BP and US Government Negotiations Analysis

BP and US regime Negotiations AnalysisZacharia DainkehAn evaluation and critical analysis of the decisiveness reservation process and the negotiations and tick offment between BP and the US government including other relevant parties positions regarding the out of judicatory solving with respectfulness to the Deep wet Horizon BP cover run off in the Gulf of Mexico in the United States of AmericaOn the 20th of April 2010, the Golf of Mexico was rocked by an explosion from the Deepwater Horizon cover platform, and caused serious environmental and economic damage. In response BP provided a swift response to remedy the crisis by employing the services of Entrix, a renowned environmental consulting firm in the United States to evaluate the oil evenfall impact. Since Entrix is specialised in assessing crisis such as the impact such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Even though the U. S. administration acted to aloofness itself from British Petroleum in handling of the oil s pill in the Gulf of Mexico, the ordainingness for both parties to belong together in assessing the nature and scope of the level of harm caused by oil spill, shows as a notable exception.BP is a British owned MNC/oil comp any(prenominal) that leased the Deepwater Horizon rig, owned and operated by Transocean, an offshore drilling oil company. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is as of yet the biggest environmental happening to have rocked the United States in its history. That precipitated scores of negotiations to settle monetary claims of the affected parties, immediately after BP had claimed business. hold backn together, the rulings meant that BP was on the hook for a fine of up to $13.7 billion under the Clean irrigate be alone. Billions more could be levied from a federal Resource Natural Damage Assessment.Following the 2010 catastrophic BP oil spill off the coast of New Orleans, in the Gulf of Mexico, which instantaneously led to a sad investigation by the U.S discus sion section of Justice? It would be recalled that this dreadful event induced a falloff of complex legal proceedings against BP, Transocean and Anadarko for a violation of two Federal Acts of government. At the initial grade the path towards declaration was doubtful, after the September 2014 ruling, during which BP was held to be grossly negligent It was estimated that over 3.19 million barrel of oil was spilled from the disaster off the coastal areas of Southern United States in the Gulf of Mexico. the Clean Water and Oil Pollution respectively. By and large, the rationale of this paper will critically focus to unravel the complexity of the decision reservation and negotiating process(s) that eventually yielded a compensation settlement to those affected. Beach defines negotiations as actions aimed at constituent the parties in a negotiation to overcome extravagantly transaction bes, enabling the achievement of mutually refreshing outcomes that would otherwise not be rea ched. (Beach, 2012).It is the responsibility of senior management leaders to facilitate negotiations in time particularly in time of crisis, which is considered as part of a strategic management decision making process and shaping the agenda by determining relevant issues to be discussed. Before then, a try assessment should have been done which will provide an advance warning of any unknown or known recommendation in preparation for the negotiating team of respective parties.The first section strain to let out the relevant parties to the negotiated agreement between British Petroleum (BP) and the (U. S. Department of Justice (USDOJ), which includes relevant claimants and the purported parties answerable for the shamed and the two master(prenominal) dominant party of the final negotiations that derived from the Deep-water Horizon oil spill. This field ascertain will proffer unravel how wide range of issues are addressed in the current literatures of oil spill devastations i n relation to the negotiations process and application of the definition and relevant theory to this case charter with a supporting argument to justify the dominant party position.The second part of this paper an attempt to illustrate and describe alternative sights and approaches that could have been explore by other relevant parties to improved their negotiate outcome that may have reduce or prevent the scale of relative dominance notice as displayed in the decision making and negotiating process that eventually resulted to the coordinate settlement reached in this case.In the third and final section, the master(prenominal) focus will proffer to provide meaningful suggestions as to the mode and approach in future scenario and advise based on the conclusive assessment and analysis of the negotiated parties, with respect to their decision making and negotiating process and its (their) outcome with the relevant lesson learnt based on the BP oil spill structured settlement.Fin ally, a conclusion will closed this paper with reference drawn from the respective dominant parties, decision making process lesson learned and proffer solution on lesson learned from the case study, followed by a summarized conclusion.This paper seek to evaluation and critically analyze the decision-making and negotiated agreement processes between the relevant affected parties with main focus on the two major(ip) parties namely (British Petroleum-BP), the responsible party for the damages and the relevant claimants main