Breaking Down The BP Settlement: Where Will The Money Go?

Yesterday, the Justice Department announced BP agreed to plead guilty to 14 criminal charges stemming from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill and agreed to pay $4.5 billion in fines and penalties – the largest single criminal fine and largest total criminal resolution in US history. Attorney General Eric Holder emphasized several times that the announcement is only one piece of the government’s ongoing efforts to hold BP fully accountable for the deaths of 11 men and one of the worst environmental disasters in US history.
Here’s a rundown of what the settlement entailed and what lies ahead.
What were the charges?

  • BP plead guilty to 14 counts: 11 felony counts of misconduct for the 11 workers killed at the rig, one misdemeanor count under the Clean Water Act, one misdemeanor count under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and one felony count of obstruction of Congress.
  • Three BP employees were also charged, two of them with manslaughter.

Where will the money go?
In addition to the size of today’s resolution, the settlement is also historic in its dedication of the majority of funds to the affected Gulf Coast states for environmental restoration.

  • $2.4 billion will go to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, – an independent, non-profit conservation group chartered by Congress in 1984. The funds will be paid out over a period of five years and be earmarked for environmental restoration and preservation in Gulf states.
  • $350 million will go to the National Academy of Sciences for oil spill prevention, education, research, and training – also to be paid out over five years.
  • More than $1 billion will go to the Coast Guard’s Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, overseen by the U.S. Coast Guard to be available to pay for future oil spill cleanup.
  • BP will also pay $525 million to resolve claims with the Securities and Exchange Commission for misleading its investors regarding the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

What additional aspects of BP’s liability have not been resolved? Yesterday’s settlement was just one step toward determining full liability for the catastrophe, with the largest potential penalties still remaining.

  • Civil penalties under the Clean Water Act are the largest potential fine, as the company will be charged up to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled.  Holder indicated that the government will pursue the maximum penalty, which could result in a fine as large as $21 billion.
  • Federal and state Natural Resource Damages claims also remain outstanding. Historically, these have taken the longest to resolve. In the case of the Exxon Valdez spill, they took more than a decade to settle.
  • State economic loss or private civil claims that aren’t covered by the $7.8 billion settlement announced in March.

Re-posted article by Kiley Kroh, at the Center for American Progress.

Top 10 CR stories of 2010?

The Crane and Matten blog posted an entry today listing what they believe to be the top 10 CR stories of 2010. They are as follows:

  1. BP Oil Spill
  2. Google’s withdrawal from China
  3. Wikileaks
  4. Citizens United decision
  5. Toyota’s product safety recall
  6. Bank bonuses
  7. Corporate response to Haiti earthquake
  8. Greenpeace campaign against Sinar Mas palm oil
  9. HP’s termination of CEO Mark Hurd
  10. India’s 2G license scandal

Do you agree with the list as well as the order? Are there other stories this year that you believe were more important – and also will have a longer effect on society? To read the whole blog entry and vote for the story you thought was the most significant, please click here.

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre launches new information portal

Today the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre launched a new online information portal regarding “Human rights impacts of oil pollution: U.S. Gulf Coast, Ecuador, Nigeria”.  According to a press release issued by the nonprofit organization, the portal will impartially present articles, videos and reports from all sides of the crises and encourages people to give feedback and/or provide additional information about what’s happening.

Before launching the new portal, the Centre asked each company covered in the Ecuador and Nigeria briefings to contribute further information and/or statements on the happenings discussed in the briefings.  The portal also includes links to reports about Ecuador and Nigeria (tracked by the Centre through their many years of contact with affected peoples and the companies involved).  The purpose of the briefings is to keep an ongoing focus on these issues, as well as provide a public platform for continuing debate.

The press release ended with this statement: 

“All three briefings – U.S. Gulf Coast, Ecuador and Nigeria – will be kept updated over the coming months and years.  Any company, organization or commentator wishing to submit a clarification, response or further information is welcome to do so – see contact details below.  When concerns are raised about the human rights impacts of a company, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invites the company to provide a public response to the allegations.  This allows companies to put forward their views, and encourages companies to address important concerns being raised by civil society.  In coming years the Resource Centre will consider expanding this information hub to cover oil pollution in other countries (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre).

The press release has several first person accounts of the oil spills in these areas and how it has (and continues to) affect people and their livelihood.  Some of the companies covered in the briefings are BP, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, Chevron, Texaco, Shell and Eni.  

The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre tracks the human rights impacts (positive & negative) of 5000 companies in over 180 countries.  The site is updated hourly and receives 1.5 million hits per month.  To read the entire press release, please click here.

Do you think making this information public and encouraging people to provide feedback etc. is a good idea? Does it perpetuate the importance and dependence on social media for information? Discuss!

The Gulf Coast Oil Spill and Lessons in Crisis Communications

As oil continues to pour into the Gulf Coast, damaging human and environmental welfare in incomprehensible ways, we try to think of the positive lessons that have emerged from this tragedy.

Some of these lessons come from looking into our personal use of petroleum (the demand that drives offshore drilling), some of them come from watching how our governmental leaders respond to this national misfortune (perhaps with energy policy?), and others come from the actions and words of the responsible parties.

BP recently launched the following ad campaign in an attempt to reassure our nation that they “will make this right”:

Unfortunately for BP, the campaign has received widespread criticism due in large part to the general lack of credibility that BP has accumulated.  Inaccurate estimates, failed attempts to quell the oil flow, $5,000 settlements to keep residents from suing, and courtroom battles have all contributed to public mistrust of BP.

The ad campaign reinforces negative public sentiment toward the company because its message does not align with BP’s actions to date.

On top of the cost of cleanup, BP has suffered both stock and reputational losses and its image as a “green” company publicly terminated following its removal from the NASDAQ OMX CRD Global Sustainability 50 Index.  BP need not suffer to this extent; companies in the oil industry have dealt with oil spills of various sizes in the past.  The differentiating factor may not be the crisis itself, but how the company responds.

Lessons in crisis communications:*
Continue reading

The Importance of U.S. Climate Action Partnership

News of BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar stepping down from their participation in U.S. Climate Action Partnership is a step backwards for stakeholder engagement around sensitive sustainability issues such as climate change.  The essence of USCAP was to bring unlikely partners together to have robust discussions around what climate legislation might look like and how corporations and environmental NGOs could find common ground.  Many companies, including GE, Honeywell and Shell, remain at the table alongside NGOs like the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council.  Stakeholder engagement at this level and with these diverse players needs to continue so that the private sector continues to make progress and not end up in gridlock like Washington.

 – Written by Barb Brown, Principal and Co-Owner of BrownFlynn