Articles Posted in Oil & Gas

Nearly three years have passed since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, but the oil spill still looms large for the people and businesses impacted by its massive scope. As your San Francisco/Oakland oil spill law firm, we are closely following the on-going legal disputes stemming from the accident. Monitoring the Gulf Coast oil spill case and resulting precedents will allow our legal team to provide top-notch representation to those impacted by Pacific Coast oil spills and other environmental incidents in the Northern California region.

Civil Case Follows Criminal Plea

This week, as reported by the Associated Press and Oakland Tribune, Judge Carl Barbier opened the civil trial in which the U.S. Justice Department and representatives of businesses and individuals impacted by the Deepwater Horizon are seeking monetary damages from BP and other partners in the drilling project. Previously, BP pled guilty to manslaughter and other criminal charges. Those charges led to $4 billion in penalties, just one portion of the $24 billion that BP has spent on spill-related expenses to date. In the current civil case, federal authorities, impacted states, and affected businesses and individuals are looking to hold BP and its partners liable for civil damages under the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws. The trial, which could lead to a verdict in the tens of billions, began after repeated settlement talks failed to produce an agreement.

Staying informed about national issues helps ensure that The Brod Law Firm team provides top-quality services as your San Francisco law firm. One of our focal areas is protecting Northern Californians harmed by Pacific Coast oil spills or by other oil and gas industry accidents. We represent individuals and also serve as plaintiffs’ class action counsel in a range of industry and toxic tort matters in the Northern California region. As such, we have an interest in the developments of other claims involving other localities.

The RESTORE Act vs. New DOJ Proposals

A recent dispute, highlighted in the Chicago Tribune, has been brewing over the funds intended to provide reparations in the wake of the Gulf Oil Spill. On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the RESTORE Act into law directing that a minimum of eighty percent of the penalties paid pursuant to BP’s proven violations of the Clean Water Act will be earmarked and used in a trust fund to restore the five coastal states damaged by the Deepwater Horizons . The included states are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas. The Clean Water Act funds, as proposed in the initial RESTORE Act, would go to the U.S. Treasury. Per the Act’s provisions, anywhere from $4 billion to $16.8 billion dollars would then pass on to the Gulf Coast States.

At The Brod Law Firm, we continue to field calls related to the August 6 fire at the Chevron refinery. Our team is ready and able to help those who have suffered ill health as a result of chemical exposure in Richmond and the surrounding areas.

Industry Oversight

As noted by The San Francisco Chronicle, there is ongoing debate about regulating the refinery industry. While petroleum business groups suggest they operate in one of the nation’s most regulated fields, others say the oversight regime is filled with gaps and relies too heavily on self-regulation. Critics note that the American Petroleum Institute is both a lobbying organization and the main source and publisher for refinery standards and guidelines. Safety groups add that the group has blocked efforts to require reporting of safety failures.

At The Brod Law Firm, we continue to speak with victims of the Richmond refinery fire on August 6, 2012. We are able to help those who have already contacted Chevron only to find they were offered a grossly inadequate amount of compensation as well as those who have not yet sought damages. If the fire caused you or your family health problems, you have a right to be compensated. We can fight for those present at the plant itself as well as those in the surrounding region who fell ill after the cloud of hazardous chemicals enveloped the neighboring communities.

History shows us that it is a matter of when the next toxic chemical exposure occurs, not a matter of “if” it will. The Chevron plant has seen several disasters in recent years. It is, of course, not the only potential source of toxic chemical exposure in the Northern California region. Asserting your right to compensation, no matter how apologetic a company may appear in the wake of an accident, is an important part of reminding companies that they are accountable for their actions and need to prioritize safety over profits. Bringing a claim is one way to help prevent companies from side-stepping public safety.

