Robert Menendez Pushes Bill Raising BP's Oil Spill Liability From $75M To $10 Billion

[babylonsister]

Sam Stein

Robert Menendez Pushes Bill Raising BP's Oil Spill Liability To $10 Billion

First Posted: 05- 3-10 12:15 PM | Updated: 05- 3-10 01:24 PM


A trio of Democratic Senators are introducing legislation on Monday that would dramatically raise the amount of money that oil companies like BP would have to pay in economic damages in an event of a spill.

Authored by New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, and co-signed by fellow Garden Stater
Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, the (craftily-titled) "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act" would raise the economic damages liability cap for offshore oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion.

The impetus for the legislation were reports that surfaced over the weekend that British Petroleum, the company responsible for the disastrous spill in the Gulf Coast, would face limited responsibility for covering costs beyond cleanup and containment.

The oil company, in addition to others, pays money into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund -- a kind of rainy day piggy bank for handling the immediate costs of dealing with disasters. Under the charter of the federal law that created the $1.6 billion fund, however, operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for non-cleanup and containment damages. And in a region like the Gulf Coast the cost to local industry of a massive oil spill can easily skyrocket well beyond that total.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/robert-menendez-pushes-bi_n_561011.html

[spanone]

1. watch the republicans filibuster

[Hepburn]

2. Sorry, as much as I wish this might work...

...I don't think one can make this retroactive.

[rudy23]

3. Good, they're capping the damage this does the the Gulf at 10 billion, then?

Why should there be a cap at all?

This looks like more good cop, bad cop legislation from the Dems. "At least it's not 75 million!"

The damage this spill does is going to total far, far more than 10 billion. This is a first class screw job from the party that did jack shit after Katrina besides helping the R's and insurance companies backpedal. Here's the sequel.

[elehhhhna]

6. THANK YOU!!! & btw, it's "bad cop/worse cop", imo.

[FarCenter]

4. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution says --

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[babylonsister]

5. What about this a DUer brought up, from here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8263530&mesg_id=8265710

negligence or safety violations remove the liability cap

Title 33 USC sec.2704(c).

Disclaimer: I know nothing about laws.

[FarCenter]

7. Thre are four clauses with exceptions to the $75 million cap

(c) Exceptions

(1) Acts of responsible party
Subsection (a) of this section does not apply if the incident was proximately caused by—
----(A) gross negligence or willful misconduct of, or
----(B) the violation of an applicable Federal safety, construction, or operating regulation by,
the responsible party, an agent or employee of the responsible party, or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship with the responsible party (except where the sole contractual arrangement arises in connection with carriage by a common carrier by rail).

(2) Failure or refusal of responsible party
Subsection (a) of this section does not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses—
----(A) to report the incident as required by law and the responsible party knows or has reason to know of the incident;
----(B) to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance requested by a responsible official in connection with removal activities; or
----(C) without sufficient cause, to comply with an order issued under subsection (c) or (e) of section 1321 of this title or the Intervention on the High Seas Act (33 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.).

(3) OCS facility or vessel
Notwithstanding the limitations established under subsection (a) of this section and the defenses of section 2703 of this title, all removal costs incurred by the United States Government or any State or local official or agency in connection with a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil from any Outer Continental Shelf facility or a vessel carrying oil as cargo from such a facility shall be borne by the owner or operator of such facility or vessel.

(4) Certain tank vessels
Subsection (a)(1) of this section shall not apply to—
----(A) a tank vessel on which the only oil carried as cargo is an animal fat or vegetable oil, as those terms are used in section 2720 of this title; and
----(B) a tank vessel that is designated in its certificate of inspection as an oil spill response vessel (as that term is defined in section 2101 of title 46) and that is used solely for removal.

---

I'd be inclined to investigate whether (3) applies. Was this an "Outer Continental Shelf facility"? If so, it appears that governmental bodies can reclaim their costs, though not private parties.

Private parties would have to show that (1) applies, thoug BP may be able to beat the rap on (1), depending on the outcome of investigations. Since this was a foreign flag drilling ship, there were probably no inspectors aboard and a lot of the evidence is now 5000' down.

In any case, if these clauses remove the cap, no new legislation would be needed.

[global1]

8. Why Limit It To 10 Billion?...... nt

[greencharlie]

9. sounds reasonable. Make them pay for every last shrimp and lobster. nt

[rudy23]

10. 10 billion aint gonna come close to covering it, and that's why they rolled out the $75 mill first.

I hope I'm wrong, but I see no good to imposing a cap unless you are a higher up or shareholder w/ BP.