Five questions answered on… BP's record fine for Deepwater Horizon

The oil giant's in giant trouble.

How much does BP have to pay in the settlement? 

The oil giant pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of 11 men during the 2010 spill and have been ordered to pay $4.5bn (£2.8bn) to the US authorities. 

How much has the oil spill cost BP altogether? 

After this latest settlement it is estimated the biggest oil spill disaster in America’s history has caused the offending company £43bn. 

However, there is also a civil case that remains unresolved accusing BP of gross negligence, which if BP are found guilty it will no doubt have to pay out even more. 

What about the manslaughter charges?

BP has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of 11 men. The Department of Justice has also charged BP’s two highest-ranking supervisors on the Deepwater Horizon, Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, with manslaughter, negligence and gross negligence.

Also, David Rainy a former senior BP executive who served as deputy commander during the spill has been arrested for allegedly underestimating the spill. 

BP will also plead guilty to two criminal misdemeanor counts over the spill and to a criminal felony charge of obstructing Congress by lying about the amount of leaking from the Macondo well. 

What have officials said about the settlement? 

The Telegraph report that the New Orleans assistant attorney general Lanny Breuer said:

“Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that the deaths of the 11 men on board the Deepwater Horizon could have been avoided. As the oil spill continued, BP made a tragic situation worse: it began misleading Congress and the American people about how much oil was pouring out of the Macondo well.”

What has BP said? 

BP chief executive Bob Dudley said:

“All of us at BP deeply regret the tragic loss of life caused by the Deepwater Horizon accident as well as the impact of the spill on the Gulf coast region.

“We apologise for our role in the accident and, as today’s resolution with the US government further reflects, we have accepted responsibility for our actions.”

Deepwater Horizon burns in 2010. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.