White House Endorses Unlimited Liability Cap For Oil Spillers

Democrats in Congress and officials in the White House are making yet another major push to pass legislation to make the liability for oil companies involved in damaging spills unlimited.

On Monday evening, the White House confirmed that it favors the most recent piece of legislation that would drop any numerical ceiling to the amount of money an oil company like BP would have to pay for economic damages caused by a spill. Currently, the cap is $75 million.

"The president supports removing caps on liability for oil companies engaged in offshore drilling," said spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Oil companies should have every incentive to maximize safety and arbitrary caps on liability create a disincentive to achieve that goal."

The statement was the most detailed the administration has offered to date with respect to the debate surrounding BP's liability. And it reflects a growing sentiment within the White House that more aggressive action (if not optics) need to be in place to stem the fallout of the Gulf crisis. Several weeks ago, U.S. Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli made the case for an unlimited cap without formally endorsing the policy.

The government, he said before a congressional hearing, needs to "ensure that there is no arbitrary cap on corporate responsibility for a similar major oil spill."

So far, votes to raise the liability cap -- first to $10 billion and then unlimited -- have failed to pass via unanimous consent in the Senate. But now, congressional negotiators are planning alternative legislative routes. On Wednesday, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the author of the liability-cap-raising bill, is set to testify before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works about his proposal.

Afterward, it is expected that senators will look towards a piece of legislation to which they can attach Menendez's bill as an amendment. The strongest possibility is that it will ultimately be included as part of broader energy legislation -- a risky proposition considering the uncertainty surrounding that bill's passage.

"Including it in [a] broad energy bill is a possibility," said a Senate aide, "but other options for getting it passed quicker are being explored."

Comments

[falbergsawco]

06:00 PM on 06/09/2010

As much as we'd like to point our fingers at evil villains, there is no villain here. It's a system set up by villains (dead kings) to exploit the weak (colonials). Corporate executives, acting on behalf of these "fictitious persons", are re-shaping the world according to their corporation's priorities; first of which is to beef-up their bottom line. Last of which is to provide for the common good. Establishing global markets is somewhere in the middle. If we expect our capitalistic system to work FOR us we have to hold these corporations responsible TO us. With "limited liability" we have no control and the 'fictitious persons" want only to rape and pillage the global village. Resistance is futile because, like vampires, they can't die.

Therefore: please consider the ramifications following an abolition of the legal rights accorded to "fictitious persons" under our current laws. There is a long and winding intellectual path leading from the origin of limited liability to the logical end of it (hopefully) in our future. There's nothing in the Capitalist Economic Model that specifies it can only work when no one's responsible. The "limited liability" part was just some corrupt Sovereign's little add-on. It doesn't work for us. Do away with it. I believe the only way to kill this "Fictitious Person" is to drive a Constitutional Amendment through it's heart.

[falbergsawco]

05:57 PM on 06/09/2010

What needs exposing is the FICTITIOUS PERSON whose LIABILITY is LIMITED. The world is a mess because nobody is responsible. Nobody's responsible because the villain is always a fictitious person (corporation) . The "real" persons behind the "fictitious" persons (executive officers) are liable for their corporation's actions only to the extent their lawyers can define HOW limited. A full staff of high-powered lawyers can invariably prove that corporate executives aren't liable at all. These lawyers have a secret language of Legal Definitions (apart from the language "of the people") to make this possible. The overwhelming majority of business conducted today hides behind the legal shelter of limited liability: meaning, if you have the lawyers you can get away with anything. No "real" person pays any real financial penalty for financial irresponsibility, nor criminal penalty for fraud or damages. British Petroleum is a prime example.

If you follow the logic behind "limited liability" back to the "Letters of Marque" issued to 18th Century privateers you'll understand why our Founding Fathers sanctioned Corporate Charters. The " Empire Trading Company" of the 1700's was great for the Sovereign because it paid taxes, employed workers who also paid taxes, and served the Empire. Predatory corporations of the 21st century still pay taxes, and employ taxpayers; but they no longer serve the Sovereign (us); they serve themselves.

[JPMP]

06:43 PM on 06/08/2010

And how long will it take for Obama to back away from yet another illusion of "change"?

[blewvelvet]

07:03 PM on 06/08/2010

Uh..can you be more blind of the change..and the deregulation damage of 30 years that needs to be fixed..which doesn't happen overnight..or even in one-term? Did you realize that there is still not enough Democrats in congress to beat a filibuster? without that cap..you still can't get anything done.

But the next mid term's should be interesting!

If you didn't understand one thing I said..then may I refer you to "Schoolhouse Rock - I'm just a Bill".

Google it..

Moron.

[Aristofaness]

02:46 PM on 06/08/2010

To solve this situation is in the best interest of humanity, this is important for all. Let’s work as simple human beings interested in save our gulf, eventually the pollution caused are going to affect all the oceans. It's time for bp or OBAMA or any rich company to offer job to all the jobless in the country and to request authorization to employ illegal’s and bring people like the former "braseros" to help clean this mess, AN HUMAN CHAIN OF WORKERS along the beach is needed, WE NEED TO FIGHT EVERY INCH OF BEACH AND SEA helped with all the boats an equipment available. To solve this situation is in the best interest of humanity, this is important for all. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE NOT ENOUGH WE NEED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. THESE ACTIONS ARE ALMOST 2 MONTHS OVERDUE!!!!

