Total condemned during the Erika trial

[Remundo]

Groupe (ment?)Iintervention Sspecial of Moderator Econologists (or Econology)

Thank you Christine and Christophe. I defer to your authority of Big Boss GISME.

I saw the link too

Good continuation.

[Remundo]

Here...

The "Total" legal person was paid the maximum for what it was found responsible.

In terms of oil, this is a huge advance in the measure or before, subject to joining the IOPC Fund, the oil tankers were GUARANTEED to pay nothing in the event of an oil spill, even if the damages greatly exceeded the amount of this background.

This is what puts their balls ... the 192 MEuros, they would give fivefold to blow up this immediate responsibility, and ESPECIALLY FUTURE, because it may cost them much more, it's a kind of bomb delay...

@+

[Christophe]

Thank you Christine and Christophe. I defer to your authority of Big Boss GISME.

Well, we're not alone too MisterLoxo, NoNoLeRobot, Rulian, Ex-oceano, Targol and Delnoram ... I forgot anyone?

Look GISME ca means ca: Intervention Group of Sympathetic Modos Econologists.

More info here:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/regles-des ... t2194.html

[gegyx]

Erika: Total pays damages but appeals the conviction

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches ... t_app.html

[Remundo]

Hi Gegyx,

it just fell, Total appeals its conviction in the Erika case

As I suspected, Total cannot accept being held responsible for the sinking and will certainly plead legal irresponsibility in this case, even if it means taking a higher fine.

Surely they would prefer to pay 1 Billion Euros on the spot and never have to take charge financially of the security of the transport of their precious oil ...

@+

[lio74]

Total made a net profit in 2006 of € 12 or € 135 per day or 000 of net profit (therefore after tax) per HOUR.

192 Millions is therefore less than 6 days of activity for TOTAL ...

Hello,

I quite agree with you, it's insignificant for them, but it's the gesture that counts ...

Certainly, but rather than comparing the amount of the fine to the monstrous profits of Tatol, it should rather be compared to the expected gain by preferring a trash boat to another safer but more expensive.

OK, but it is above all the damage caused to the affected municipalities, all the volunteers and participants who participated in the cleaning at the risk of their health anyway, to the birds and all the other dead animals (even if the money represents nothing for them) ... there it is insignificant

in short...

[Targol]

Certainly, but rather than comparing the amount of the fine to the monstrous profits of Tatol, it should rather be compared to the expected gain by preferring a trash boat to another safer but more expensive.

OK, but it is above all the damage caused to the affected municipalities, all the volunteers and participants who participated in the cleaning at the risk of their health anyway, to the birds and all the other dead animals (even if the money represents nothing for them) ... there it is insignificant

in short...

I am trying to assess the impact of such a decision on Tatol's future behavior.
So I do not use the natural point of view that you expose (which is mine and, I think, that of anyone supposed).
Without being able to make polluters pay all of the damage they cause, I would be content with a decision that would prevent that from starting again.
There are multiple reasons :

• The catastrophe which took place, all the cash of the world will not make it disappear from our past, nor its traces of our present or our future. Future disasters, the money paid or saved by the charterer can make the difference between their occurrence or not.
• The damage suffered by the entire ecosystem, future cancers which may occur among some Erika volunteers because of this, the shortfalls for the local economy, will take years to assess (asbestos has put 30 years). You have to imagine that a good part of Tatol's legal service will be paid just to try to slow down the procedure if they cannot stop it. If this decision passes the appeal and it is acted on (if Tatol pays), that will always be the win. If the fine is salty enough to make black death carriers hesitate between a floating bin and a real reliable boat with double hull and real crew, I think that we will avoid a lot of new oil spills. There is nothing to prevent them from trying to make them pay for the rest with new complainants and new charges.
• Oil tankers and the risk of an oil spill are in the same logic as the problem of degassing. Normally, boats must degas in the port facilities provided for this purpose; but degassing in a port costs (if I say no nonsense) 10 to 20 times more expensive than the fine if we get caught in the flag if in full wild degassing. What do you think the captains have as instructions on this subject?
  If I have followed the recent news correctly, politics is changing on that side, moreover: fines and constraints are increasing.
  As with oil spills (and any other form of pollution, for that matter), the solution goes through the wallet. Those responsible for this filth are not men, they are companies. And a company (especially the size of Tatol) that only reasons in accounting terms "I lose money / I earn money". As long as the "I'm losing money" ethic is not stuck on all the disgusting options (garbage boats, degassing, etc.), they will continue to use them.

Surely they would prefer to pay 1 billion euros on the spot and never have to take charge financially of the security of the transport of their precious oil ... @ +

We fully agree. It is always a story of pogon, if they were to be recognized financially responsible for the damage, the note would otherwise be more salty.

[Misterloxo]

I don't have the news showing the amount of damage owed by Total

but this news report reminds of the environmental disaster of the ERIKA sinking

[Targol]

Total is trying to justify its call:

PARIS (Reuters) - Total chief executive Christophe de Margerie has defended his choice to appeal in the Erika case, explaining that the judgment contained "unacceptable" measures.

He defended himself from wanting to put pressure on the civil parties by agreeing to compensate them in exchange for the abandonment of all new legal proceedings.

"Total does not barter. We are content to say that we accept the compensation as proposed by the judgment and that from the moment the civil parties accept this judgment, at that moment we compensates them without recourse regardless of the appeal we have decided to make. We do not buy anyone, "he said during a press meeting on the results of the 2007 financial year.

Christophe de Margerie assured that there was "a legal problem" that had to be separated from the Erika file. He defended himself from opting for "provocation" by appealing.

"There are still things on the purely legal level which, in our opinion, are not acceptable and which need to be re-debated in a calm, peaceful and independent manner from the Erika problem," he added. "This judgment has repercussions on all industrial responsibilities, not just for Total and not just for shipping, which are quite serious if we use them as is."

William emmanuel

source: yahoo news

[Remundo]

If we follow his reasoning, he self-condemns on the moral level since the problems are, according to his own words, purely "legal" ...

Funny communication ... when you are back to the wall after having made a mistake, even indirectly, it is better to lower your chin a little ...