representative on the final negotiated agreement the United States Department of Justice. Furthermore, an analysis of the settlement stages and process towards the structured settlement will also be assessed. An evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the interconnected interest of MNC such as BP monetary strength, investments, influence and association with the U.S economy and government socioeconomic, environmental and political interest with a need for a balance and an objective assessment that will unravel the true winners and losers of this negotiated agreement.The parties to the agreement are from two eliminate angles, namely the claimants and responsible partie(s), the claimants are as follows The United States of America Government represented by The U. U. Department of Justice (USDOJ were the main and dominant party that represented all claimants in the negotiations that concluded the structured settlement reached with BP), U. S. Coast Guard, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, media, Oil Industry, Environmental activist and organizations, Fishermen, Tourist-driven Communities, Tourist Driven- Business, Tourists, Oil spill, Cleanup Workers and Home owners and developers. Whiles the responsible parties are British Petroleum (BP owner of the head), who happens to be the dominant responsible party, justification for the dominant parties will be explained later. BP was also the main party that negotiated as the resp onsible party with the USDOJ, and Transocean (owner and agent of the Deepwater Horizon), both of whom were named as the responsible parties by the U.S. Coast Guard.For clarity purposes, it is important to understand that among the above mentioned parties the dominant parties in the out of accost settlement were BP and the United States Government. This was so because BP owner of the well, with vicarious liability, is the main responsible party and the United States Government as a democratically elected government, for obvious reasons, its part of its responsibilities to not unaccompanied represent the claimants, further to create a balance between the interest of the victims and the responsible party and to ensure that an appreciated cumulus is reached in the interest of the victims and the responsible party within an acceptable redress, but are forced to take one side and be punk with BP to ensure that an adequate compensation is paid that commensurate to the disgraced and loss caused. As the main representative of all claimants. It was believed that the government has the required expertise to accurately check the financial means and compensate those that lost their jobs, property etc by reimbursing them with financial assistance from the responsible party,If they hire the bills, theyre welcome at the table, said Peter Tuttle, an environmental contaminant specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who is organize NRDA activities among Interior Department bureaus.From a superficial glance, the ambition behind this legislation was to redress two major concerns 1) unbearable delays and 2) fiercely problematic legal battles in subsequent oil spill catastrophes (see Issacharoff and Rave, 2014 399).The prevailing perspective of relevant actors were mixed as the process continued. To some, the entire agreement was very important especially on the part of BP and the United States government in getting the balance right in an attempt seek its nation al interest and to protecting its investors (MNC) and BP is keen in regaining back lost confidence from its investors and those residing in the affected areas. With such deal in identify, BP was seen to have provided assurances to its current and potential investors that they are willing to genuinely honour their own part of any agreement reached in compensating those residing in the Gulf in case of any environmental harm done whilst they continue to carry out their activities within the Gulf Coast. wherefore not, some will hold this argument that the fact that BP was willing to stepped aside and allow the establishment of an self-sufficing Claim Facility, it was an efficient move geared towards properly assessing claims and counter claims made by BP to an extent it was observed that BP doesnt have what it takes to quantify or properly determined and estimate the damage claims as such responsibility doesnt fall within its functions and was asked to refrained from the matter of surveying and working claims. The Feinberg claims facility though at some eyeshade was deemed to have worked more than its predecessor, it also faced serious condemnation on its objectivity in handling the whole process as it was paid by BP and there was a possibility that its more pull to it employer. Criticisms were also made against Feinberg Law firm that the way it handled the process was too slow and marred with delays, tough and unfair in handing out monies. Both claims were denied by BP. Other actors said BP agree for an out of tourist courtyard settlement because they want to settle the victims far less than what it would have cost them had the matter settle in court. They deliberately and cleverly agreed to allowed the court to monitored the compensation process creating an atmosphere in the minds of the victims that what they are doing is in line with whatever agreement they could have reached in court, but in reality, it was very clear that BP with its financial might , was just too smart and billetful with its negotiating team for the Golf Oil Spilled victims as the out