[Lasse Von Gakhausen]

02:41 PM on 06/08/2010

so - they want this liability - why? well one reason could be that the white house had meetings monday with www.bioversal.com

[danielboone]

02:16 PM on 06/08/2010

The ties that bind. Remember Rahm Emanuel's rent-free D.C. apartment? The owner: A BP adviser

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/rahm-emanuel-bp-gul-oil-spill.html

[hdc77494]

01:57 PM on 06/08/2010

The feds make far more off of drilling than the oil industry. Between 15-20 BILLION a year in lease fees plus an 18.5% royalty fee AND a 20 cent a gallon gas tax, they collect astronomical sums. Yet, they haven't spent a dime developing better technology, identifying best practices, nor even keeping spill booms where we drill. When this well blew out, the feds had no response plan, and no booms within 1500 miles, yet the Gulf is the only area outside AK allowing drilling. WHAT DID WE GET FOR OUR MONEY??

Unlimited liability just means only the largest most powerful firms will be able to drill offshore. No one else need apply. Lastly, federal policy of keeping drilling rigs far enough out that the public can't see them is the reason companies have to drill deepwater anyway.

[MzSally]

05:34 PM on 06/08/2010

"Unlimited liability just means only the largest most powerful firms will be able to drill offshore. No one else need apply. "
Good observation. And along that same track-- in the small chance that even unlimited liability might threaten the solvency of one of the giants, I bet the taxpayer would wind up bailing them out as being 'too big to fail'.
Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but this whole idea sounds like a shell game to me.

[outnow]

11:55 AM on 06/08/2010

Caps are crap. These are just backdoor baiulouts for industries that are doing more harm than good. The easy oil is gone. Now it's time to wreck the earth for fun and profit.

[Martin Musetsky]

11:01 AM on 06/08/2010

Live feed of the cameras on the Gulf floor: http://climate.the-environmentalist.org/2010/06/live-video-feeds-of-gulf-oil-disaster.html

[Hank10303]

09:52 AM on 06/08/2010

Its only logical. The most obvious argument for unlimited caps is because there is also unlimited profit potential. Oil will sell for whatever the market will bear; is that not the motto of capitalism often professed by the republicans, conservatives and libertarians. Thus with the potential for sinful profits, as the big oil has made; also there is the risk of hellish liability.

Besides, they lied about their ability to contain, mitigate and control oil spills. What we have witnessed is total buffoonery by BP. This further demonstrates that BP, like most of corporate America, have reduced everything possible and neglected every possible safety precaution to increase their personal pay in salary, perks, expense write offs and self indulgence. This is capitalism deregulated.


Its time it experience the down side in its full effect and only unlimited liability could provide that.

[hdc77494]

02:00 PM on 06/08/2010

Hank, look up the actual profits. BP makes about 8%. The fed on the other hand, collects 18.5% royalties on top of their lease fees, AND collects a 20 cent per gallon gas tax. One one barrell of oil, the government makes about $22, or 22%, BP makes about $7, and pays income taxes on that.

[BlueTidalWave]

04:02 PM on 06/08/2010

BP is lucky they are making anything of of *our* oil. The oil does not belong to BP, it belongs to the American People.

In reality, the federal government (a.k.a the American people) should be making 100% of the profit off the oil trade.

[babyboomerorig]

09:07 AM on 06/08/2010

There is no amount of money that will fix what's been broken.

Also, there are too many entities to blame for this catastrophe and it all has to do with greed.

[outnow]

11:53 AM on 06/08/2010

"There is no amount of money that will fix what's been broken."

Can't they just print up some money?

Helicopter Ben can fly over the Gulf a drop dollar bills out of a helicopter.

Myths such a the Garden of Eden and Prometheus (where Zeus was angry because stupid humans were given fire) comes to mind.

[otalp]

08:44 AM on 06/08/2010

Having a cap is just another way of saying bailout. Why do the Republicans rail against bailouts except for the oil industry?

[Fight The Right]

08:59 AM on 06/08/2010

do you really need to ask

[Fight The Right]

09:01 AM on 06/08/2010

they love only money and hate all other living things.

[MoreFreedom]

10:44 AM on 06/08/2010

So why do studies show conservatives give more money voluntarily to charities than liberals?

[Icantbelieveher]

08:40 AM on 06/08/2010

I'm totally amazed at the people who fight clean energy in the name of evangelical "christians!" What good will drilling for oil, coal, or natural gas do if it means the end of the earth! Call me a fanatic if you want, but I've heard this thing could go on for 30 years! How do we survive that? When was the last time you heard of a disaster or people dying because of wind farms? Solar panels?

Seriously -- who gives a flying if all these oil companies go out of business -- besides the government that is bought off? Greed will be the end of us all -- and there's nothing in the Bible that says greed is a good thing! Quite the opposite!

Revelations 11:18: The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great--and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

Those crazy environmentalists won't be the ones who destroyed the earth! Why do rightwing evangelicals stand for everything the Bible opposes?

[babyboomerorig]

08:57 AM on 06/08/2010

The Revelations verse has not been read by the Evangelical "Christians".

They believe the earth is here for their pleasure, to do with what they wish.

[forestnfama]

07:46 AM on 06/08/2010

I say we don't let BP go bankrupt. They will try to weasel out of paying by doing so...... They should be made to stay in business until every fu@king dime has been spent in the recovery.
This planet is a living organism and people we are killing it. What most people don't understand is how destructive this blowout is going to be until it is too late.

[BrandonBoston]

07:35 AM on 06/08/2010

A fine of $500,000,000,000 should about cover it! We accept Visa, MasterCard, AMEX, and Discover.

[krizpy99]

10:32 AM on 06/08/2010

Actually, their credit is bad. We accept cash -- or payments in executive blood.