Ppp Essay

With the development of the act, laws and regulations addressing issues associated with the prevention, responds and payment of oil pollution were put in place. Such laws and regulations mandated new requirements for companies and their associated personnel involved in the shipment or extraction of oil, such as prevention and response plans, routine documentation and licensing renewal, and evidence of personnel’s competency and knowledge. The act also revised the staffing standards of all foreign shipment vessels, thereby requiring all foreign vessels to meet U.S standards to gain entry into U.S territory. Additionally, these prevention laws and regulations required new standards for shipment vessels and routine inspections. Due to the extreme

The United States Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 which prevents any vessel that has caused an oil spill of more than 1 million US gallons in any marine area,

Under the Sea Dumping Act, the Commonwealth aims to minimise pollution threats by prohibiting ocean disposal of waste considered too harmful to be released in the marine environment and regulating permitted waste disposal to ensure environmental impacts are minimised. Permits are required for all sea dumping operations and are most commonly issued for dredging operations and the creation of artificial reefs applying to all vessels, aircraft and platforms in Australian waters. Under the Australian Government Department of Environment (2015), the Sea Dumping Act has a relationship with Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), as the act attends to all forms such as coal seam gas, mining and sea dumping. When an operation that requires the handling of goods that can potentially impact the environment, such as exporting fuel or plants and animals, the permit must be approved by the EPBC Act as well as the Sea Dumping Act. Many stakeholders believe that the changes need to be made to ensure minimal impact to the environment occurs. A recent example of pollution to Australian waters, is the investigation by the Gladstone Ports Corporation (GQC) of an alleged oil spill in Gladstone harbour which revealed the substance with the water to be coal fines. Coal fines are the small particles of coal material that are washed-off the coal during the preparation plant process. The GPC could not pin-point what caused coal fines to be in the water, but a spokeswoman for GPC said it was suspected the material had spilled out from one of the wharf's sample plants; Where the penalty for deliberately discharging oil or chemicals into Queensland waters is $550,000 for an individual and $11 million for a corporation (The Observer, 2013). The result of the spill has caused locally sourced fish to “have been found with sores, rashes, and infected eyes, some possibly blind” which has not only

Identify a case of environmental crime. Discuss what occurred in this case (the background and details of the case). Identify the harm caused by the event. Who was arrested and what was the punishment for the offenders (if any). Conclude with the long term or present effect as a result of this crime.

Subsequently, the Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council case displays the issues regarding fault, as in this case Tomlinson was partially to blame for what happened and the defendant was not entirely at fault. This illustrates the harshness as those who are not wholly at fault are still required to pay. Yet in most cases, it will be the insurance companies that pay for the compensation which is unfair as the ones who are to blame are not the ones who pay and take individual and full responsibility. It is also arguable that this is placing a heavy burden on insurance

In 1990 president George W. H. Bush signed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Limitation of Liability Act was amended into law in 1851 and was to make vessel owners liable for incidents; involving cost of everything and one was rarely given any money to help with cleanup, removal, and damage. The oil spills were growing out of control and these accidents were getting very expensive. In addition, causing great damage to our gulfs and oceans. The United States government needed to do or change something and other countries needed to take the same precautions. The OPA made that change. It states that if an oil spill takes place and

In so doing, this project paper will critically look into shipping spillage risk, pipeline safety and integrity, and the greenhouse gas emissions (Morgan, 2013).

This occasion brought in the United States Congress passed the oil contamination go about of 1990 (OPA). This act has an article that prohibits any vessel from operating in Prince William Sound. The company argued, and after the ninth appeal, the court ruled against the

responsible not for the accident but we are responsible for the oil, dealing with it and cleaning the

The effect of oil spill is usually calculated in terms of damage on the environment, aftermath on marine species, and effect on the tourism and fishery industries. The impact on human health is less known relatively. The financial costs associated with oil spills are also a factor. Arguably, it is a less serious consequence of an Oil Spill, however the financial costs have the potential to bankrupt an organization. BP suffered major financial loss as a result of the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. They have paid up to $1.5 billion in an effort to settle various claims and compensation. (BP, n.d)

Hence, this paper aims to discuss in greater depth the reasoning and outcome of the two judgments i.e. the judgment of the Court of Appeal in The Miss Jay Jay [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 32, and of the Supreme Court judgment in The Cendor MOPU [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 560, to see if they are an arguably sufficient justification for the view that the English marine insurance system rules on proximate causation should be repealed and replaced by a system similar to that used in the Nordic Marine Insurance Plan.

Transporting goods over the see consider as an effective way globally and has benefited the world amazingly. On the regular daily basis, ships all over the world are moving from port to port either to carry or deliver goods. Furthermore, 90 percent of shipments have been transported by vessels. The globalization has influenced the world to be interactive in trading by sea. Transporting oil nowadays by vessels is the safest method away from people sights. In fact, 1800 million tons of crude oil is transporting early by sea. Although treaties that have been established to avoid any risk could happen from an oil spill are not taken seriously unless the universe is facing a tremendous tragedy. However, oil spills consider as an enormous issue that result in sever dispute economically and politically. Furthermore, oil spills have exceeded an average 700 tons over a year. As a matter of fact, there is always major risk from an oil spill.

In the world we live in today there is an environmental issue that we face with big oil companies, in which they are contaminating nature, and weakening the regulations that are set forth by the government. By doing this they are undermining the general population and taking advantage of their profits which is completely unacceptable, especially for such a large company like British Petroleum (BP). With Oil being a natural resource that is available to mine/pump by anyone who strikes it, BP is doing so for self-interest and neglecting the total effect that it has on society and the climate. No, BP is not the only company out there with stake in the oil business however, with them being one of the larger oil companies they should set a precedence for others. Pumping oil has a large impact on the environment and it is starting to affect humans and animals alike. The company has had multiple negligent instances to which they have caused a disaster, one being the Deep Water Horizon incident. When such incidents occur, the food chain as a whole is being affected because the shortcuts that are taken to bypass the guidelines that are put in place. As a result of the complete negligence for the laws and regulations, the lively hood of livestock, sea life and also the very air we breathe is being polluted.

Over 8000 animals were reported dead 6 months after the spill, including many that were on the endangered species list (7). Subsequently, seafood prices increased affecting restaurants and supermarkets. People abstained from going to beaches covered in oil, water sports and other aquatic attractions which meant that all organisations involved in tourism such as hotels, tour operators, restaurants and boat rental companies were affected (1). Furthermore, the method of cleaning up the oil by “in-situ burning” (burning oil in a contained area on the surface of the water), had adverse effects on the environment as the burning off of the oil led to mutations and increased mortality due to pollution.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,