As you might expect, Dumb Democrat Menendez (NJ) has introduced a bill which would remove, entirely, the economic cap on damages for oil spills. The Socialist Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to significantly increase taxes on oil companies.
Those moves were supported by the Obama Boyzzz.
So? Shouldn't the dirty bastards PAY?
Well, you be the judge.
America's independent oil and natural gas companies, not so-called 'Big Oil,' develop 90 percent of the nation's oil and natural gas wells. --Independent Petroleum Ass'n
Those little guys, on average, employ 12 people apiece.
The little guys, NOT "Big Oil" find and develop 90% of the wells. But the little guys will NOT be able to obtain liability insurance for "no-cap" damages. That means that the little guys, NOT "Big Oil" will be forced out of business--and that 90% of developed wells? What happens to them?
Who knows?
It is very interesting that the ObamaBoyzzz support this stuff, no?
Perhaps that answers the question "Who Cares?", too.
HT: Human Events
So if Mom and Pop screw up and cause a spill the likes of what we have today, then who comes up with the $20 Billion or more for cleanup and compensation?
ReplyDeleteTax payers? Or do we just say "ooops!"
Why should there be any cap at all? If you can be in the business you should be on the hook for every last penny of your assets for cleanup and compensation.
If I screw up and kill some kid by driving through a cross walk, is there a cap on what I can be sued for even if I'm a small business owner with 12 employees?
Nope. Why is an oil company different?
Well Jim, where exactly would you like to get your energy from?
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that these little guys present some competition for the big guys and that if you drive them out of business with additional costs and regulations, you will make the big guys bigger, right?
Not to mention that these small 12 person operations are NOT in deep water but on land where it is infinitely safer to operate.
But hey, nothing like losing that forest looking for a tree as long as it makes you feel better and the Congresscritters look like they are doing something!
How about the Congresscritters press for a criminal investigation into the MMS folks that were surfing porn instead of you know - doing their inspection jobs? Hmmm?
If I screw up and kill some kid by driving through a cross walk, is there a cap on what I can be sued for even if I'm a small business owner with 12 employees?
ReplyDeleteAs you know, there IS such a cap. It's called "the amount of your insurance policy" plus any assets of yours which may be attached.
However, there's also a LIMIT on 'asset attachments.' It's called bankruptcy.
I don't disagree with your contention that the bad guys should pay.
That should apply to Government employees, Congressmen, legislators--or bankers who bundled shit into "MBS's", too.
The problem (as you know) with 'no cap' is that there is no casualty insurer on earth who will underwrite it. Not General Re, not Lloyd's. Nobody.
THAT is a problem.
Well Jim, where exactly would you like to get your energy from?
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is the only source? I hope not. There are current alternatives and our country and industry should strive for future alternatives. Wind and solar will not sustain us in any foresee-able future. But those and better use of energy and building and delivery can help. In the near term, we can use natural gas. It's highly dense in power and cleaner than oil. I'm also in favor of nuclear energy. We've been using it safely in naval vessels for decades and it is a major source of energy in France.
You do realize that these little guys present some competition for the big guys and that if you drive them out of business with additional costs and regulations, you will make the big guys bigger, right?
I don't have anything in particular against big oil companies per se. And if they wanted to drive the little guys out of business, they would have done it already. I want the big guys to be safe, responsible and fair. And that requires effective oversight.
Not to mention that these small 12 person operations are NOT in deep water but on land where it is infinitely safer to operate.
This statement pretty much negates your entire argument about caps and small companies, doesn't it. I'm thinking a small 12-person company that's drilling in an "infinitely safer" place is not going to face a $20B liability, is it?
But hey, nothing like losing that forest looking for a tree as long as it makes you feel better and the Congresscritters look like they are doing something!
The Congress is responsible for oversight, and they have been derelict. They should have been trying since 2006 to build up the oversight and cleanup the agencies that Cheney and the Republican Congress gutted in prior years. But they haven't, and that's not good.
The problem (as you know) with 'no cap' is that there is no casualty insurer on earth who will underwrite it. Not General Re, not Lloyd's. Nobody.
But, Dad (happy father's day), you've answered your own quandry:
As you know, there IS such a cap. It's called "the amount of your insurance policy" plus any assets of yours which may be attached.
Lloyds can write as much as they care to underwrite and the assets of the company come next.
You folks really have me scratching my head here. You don't want the government spending YOUR money, but you want to cap what the responsible party must pay. So if costs exceed the cap, where is the money going to come from?
Or is a catastrophic environmental disaster every now and then simply the price we pay to keep our cars on the road?
is a catastrophic environmental disaster every now and then simply the price we pay to keep our cars on the road?
ReplyDeleteThat may be the case.
So long as the GreenWeenieGang rules DC, by the way, all the drilling HAS to be halfway to Hell in the Gulf.
And by the way, at what COST will Lloyd's underwrite? That might have an impact on who BUYS the policy, no?
And by the way, at what COST will Lloyd's underwrite? That might have an impact on who BUYS the policy, no?
ReplyDeleteThis argument goes nowhere. Lloyds will underwrite what it is prepared to underwrite for whatever cost its risk analysis supports.
If it costs too much for the oil developer, then they shouldn't be in that business.
That may be the case. So the current state of the Gulf is just part of the energy business?