the area is safe and that workers therefore don't need to use masks or respirators. BP has also vaguely denied threatening to fire anyone choosing to use masks or other protective gear.

It is sad that there are workers going to court to have the right to wear their own protective gear.

This is the first case so far where BP has responded and we see what BP's stance is going to be in any case filed against them: The US gov't is our partner in crime.

[Cha]

1. And, we'll see what AG Holder finds. nt

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. Because Corexit was on the EPA's approved list,

this is what was going to happen. They weren't going to make tons of money using it. They just wanted to blur the lines between the government and BP and between the oil and Corexit.

They want people to prove it was just the oil and not any of the Corexit that did the damage. If they can't, BP will claim that the Corexit use was also the government's fault.

This will probably be a major method in trying to avoid a lot of claims.

I have no idea if it will work, but they weren't defying the government by insisting on its massive use for just money or to just break up the oil. I believe it was their aim from the beginning to use Corexit to entangle whoever else they could.

[gateley]

6. But didn't the EPA order them to stop using it and substitute another? Whatever

happened to that, by the way?

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. BP said "No."

Then the govenment talked with them about it.

BP won't change dispersant used in oil spill -- for now
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/22/gulf.oil.spill/index.html

[gateley]

10. Wow - we were sure strong, weren't we? That's inexcusable. nt

[gateley]

3. Wow - they have nerve playing hardball in their current position. I want them crushed! nt

[Robbien]

8. To not have the suit all they had to do is provide protective clothing

BP says NO
BP pays very expensive lawyers to say NO
BP says US gov't is equally guilty


Yes, BP is playing hardball.

And what does the US gov't do:

stop holding joint pressers with BP — “in order to better control the message” — and the BP logo was removed to “avoid confusion.”

Coast Guard Pulls Off BP Logo Before Thad Allen Press Conference
http://www.mediaite.com/online/coast-guard-pulls-off-bp-logo-before-thad-allen-press-conference/

[Orsino]

4. Probably so, but not in the way they mean. n/t

[Trillo]

5. Petroleum itself makes all of us ill to some degree.

BP's argument is a smoke screen.

[activa8tr]

11. Deleted by me, sorry put it in the wrong place.

[Overseas]

9. K&R ! //nt