8 ms·

Or there was an information asymmetry, corporate pressure. etc. It may not be quite so simple.

by avivo 6y ago

nickff 6y ago
There is always some information asymmetry and outside pressure. If a system is so brittle that it cannot function in the real world, the system is the problem, not the world.
- totalZero 6y ago
  It's not a piece of software my dude. The responsibility would legally have rested with the well operator, but the well operator went bankrupt. If you read the article, you will see that abandoned wells often end up in limbo between the bankrupt operator and its creditors. Meanwhile, the landowner is facing the negative externalities of the well (seepage, gas leaks, etc), and often has no choice but to pay to resolve the problems caused by the well being poorly terminated. There are supposed to be bonds in place to pay for these processes, but in practice those bonds only cover a fraction of the cost.
  - nickff 6y ago
    If the landowners didn't want to accept the risks related to resource exploitation, they could have: - Not allowed the development, and avoided the risks. - Insured against the risks. - Sold the land, along with all the risks. They did none of these, and effectively self-insured; now they expect pity, which they do not deserve.
    - totalZero 6y ago
      Your argument totally neglects the fact that "liability," as a legal concept, means it is not necessarily the case that all parties share equal blame. Had the operator not filed for bankruptcy, it would likely have been responsible for its own failure to appropriately manage the wells. Had the state or federal government established adequate bonding practices to pay for the plugging of old and unproductive wells such as these, the burden of plugging these particular wells would have been lessened.
      - nickff 6y ago
        Had some other counter-factual been the case, I might feel differently. The school officials were operating under current conditions, and have no real excuse that I know of.
    - throwaway_jobs 6y ago
      > now they expect pity, which they do not deserve. So what you are saying essentially is the school board/county should file bankruptcy so taxpayers are stuck with the liability...then we can extend your argument to the taxpayers for their failure to avoid the risks of funding/operating schools and insuring against them. Do you feel that way about all the workers/businesses Trumps bankrupt businesses failed to pay by seeking bankruptcy protections?
  - riversflow 6y ago
    >The responsibility would legally have rested with the well operator. This is only half true. The responsibility is delegated to the operator by the land owner, but it is ultimately the land owner's liability. Consider if the land owner was leasing the rights to the operator and then decided to change the lease agreement in a way that made the operator insolvent. If it were the way you describe the operator would be hostage of the landowner. Allowing the liability to pass upstream to the property owner makes complete sense.
    - totalZero 6y ago
      It is entirely true. Economic benefit derived only as a landowner or from a royalty interest is generally not sufficient to establish liability for plugging a well. If the operator were solvent, it would have had to pay. Also, Venoco's bankruptcy wasn't caused by this lease agreement. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/idle_well https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/idle_well

Or there was an information asymmetry, corporate pressure. etc. It may not be quite so simple.

by avivo 6y ago

Or there was an information asymmetry, corporate pressure. etc. It may not be quite so simple.

There is always some information asymmetry and outside pressure. If a system is so brittle that it cannot function in the real world, the system is the problem, not the world.

totalZero 6y ago
It's not a piece of software my dude. The responsibility would legally have rested with the well operator, but the well operator went bankrupt. If you read the article, you will see that abandoned wells often end up in limbo between the bankrupt operator and its creditors. Meanwhile, the landowner is facing the negative externalities of the well (seepage, gas leaks, etc), and often has no choice but to pay to resolve the problems caused by the well being poorly terminated. There are supposed to be bonds in place to pay for these processes, but in practice those bonds only cover a fraction of the cost.
- nickff 6y ago
  If the landowners didn't want to accept the risks related to resource exploitation, they could have: - Not allowed the development, and avoided the risks. - Insured against the risks. - Sold the land, along with all the risks. They did none of these, and effectively self-insured; now they expect pity, which they do not deserve.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    Your argument totally neglects the fact that "liability," as a legal concept, means it is not necessarily the case that all parties share equal blame. Had the operator not filed for bankruptcy, it would likely have been responsible for its own failure to appropriately manage the wells. Had the state or federal government established adequate bonding practices to pay for the plugging of old and unproductive wells such as these, the burden of plugging these particular wells would have been lessened.
    - nickff 6y ago
      Had some other counter-factual been the case, I might feel differently. The school officials were operating under current conditions, and have no real excuse that I know of.
  - throwaway_jobs 6y ago
    > now they expect pity, which they do not deserve. So what you are saying essentially is the school board/county should file bankruptcy so taxpayers are stuck with the liability...then we can extend your argument to the taxpayers for their failure to avoid the risks of funding/operating schools and insuring against them. Do you feel that way about all the workers/businesses Trumps bankrupt businesses failed to pay by seeking bankruptcy protections?
- riversflow 6y ago
  >The responsibility would legally have rested with the well operator. This is only half true. The responsibility is delegated to the operator by the land owner, but it is ultimately the land owner's liability. Consider if the land owner was leasing the rights to the operator and then decided to change the lease agreement in a way that made the operator insolvent. If it were the way you describe the operator would be hostage of the landowner. Allowing the liability to pass upstream to the property owner makes complete sense.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    It is entirely true. Economic benefit derived only as a landowner or from a royalty interest is generally not sufficient to establish liability for plugging a well. If the operator were solvent, it would have had to pay. Also, Venoco's bankruptcy wasn't caused by this lease agreement. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/idle_well https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/idle_well