Tulane Law Review
  • Main
  • Issues
    • All Volumes
    • Volume 87
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
    • Volume 86
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Volume 85
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5&6
    • Volume 84
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • Admiralty Law Institute
      • 2011
      • 2009
      • 2007
      • 2005
      • 2003
      • 2001
      • 1999
      • 1995
      • 1994
      • 1991
      • 1989
      • 1988
      • 1985
      • 1983
  • Events
  • Masthead
  • History
  • Purpose
  • Submissions
  • Order
    • Subscribe
    • Back Issues
  • Contact
Tulane Law Review
RSSTwitterFacebook
Topic: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Maritime Catastrophe Response — Civil and Criminal Counsel Investigation; Illustrative Recent Collision and Platform Case Law; Criminalization of Marine Negligence

Michael M. Butterworth & Thomas D. Forbes | Symposium

To most people, nothing is more fascinating and newsworthy than a maritime disaster. A burning factory in Kentucky or a pipeline oil spill in Utah does not generate the same sense of drama and excitement as an equivalent amount of spilled oil from a burning ship or oil platform in Louisiana, Texas, or anywhere else.

This Article partners a panel presentation at the 2011 Tulane Admiralty Law Institute. In this presentation, for illustrative purposes, the authors played back a United States Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Automatic Identification System (AIS) Electronic Chart Display (ECDIS) for the M/T BOW FORTUNE–M/T STOLT [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Limitation of Liability: Should It Be Jettisoned After the Deepwater Horizon?

Patrick J. Bonner | Symposium

Following the Deepwater Horizon incident, there was a great deal of criticism of the Limitation of Shipowners Liability Actand claims that the owner of the Deepwater Horizon was using a legal loophole to shortchange those injured and the survivors of those killed on the rig. For instance, Senator John Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, said.. . .

 

[Continue Reading...]

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990: A Glance in the Rearview Mirror

David A. Sump | Symposium
This Article recreates the state of oil pollution procedures and processes in 1989 and the mindset that existed among the legislators tasked with fixing a broken system. It will reveal the persons and events that shaped the single largest restructuring of pollution response in U.S. history. Finally, the Article will peek into the future and consider the impact of the Deepwater Horizon calamity on future revisions to the oil pollution response and compensation system. It is noted that this Article is not intended to be a comprehensive review of how OPA 90 was created or the content of its provisions. That [...]
[Continue Reading...]

The Deepwater Horizon Rig Disaster: Issues of Personal Injury and Death

John W. deGravelles & J. Neale deGravelles | Symposium

On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) Deepwater Horizon exploded and caught fire in the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven (11) workers were killed and seventeen (17) were injured. Three days later the rig sank, and millions of gallons of oil escaped into the Gulf of Mexico until the well was finally capped on July 15, 2010.

Numerous lawsuits followed seeking compensation for the personal injuries and deaths as well as for property, business, and natural resource damages caused by the explosions, fire, and spill. These cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Proving Natural Resource Damage Under OPA 90: Out with the Rebuttable Presumption, in with the APA-Style Judicial Review?

Craig H. Allen | Symposium

In the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010, President Obama urged Congress to amend the natural resource damage provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to replace the rebuttable presumption of validity the law presently accords to damage assessments by the designated natural resource trustees that were conducted in accordance with regulations promulgated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with the standard of judicial review prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Although the House of Representatives passed such an amendment in 2010, the Senate failed to act on the amendment before the 111th congressional [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Beyond Profit: Rethinking Corporate Social Responsibility and Greenwashing After the BP Oil Disaster

Miriam A. Cherry & Judd F. Sneirson | Symposium

The explosion of the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill stand as an indictment not just of our national energy priorities and environmental law enforcement; they equally represent a failure of Anglo-American corporate law and what passes for corporate social responsibility in business today. Using BP and the disaster as a compelling case study, this Article examines green marketing and corporate governance and identifies elements of each that encourage firms to engage only superficially in corporate social responsibility yet trumpet those efforts to eager consumers and investors. This Article then proposes reforms and protections designed to increase corporate social [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Deepwater Horizon: Removal Costs, Civil Damages, Crimes, Civil Penalties, and State Remedies in Oil Spill Cases

Robert Force, Martin Davies, & Joshua S. Force | Symposium

What is the current scheme in the United States for dealing with oil pollution? This Article examines the question from several perspectives. These include the basic liability regime, including removal costs and damages. OPA has gone further than any other statute in providing for both public and private remedies. The discussion will cover the basis for liability, parties responsible for paying removal costs and damages, defenses to liability, damages recoverable by governmental entities and private parties, limitation of liability, including loss of the right to limit, insurance, and other forms of financial responsibility. This Article will briefly address the claims procedure, [...]

[Continue Reading...]

Contact

Tulane Law Review
Tulane University Law School
6329 Freret Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-6231
Telephone: (504) 865-5973 or (504) 865-5974
Facsimile: (504) 862-8858
E-mail: lawjournals@tulane.edu

Return to the Tulane website.

© 2012 Tulane Law Review

Search

Topics

Administrative Law Admiralty Jurisdiction Admiralty Law Antiassignment Clauses Antitrust Law Arbitration Child Custody Choice of Law Civil Law Civil Procedure Community Property Comparative Law Constitutional Law Contract Law Corporate Law Criminal Law Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Employment Law Environmental Law Family Law Federalism and Preemption Federal Preemption of State Law Fourth Amendment Health Care Law Intellectual Property Intercollegiate Athletics International Law Judicial Review Law and Economics Local Government Localism Louisiana's Wetlands Louisiana Noncompete Agreements Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act Mixed Jurisdictions Municipal Government Piracy Preemption of State Tort Law Property Law Right to Counsel Roman Law Software Transactions Sports Law Tax Law Tort Law