4 ms·

Lax regulation? Not only was regulation lax, but there was a liability cap on spill damages. That's a regulation that amounts to a handout! To your second po

Lax regulation? Not only was regulation lax, but there was a liability cap on spill damages. That's a regulation that amounts to a handout! To your second point, at the critical moment of public outrage Obama lowballed the estimate of how much oil was flowing into the gulf. His actions have mainly had the effect of buying time and preventing public outrage. What if he handn't acted this way? Maybe the American people would have demanded an end to all offshore drilling. I think it's relevant to point out that if Obama were the kind of guy who would even remotely consider cracking down on oil industry excesses he would not be in the oval office today.

anigbrowl 16y ago
For the nth time, the $75m liability cap only applied to cases of genuine accident, not those involving gross negligence; it only capped punitive liability and not mitigation costs anyway; and it was a statutory provision made into law back in 1990, a generation ago. Pointing to this as if it was indicative of current political machinations is completely misleading.
- grandalf 16y ago
  What is an accident? Why was the recent spill the result of negligence rather than an accident? The difference is a matter of some bureaucratic definition, not of reality. Offshore drilling is always a gamble. Any diffusion of the risk to the public / taxpayers shows that the firms used their influence with regulators to stack the deck in their favor, and that regulators complied.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Absurd. The public necessarily shares some risk to the extent that it asserts a claim over, and collects royalties for mineral resources extracted from US territorial waters.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      You did not address my remark about the difference between accidents and negligence. Also, the public bears the risk of environmental damage which should be offset by an additional disincentive not to have 'accidents' underwritten by taxpayers.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      You are saying that the American Public should feel lucky that BP is extracting oil and just tolerate spills and incompetence?
chopsueyar 16y ago
"...but there was a liability cap on spill damages." I believe it is called "tort reform".

anigbrowl 16y ago

For the nth time, the $75m liability cap only applied to cases of genuine accident, not those involving gross negligence; it only capped punitive liability and not mitigation costs anyway; and it was a statutory provision made into law back in 1990, a generation ago. Pointing to this as if it was indicative of current political machinations is completely misleading.

grandalf 16y ago
What is an accident? Why was the recent spill the result of negligence rather than an accident? The difference is a matter of some bureaucratic definition, not of reality. Offshore drilling is always a gamble. Any diffusion of the risk to the public / taxpayers shows that the firms used their influence with regulators to stack the deck in their favor, and that regulators complied.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Absurd. The public necessarily shares some risk to the extent that it asserts a claim over, and collects royalties for mineral resources extracted from US territorial waters.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    You did not address my remark about the difference between accidents and negligence. Also, the public bears the risk of environmental damage which should be offset by an additional disincentive not to have 'accidents' underwritten by taxpayers.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    You are saying that the American Public should feel lucky that BP is extracting oil and just tolerate spills and incompetence?

chopsueyar 16y ago

"...but there was a liability cap on spill damages." I believe it is called "tort reform".