GOP offers new oil liability standard — one year's profit

[babylonsister]

Now they have a plan? What do you think? How much IS one year's profit? Are they being too cute by half?

GOP offers new oil liability standard — one year's profit

The global reach of oil production

By Lesley Clark | McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — A day after Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski shot down a Democratic-led effort to lift the liability cap on oil companies, Florida Sen. George LeMieux and three other Gulf Coast Republicans introduced legislation they say would "dramatically increase" the industry's liability.

The legislation -- which also has the backing of Sens. David Vitter, R-La., Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. and Roger Wicker, R-Miss., would set a new cap equal to the last four quarters of the responsible party's profits -- or double the current limit, whichever is greater.

"BP is already responsible for the costs of the cleanup, but we must ensure taxpayers are not forced to pay for associated damages," LeMieux said. He said economic damage from the spill will "far exceed" the current $75 million cap, and that under the bill, BP's liability would jump to $17 billion dollars.

Murkowski Thursday scuttled Florida Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson's effort to lift the cap to $10 billion, saying it would prevent smaller, independent companies from drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf. "What this would do is give all of America's offshore resources to the biggest of the big oil companies," she said.

New Jersey Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez said Thursday that the $10 billion, "seems to be a figure that could encompass the possibility of people getting relief right away.''

The Republican bill also calls for a "thorough report" to Congress from all agencies involved in the response to the spill by Sept. 1. The report, the senators say, "will evaluate what went wrong with the immediate response to the spill by private entities and the federal government."

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/14/94213/gop-offers-new-oil-liability-standard.html

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. The GOP could all club together and raise funds to help BP (their friend)

Fiend

[havocmom]

2. Liability should be cost to fix EVERYTHING they ruin + a monster penalty.

Basing on a year's profit will just kick start some fancy bookkeeping that will show a loss.

[TCJ70]

3. Future headline: Oil Executives Raise Their Pay...

...To Avoid Having Too Much Profit In One Year.

[phleshdef]

7. Well, actually the way I read it, is it would be based on the past 4 quarters.

In that case, they wouldn't be able to use future expenses as a loophole.

[cstanleytech]

4. Here is a radical idea to the GOP!!!

Why dont we let a jury decide what damages to award? Or are you (the GOP) being bribed with enough money in the form of donations *wink* *wink* (by the oil companies and other big business interests) that its worth stonewalling if not outright killing that kind of thing?

[ljm2002]

5. There should be NO liability cap!

Furthermore, there should be actual damages and punitive damages. These companies (BP, TransOcean, Halliburton) make huge profits and have maximized their profits in part by skimping on safety measures. They also lobbied to get environmental impact reports waived. So they bear direct responsibility for this disaster. It was not ONLY an "accident". It was willful negligence and they need to pay. They need to be hounded to the gates of hell, which is where their corporate souls will spend eternity when they DIE.

[phleshdef]

6. So in the case of this recent disaster, BP would have to fork out up to 20 billion.

I'm not sure I approve of a cap at all. But if there was a cap, this might actually be a good idea. Its odd that its coming from Republicans. There has got to be a catch somewhere, right?

[Moostache]

11. OF COURSE!!!!!!! The catch is NET profits!

It would be amazing to see how quickly BP (or Shell or Exxon) would be LOSING money via accounting tricks and "investments" in clean-ups and alternatives and the like...

The catch is always the same - NET PROFITS....change the language to 10% of total Revenues as reported for their shareholders or in the case of private companies it would be mandatory to disclose total revenues before obtaining a permit to drill.

Murkowski would wail like the $10 whore that she is as soon as somebody offers to meet her half-way on this proposal because her paymasters/pimps already KNOW if this was the standard that their liability would be $0.00!!!!

[lunatica]

8. Big Oil seems to be getting pretty desperate telling their minions what to ask for

Giving up a whole year's profit must make their assholes clinch shut, but it seems they're directing their bought and paid for Republicans to create this regulation.

The situation must be far worse than we know.

[ShadowLiberal]

9. Oil companies will just split themselves up to 1 company an oil rig then, low profit for each

Natural gas companies do this trick all the time (I know because my parents invest in it), whenever a Natural Gas company wants to start drilling for Natural Gas somewhere else they start a new company, that in reality is really run by a much bigger company. If something goes wrong, like the company gets sued for an accident at one of their sites, then that 1 company goes out of business, the rest of the businesses all run by the exact same people in reality, continue to function just fine and remind untouched by the lawsuit. And whenever a natural gas site runs out of natural gas to harvest then that company is shut down, and officially becomes out of business, if you invested in it and you want to keep your money invested in natural gas you have to invest in another one of their start up companies.

It is a risky thing to invest in them, but it has very nice benefits if successful (thousands of dollars a year in dividends in their best years, though you have to invest over $20,000+ dollars). Oil companies will just steal this business model with such a stupid liability cap.

[rasputin1952]

10. Here's a thought...

Why is there any cap at all?

Direct and indirect impacts that are directly traceable to a source should have no "cap" at all.

Taxpayers already subsidize the oil companies to the tune of tens of billions, why have the taxpayer pay for any clean-up for a preventable disaster?

Here's a thought, a second, third or perhaps even a fourth cut-off device might have worked, but in the interest of saving a couple of million, the idea was scrapped. Now, it will cost tens of billions to make up for that error. The way I figure it, tough, they made a catastrophic decision, they pay for it...period.

[AtomicKitten]

12. There should be no cap on their liability.

They should expect to pay ALL damages and then a monster fine.

[northernlights]

13. No deal. Liability is ALL the costs to repair, clean up, and restore to whole

or as whole as possible, every inch of the environment they trash and every person's health and livelihood they wreck. Period.