of court settlement seriously cut down their financial responsibility to the victims. Surprisingly they used the same court they refused to go to monitor the process. Whatever the outcome was, the fact is that, it was always going to be very touchy in determining oil spill disasters against these multi billions oil companies if laid down receives and regulations arent put in place that can stand the examination of times. For instance, the International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation states the tendency to react to political, media public intelligence and pressures rather than basing decisions on technical realities, is a special problem that can also escalate the cost of any incident beyond what would be considered reasonable under the International Compensation Convention( ITOPF). This is a marvellous one sided analysis with a sense to purely exonerate oil companies that they are often do by unfairly by he mentioned parties during oil spill disasters.Taking these words in to serious status one would be tempted to ask whether BP compensation was commensurate to their purported damaged caused in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Guif of Mexico? As there is no laid down straight formula to determine such payments according to the International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation. With incidents and circumstances of oil spill changes from one to another and in virtually cases depends on close factors say for instance the type of oil, the location of the spill and characteristics of the affected area as well as the effectiveness of the preventive measures and genuine commitment of the management, we shall continue to face problems, if well schematic rules arent put in place to asses oil spills.The oils and gas labors was and is said to made significant moves in exploitation advance technological ideas relating to the extraction of oil in the Deepwater Horizon, but make no mistake, their ideas doesnt stand the test of times. And in terms of developing robust pre-emptive measures to tackle potential oil spills and hold oil companies objectively responsible for potential reckless actions, there is more than meet the eye with the current pre-emptive measures. Whilst some analysts would agree that the $ 500 million from fines and penalties from BP and Transoceans meant to improve precautionary measures through well research based materials with development in education and training was a brilliant move its also true that large cooperation the likes of BP have well experienced total legal practitioners whose main focus is to always look for loopholes within the ambit of the naturalized laws to minimise financial effect of the company. Currently, laws and policies within the loss of multibillion companies for any potential reckless actions against society and plurality residing in their areas of operations needs reforms to block the use of escape routes in mitigating liability irrespective of political influence.It is imperative that to flesh up my argument by looking at the current liability rule for civilian nuclear power with respect to the Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity, which clearly shows the important disparities between the Price Anderson Acts and what the government activity considered supporting in their 2010 discussions with Congressional Staff. From those discussions, it was established that the Price Andersen value total damaged loss at about $ 12 billion in 2011, which was later assumed by analysts may not be sufficient to address future financial damage of any nuclear incident and is also wanting(p) the required precautionary measures. The said Act is also considered to be unfriendly in tackling potential spill situations as it failed to efficiently address the regular payment of premiums for insurance nuclear power plants activities as it only pay in to compensation funds w hen disaster occur at a nuclear power plant facility and in such situations, such monies exceed the initial $ 375 million stated operator damage responsibility fees.Its also very important to lay down very clear caliber rules and regulations with the clean understanding to check and confirm that the well genuine established preventive measures are in good order adhere to for firms operating in the insurance scheme. With the seldom oil spills, theres a lack of well authorized schooling to reference in appropriately and fairly determining potential premium for disaster victims. With this in mind, there should be an independent body with continuous free access to check and determine high level of safety with punitive measures for firms that fails to efficiently adhere to the agreed standard rules of operation. The need for sharing information of defaulters in public is also necessary as it will raise genuine concerns within companys shareholders, in the first instance, they will lea rn about the poor way administration is protecting the credibility of their company. This will move genuine investors to question whether company administrators are genuine enough to operate within the agreed standard laid down rules as part of it operations commitment in the Deep water Horizon.In conclusion, agreed parties can base their strength in the knowledge of the industries and it expertise to form the industry rules and regulations whilst the government could ask for joint experience guarantee safety as a requirement for any firm to demand authorisation act of boring a hole in the Deepwater Horizon.