LEG 500 WEEK 6 DISCUSSION - 86848

Solution Posted by
olufunmilola

olufunmilola

Rating : (9)A+
Solution Detail
Price: $13.00
  • From: Business, Business
  • Posted on: Tue 06 Jan, 2015
  • Request id: None
  • Purchased: 1 time(s)
  • Average Rating: No rating
Request Description
"Environmental Responsibility" Please respond to the following: • From the e-Activity, determine two (2) other costs that BP might have incurred. Give your opinion as to whether or not BP would have been better off had the company taken the necessary precautions to prevent or minimize an oil spill. Support your answers. • Give your opinion on whether governments should be able to rezone and condemn residential land and displace homeowners in the process, in order to facilitate commercial development. Explain your rationale. NOTE: FOUR DIFFERENT ANSWERS POSTED FOR THE PRICE OF ONE AS A BONUS JUST CHOOSE 1
Solution Description

From the e-Activity, determine two (2) other costs that BP might have incurred. Give your opinion as to whether or not BP would have been better off had the company taken the necessary precautions to prevent or minimize an oil spill. Support your answers.

From the e-activity in all BP has paid 28 billion dollars in cleanup fees and damage claims.  Two additional costs that BP could have incurred to avoid the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill would have been a “blow-out preventer” and an “acoustic cut-off switch.”  These devices are used to prevent blowouts occurring while drilling on the ocean floor.  The cost of an acoustic cut-off switch would have been $500,000 each.  Instead, since these devices are not mandatory in the United States, BP opted not to install these devices due to the possibility of false activations costing the company in production time. 

In my opinion, BP did not take the necessary precautions to avoid a blow-out.  Not has BP paid 28 billion in damages and clean-up activities, 11 individuals lost their lives due to this blow-out. 

Give your opinion on whether governments should be able to rezone and condemn residential land and displace homeowners in the process, in order to facilitate commercial development. Explain your rationale.

I feel if the private property the government is going to retake has been abandoned and not kept up, then I don’t see a problem in taking the land to revitalize an area.  However, if the land is kept and is being used for a purpose by a private owner, the land should not be taken to facilitate commercial development. 

In the Kelo case the city of New London, CT was taking a 91 acre area of land and transferring it to the New London De

Attachments
WEEK_6.docx
WEEK_6.docx