It is also important that people be prepared to react when a toxic chemical leak or similar disaster occurs. One alert you may hear in the immediate wake of an incident is a “shelter in place” alert. This can impact a single building, such as an industrial workplace, or an entire community. According to the American Red Cross, this order can follow either an accidental or intentional release of chemical, biological, or radioactive contaminants. The order seeks to keep the public safe while remaining indoors. Upon hearing the recommendation, you should look for a small, interior room, preferably with no windows. You do not need to fully seal off your home, but you should close windows and doors and shut off airflow systems. In case of a chemical concern, an above-ground room is preferable since some chemicals are heavier than air and could potentially seep into a basement location.

Chevron is accepting claims for people who have been injured as a result of the fire at its Richmond, California facility on August 6, 2012. According to Chevron, victims will be compensated for “out-of-pocket medical expenses related to the fire” Furthermore, Chevron is requiring victims to have received initial medical treatment by August 17, 2012 in order to be considered in their claims process.

First, in California, there is a two-year statute of limitations in which a person must file a lawsuit for personal injuries or wrongful death. California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Victims of this event need to be aware of their legal rights, despite what Chevron says, or what artificial timeline Chevron attempts to create regarding compensating its victims. Based upon Chevron’s statement that it will pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses only, it appears that Chevron has no intention of compensating victims for what they are fully entitled to under California law.

Under California law, an injured person is entitled to seek economic damages, as well as non-economic damages. CACI (Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions) Jury Instruction 3902. Items of economic damages can include past and future medical expenses, the cost of medical monitoring in the case of toxic exposure, past and future lost earnings. CACI 3903A, 3903B, 3903C. In addition, the items of non-economic damage an injured person is entitled to be compensated for include physical pain, mental distress, emotional distress, fright, anxiety and worry. CACI 3905A. Chevron appears to be offering some victims the cost of past medical expenses, only. Plus, Chevron apparently expects all medical treatment to be complete within two weeks of the fire incident. This is completely inadequate. Many of the victims of the Chevron fire in Richmond will need future medical care, and though they would be entitled to recover damages for those expenses under California law, Chevron is not recognizing future medical costs in their current claims process. Most importantly, Chevron does not appear to recognize the right of its victims to recover for non-economic damages, the value of which may easily exceed to cost of medical expenses.

Last week’s Richmond refinery accident brought to the forefront the often complex relationship that can exist between a large industrial corporation and the community surrounding it. As a law firm dedicated to serving the citizens of Northern California, we know that companies like Chevron are vital to our area’s economy. We also believe that all companies, especially those in the oil and gas industry, take seriously the responsibility to protect the health and well-being of our communities and should work to prevent toxic accidents. The issue is by no means unique to this company and this town – corporate responsibility is a topic of national concern and it is important that the legal system help hold companies accountable for their impact on the environment and the public health consequences of toxic chemicals.

This weekend, The San Francisco Chronicle carried an interesting report focused on the relationship between Richmond and the Chevron refinery. The relationship has long-standing roots with the plant actually pre-dating the 1905 founding of the city by three years. In past years, a previously tight relationship has grown increasingly strained with a number of fires adding to the tension. Some residents believe that day-to-day pollution from the refinery is responsible for a number of health problems. One 2011 study found that nearly one of every three Richmond children suffer from asthma, compared to about one in ten nationwide. After last week’s fire released a thick cloud of black smoke over the city, many residents attended a community meeting with plant management and some called for the refinery to shut down.

However, both residents and city officials recognize the plant is vital to the local economy. Approximately twenty percent of Northern California’s gasoline comes from Chevron’s Richmond refinery. At peak capacity, the plant can process 257,000 barrels of crude per day. The refinery is the largest employer in Richmond, accounting for approximately 2,700 jobs including those at the neighboring Chevron Technology Center (although only seven percent reside in the city itself). As with any large employer, the plant also helps generate other business including restaurant traffic and short-term contract work. The refinery is also the biggest source of taxes for the city, with approximately one-third of the city’s general fund budget coming from taxes and fees related to the Chevron operation. Still, the company and the city have long fought over tax matters. City officials have accused the company of nickel-and-diming them, with Chevron firing back with claims that the city is hostile to business.