We recently received this e-mail:
Subject: DEEP WATER HORIZON RESPONSE BY CAP
Just a quick update – on Saturday, 12 June we had 15 personnel for 130 man-hours, 6 aircraft that flew 7 sorties for 22.6 hours. After 31 days of operation, we have expended 4400 man-hours, had 74 different persons involved, used 16 aircraft, flown 197 sorties and 485.8 hours.
James M. Rushing, Colonel, CAP
Commander, Southeast Region
Question is, if BP is going to pay for damage due to admitted liability, should CAP be re-imbursed for this mission?? I think so. How about everyone else??
Only if we don't bankrupt them first...
I believe so, because this is wear and tear on 16 planes (admittedly drawn out, but regardless) which is the result of the actions of BP.
Now, if the Brits hear that an American para-military organization wants to be reimbursed... Oh my.
Nowhere did I read that CAP isn't getting paid for those services. I doubt CAP is running these missions from internal funds out of the goodness of our hearts. We don't just run out and start flying planes and hope that somebody will pay us later. That's not how Civil Air Patrol works now and that's not how it's worked in the past.
I'm pretty sure we're working on an AFAM or gov-client tasking down there and CAP's expenses are being paid for at or above our standard/expected arrangements.
Quote from: capchiro on June 16, 2010, 02:53:43 AM
Question is, if BP is going to pay for damage due to admitted liability, should CAP be re-imbursed for this mission?? I think so. How about everyone else??
Where the money comes from all depends on the mission status (A/B/C, etc.) and who the customer actually is. I'm sure someone other than the wing is ultimately paying for the gas, at least.
As an example, when we were down in MS in 2005, our actual customer was MEMA, not FEMA. How that washes is anyone's guess.
Hearsay from KY in 2009 was that the state committed to CAP expenses, including lodging and per diem, but the wing fronted the money to get the 108's out fast (30 days from deck to check, amazing!).
Deepwater Horizon is an Air Force Assigned Mission for a non-Air Force Governmental Agency hence the 10-1 mission designator and all sorties are "A" coded. IOW Uncle Sam is footing the bill and may ultimately charge BP for it, but that isn't our concern as members. As taxpayers we should all be very happy that they are using CAP for this mission, it's saving us literally millions of dollars that might not be repaid if BP goes bankrupt. Even with lodging and Per Diem for some of the CAP folks working the mission, it's still only a drop in the bucket of the cost of doing it with Blackhawks, RC-12's, and C-130's etc. After the actual Aircraft cost, you still have to pay those crews, and their lodging and Per Diem is considerably more than ours.
Quote from: NOAA
NOAA Feature Story (http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/index.html)
Our flight crew has been taking ocean imaging experts out over the spill area to collect critical oil density and thickness data.
We capture this information in-flight using very sophisticated instruments — a multi-spectral scanner and an Earth-observing sensor — mounted in the belly port of our Twin Otter plane. The data are processed through a laptop computer using a software system capable of differentiating between thick oil and sheen. (Satellite images can depict sheen boundaries, but typically cannot locate the patches of thick oil.) Imaging scientists analyze the data in more detail once we're back on the ground.
Sounds like NOAA uses ARCHER (or something similar). I can see having NOAA do this out over the water outside of gliding distance from land as their aircraft has two engines. I do wonder how their equipment differs from ours. Anybody know?
I think its this one:
http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov/html/aviris.overview.html
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/RESEARCH/RSD/main/hyper/hyper.shtml
normally CAP will not fly a mission unless that question is answered first...thats one of the functions of the NOC. Usually the requesting party is responsible for payment...all the details happen behind the scenes. In this case the 'requesting party' is the USCG, and many State agencies. I assure you that was all ironed out long before the first CAP member left home to participate on the mission.
Don't think the government will get the money out of BP. I think there is a cap on the amount of lose they have to pay so I'm sure we will all be paying for this
From what I understand the "cap" relates to punitive damages that might be assessed by a court on top of the value of actual damages. Could be wrong though.
And your source for the cap on payments or fines is what???
Quote from: Short Field on June 17, 2010, 01:19:05 AM
And your source for the cap on payments or fines is what???
This is a common misunderstanding of a piece of US law passed in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, and the lackluster work by the various media outlets hasn't helped. That and the sensationalist mis-use of some parts of it by various internet commentors has led to widespread confusion among the general public.
Essentially, prior to the Exxon Valdez spill, there was NO specific recovery mechanism in international maritime law for 'consequential' damages to a local economy. There were lots of provisions to say 'the spiller pays to clean the spill' and that sort of thing, but no clear way to say 'pay these fishermen their wages since, because of your spill, they can't fish now'. Similarly, you could be billed to clean the oil off the beach in front of a hotel, but the hotel owners had no way to bill you for the lost revenue because no one would stay at a hotel with a beach covered in oil for several months.
The US congress passed a law that not only restated the clear responsibilities for the offending party (that would be BP and TransOcean) to pay all the direct costs of cleaning up their mess, but also, for the first time, made them clearly liable for those 'consequential' or 'second order' damages to folks for things other than just oil on their stuff. The limit for those 'consequential' economic damages was capped at $75 Million US.
BP has already pretty well waved that limit, and in any case the PR loss from trying to exercise it would prove more costly than paying, even if those 'consequential' costs top $40 Billion US.
So, BP (and TransOcean and a few smaller companies) remain on the hook for ALL of the direct costs of cleaning, remediating, etc., etc. the spill in the gulf. They are also apparently going to pay all 'legitimate' consequential economic claims, with some prodding from the US Federal government.
In effect, BP will pay until they have no more money to pay with, and the taxpayers will pick up the rest of the tab, if any. About the same story as for any massive environmental damage incident from an industrial company.
Thom