Direction on the oil spill liability cap
By Kate Sheppard,
By Washington Post editor -- May 25, 2010
The Obama administration today finally weighed in on the question of how high the liability cap should be raised for oil spills, arguing that there should be no limit at all -- at least for drilling in deep waters and at least for future spills. The administration was still hesitant to offer direction on whether legislation should act retroactively for the BP spill and whether it should include all offshore drilling operations.
Still, a new measure in the Senate that would have eliminated the cap, offered after the administration's comments, failed Tuesday as Republicans blocked Democrats from bringing it up under unanimous consent. A measure to raise the cap to $10 billion had been blocked twice previously. Republicans continue to protest that raising or eliminating the cap would bar smaller companies from entering the market.
But it's OK to throw other People OUT of Work, when such 'Accidents Happen'?
First some Breaking News, from today in D.C.
UPDATE 2-Raising liability cap on BP legal: US Justice Dept
Interior Dept calls for higher criminal penalties
Reuters -- May 25, 2010 1:39pm EDT
-- BP has said it is not bound by existing cap
-- Some fear chilling effect on oil search from higher caps
[...]
"Our view is that there is a strong chance to defeat any constitutional plaintiff if Congress were to lift the caps," U.S. Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli told a Senate committee hearing on the oil spill.
Current law imposes a $75 million liability cap on economic damage. Since the BP spill in late April, legislation has been introduced in Congress to raise the cap to $10 billion.
Some lawmakers are worried that raising fines would boost insurance costs so high that smaller companies could not afford to search for offshore oil.
That would lead to the United States relying on more foreign oil and creating fewer high-paying offshore drilling jobs for U.S. workers.
What about these U.S. Workers and their Families, and their Natural Heritage?
What about about their "fewer jobs that will be created for them" -- long into the foreseeable future?
Kind of looks like BP could afford to do more, and pitch in more than the $75 Million, that the current Law requires of them. Well many in Congress, and some in the Administration, seem to think so too.
Perhaps BP will need the reminders someday.
Perhaps these Lost Jobs, are worth something too?
2008 -- Fisheries Economics of the U.S. (pdf)
National Marine Fisheries Service: Fisheries Economics (main web site)
Such enormous "Social Costs" caused by classic Industry short-cutting -- get foisted on innocent bystanders, like a bag of trash thrown out the car window -- and few even shed a tear, anymore ...
http://www.youtube.com/...
-- These hidden "social costs" don't end, with the Fishery Folks, being put out of work, out of a way of life.
Sadly there will even more collateral damage, caused by the Big Industry Profit Dash. There always is ...
BP Bites the Bullet: Analyzing the Full Cost of the Gulf Oil Spill
The Market Oracle -- May 10, 2010
Experts at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies in Corpus Christi estimated that as much as $1.6 billion of annual economic activity and services - including effects on tourism, fishing and even less tangible services like the storm protection provided by wetlands - could be at risk.
"And that's really only the tip of the iceberg," David Yoskowitz, who holds the endowed chair for socioeconomics at the institute, told the New York Times. "It's still early in the game, and there's a lot of potential downstream impacts, a lot of multiplier impacts."
At least 10 wildlife preserves in Louisiana and Mississippi - which nurture the region's $1.8 billion seafood industry - are at risk, as are billions of dollars in revenue from outdoor recreation, sport fishing, and beach tourism.
[...]
Analysts estimate that the Louisiana fishing industry could sustain $2.5 billion in losses, while Florida could lose $3 billion in tourism income. The total cost to the region could be $8 billion-$12 billion, according to estimates.
Well maybe because it's an Election year, or maybe because Politicians, distrust Big Oil too -- some fires got lit, under some Senatorial chairs today ... sadly though, not enough chairs ... once again.
3rd UPDATE: Justice Official Seeks Higher Spill-Liability Cap
By Siobhan Hughes, Dow Jones Newswires, WSJ -- May 25, 2010, 12:39 P.M. ET
The ongoing leaking of oil into the gulf began after the explosion of an oil rig being leased by BP from Transocean Ltd. (RIG) .
Perrelli suggested that the government could in some instances entirely remove a cap on damages, and do it retroactively. "Congress legislates retroactively quite frequently," Perrelli told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "We don't think that that would be an issue."
The comments provide the most specific details to date of the Obama administration's thinking on the issue. Initially, the administration had called for raising the cap on damage claims without offering specific details about the appropriate threshold.
Some Democratic lawmakers have called for raising the cap to $10 billion or higher from $75 million currently. Insurance brokers who provide insurance to offfshore drilling companies have said that some companies will be unable to insure their operations if the cap is raised too high.
Well, it seems some GOP obstructionists CAN see the light of day, when circumstances -- and Voters -- demand it. Keep turning up the heat, people.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R, Alaska), who earlier this month blocked a Senate plan to raise the cap to $10 billion and later took criticism for it from U.S. President Barack Obama, said that she would withhold judgment on the right amount.
"We need to increase this liability cap," Murkowski said. Murkowski said that $10 billion might be the right amount.
"Maybe it needs to be higher. Maybe it needs to be unlimited," she said.
What, did that oil-ladened GOPher from Alaska, just say!?
Yes, maybe the 'Liability Cap' should be unlimited --
If they want to drill it (to collect untold profits)
They should be ready to pay, when they spill it (and create untold losses for others).
Better yet make Big Oil create a "Rainy Day Fund" from all their Windfall Profits, they keep raking in, year after year.
Make them put up some sort of Surety Bond.
Up Front.
Make that check out for $10 Billion --
or No Lease for you!
Cuz you never know when an Emergency Fund like that, would come in handy --
just in case of "some sort of" ...
I don't know, an Emergency HAPPENS!
Enough of that lame excuse -- "No one could of ever predicted it ..."
It's time to file that Corporate "get out of jail card" in the circular file,
along with "the dog ate my homework",
and "we got plenty of time, to deal with those problems ... later ..."
Because afterall, we don't.