Pay Baby, Pay! Obama says that BP's going to pick up the tab for the oil spill

In a given year, how much does the Minerals Management Service collect in federal royalties?

According to the MMS, annual revenues from federal onshore and offshore (OCS) mineral leases are one of the federal government’s largest sources of non-tax income. In 2000, the MMS collected $5 billion in oil and gas royalties. The bulk of this ($4 billion) came from offshore production....

How are federal royalty revenues distributed?

How royalties (and other revenue) get distributed depends on the status of the land from which it was produced. ...

That said, the largest recipient of mineral revenue is the US Treasury, which receives over half of the revenue. The Land and Water Conservation fund, which acquires and provides funds to maintain parklands, receives about $900 million each year. In 2000, states received about $660 million from oil and gas activities on federal lands, over $400 million of this was from oil and gas royalties. These categories, US Treasury, Land and Water Conservation Fund, and states, represent the three largest recipients of federal mineral revenue.
Click to expand...
http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/explore/oilandnaturalgas.cfm

So Obama was collecting the money for a clean up but spent it on other things and now wants BP to clean up the mess from harvesting US resources.
 
I'd hope they are charged for every penny of the cleanup. If I dumped hazardous waste into some dude's back yard you'd bet that I would be required to pay for its cleanup...
 
no they are responsible to pay for clean up under opa 90.

we need tougher saftey regs, that said we are the amongst the best. The top 40 world wide spill aren't here but we use 25% of the oil. LIBTARDS are dumb.
 
Southern Man said:
But they already paid Damo....
Click to expand...
Not any more than you had "already" paid just before you destroy a water main digging where you shouldn't have been. The reality is, even though you "paid" into a fund that is meant for cleanup, you would most definitely be charged for the damage you caused. This company isn't special and should not be able to shirk responsibility because we set up a fund to temporarily fund cleanup.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.

Interesting read.

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html


Click to expand...
And if the company had installed the required safety valve even that "solution" would have been moot.

I agree that something laid out and planned for so long should have been implemented by (according to Desh) the world's most 'perfect' government (that being one entirely controlled by Ds), the reality is there was shortfall everywhere. However, not installing the required safety mechanisms is enough to make it so the corporation should be entirely responsible for the spill and cleanup. Their negligence caused a catastrophe, the reliance on the efficiency of government to stave off the damage caused by their negligence notwithstanding.
 
Yurt said:
nigel...go back and read the LIMITATION section...what you cited was the general rule, the limitation section LIMITS that rule for acts of god etc...
Click to expand...

Yurt, you ignorant shit, I posted the limitations section. You posted the defenses to liability, not limitations of liability. Those are two different concepts.

Yurt said:
your argument is extremely weak re morals. i've specifically talked about morals and why your point is wrong. apparently its too much for you though...
Click to expand...

Actually, you haven't. In fact, in response to my articulation of the moral problems in post #52, you said "what do morals have to do with settling a case . . . ?" You have completely dodged the moral issue and have instead focused on whether BP's acts were legally permissible.
 
Damocles said:
Not any more than you had "already" paid just before you destroy a water main digging where you shouldn't have been. The reality is, even though you "paid" into a fund that is meant for cleanup, you would most definitely be charged for the damage you caused. This company isn't special and should not be able to shirk responsibility because we set up a fund to temporarily fund cleanup.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that it should absolve BP of all negligence.
 
Southern Man said:
I'm not saying that it should absolve BP of all negligence.
Click to expand...
It sure sounded that way.

Anyway, the fund should be used to clean up, BP should pay back every dime of it... It isn't likely that BP has liquidity to pay for the cleanup up front. This is what the fund is for, so that cleanup can proceed before liquid funds are obtainable by the negligent party.

There is also a need to establish negligence, what if everything they did was within the laws?
 
Damocles said:
It sure sounded that way.

Anyway, the fund should be used to clean up, BP should pay back every dime of it... It isn't likely that BP has liquidity to pay for the cleanup up front. This is what the fund is for, so that cleanup can proceed before liquid funds are obtainable by the negligent party.

There is also a need to establish negligence, what if everything they did was within the laws?
Click to expand...

I am partly playing the "gotcha Obama" game. But I'm being serious here:

Southern Man said:
In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

If they did everything within the law then they may still be somewhat liable, just less so.
 
Their limitation of liability does not include a limitation on liability to pay clean up costs. Instead, it applies to economic damages and other matters aside from clean up costs. Here is the relevant language again:

(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the liability of a responsible party under section 1002 and any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed--

(1) for a tank vessel, the greater of--
(A) $1,200 per gross ton; or
(B)(i) in the case of a vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons, $10,000,000; or

(ii) in the case of a vessel of 3,000 gross tons or less, $2,000,000;

(2) for any other vessel, $600 per gross ton or $500,000, whichever is greater;

(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total of all removal costs plus $75,000,000; and

(4) for any onshore facility and a deepwater port, $350,000,000.
Click to expand...
 
(a) COMPLETE DEFENSES.—A responsible party is not liable for
removal costs or damages under section 1002 if the responsible
party establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the discharge
or substantial threat of a discharge of oil and the resulting
damages or removal costs were caused solely by
 
Yurt said:
(a) COMPLETE DEFENSES.—A responsible party is not liable for
removal costs or damages under section 1002 if the responsible
party establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the discharge
or substantial threat of a discharge of oil and the resulting
damages or removal costs were caused solely by
Click to expand...


See where it says "COMPLETE DEFENSES?" Do you understand what that means? Do you understand the difference between a complete defense and a limitation of liability?
 
complete defense means they are not liable....limits on liability limit their liability IF they do not have a complete defense

do YOU understand the difference?
 
Yurt said:
complete defense means they are not liable....limits on liability limit their liability IF they do not have a complete defense

do YOU understand the difference?
Click to expand...


Yes, I do understand the difference. Let's back up a minute. This is the post that you took issue with:

My understanding is that the law limits liability for economic damages (the fishing industry is fucked), not for costs of cleaning up the mess.
Click to expand...

The section that I have quoted supports my position. BP's liability for costs of cleaning up the mess is not limited at all. However, for damages other than clean up costs, its liability is limited to $75 million.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yes, I do understand the difference. Let's back up a minute. This is the post that you took issue with:



The section that I have quoted supports my position. BP's liability for costs of cleaning up the mess is not limited at all. However, for damages other than clean up costs, its liability is limited to $75 million.
Click to expand...

if they have a complete defense, that section doesn't apply, IMO

...i thought you kept posting that section as proof i was wrong

btw, the government has a billion dollar trust fund from oil industry fees....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top