DB: GOP Senator Blocks Bill to Make BP Pay

[JMS]

GOP Senator Blocks Bill to Make BP Pay

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/?cid=hp:cheatsheet4#cheatrow_16292

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), a longtime advocate of offshore drilling, became the face of opposition to Congressional efforts at holding oil companies accountable for their spills after blocking a bill on Thursday. The Alaskan Senator blocked a voice vote on a bill by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) that would have dramatically raised the cap on liabilities for oil companies from $75 million, likely a small fraction of the damage caused by the BP disaster, to $10 billion. Meanwhile, the White House, who backs the bill, appears to have a strong hand politically. 42 percent of Americans favor President Obama's handling of the gulf spill, versus 33 percent who disapprove and 21 percent who are neutral, a new AP-GfK poll reports.

[twa]

That cap is only on economic damage and 10 billion is insane.:beatdeadhorse:

BP has paid out 450 million so far...with a bunch left to come

The 10 billion bs will simply raise energy prices and is a political stunt,much like the Florida request for millions to advertise

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-05-12/business/fl-oil-spill-florida-tourism-money-2-20100512_1_visit-florida-bp-gulf-of-mexico-spill

Gov. Charlie Crist on Wednesday asked BP for $34.75 million for Florida tourism marketing to counter the perception that oil from the company's Gulf of Mexico spill is spoiling state beaches and waters.

No oil from the BP spill has reached Florida, but some tourists have canceled or postponed trips because of concerns that the spill could ruin their beach vacations. Tourism ranks among the state's top industries.

[AsburySkinsFan]

10 billion dollars for economic impact seems pretty reasonable considering the oil fiasco in the Gulf has the potential to cost well more than the petty amount they are currently capped at, especially because there you have to factor in the tourism industries of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and a huge coastline of Florida, not to mention a HUGE fishing industry throughout the entire region, especially because these can take years to recover.

[Kilmer17]

You guys would rather pay 10 dollars a gallon right?

And how does one lone GOP Senator stop this? The answer is she cant. All she can do is make the Senate take an actual vote so they are all on record.

But dont let this get in the way of the outrage.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Has it come out that BP demonstrated gross incompitence? I haven't heard. I think they should be helping pay the clean up bill. But unless they did something seriously wrong, I don't think we should be fining the company billions. That will just make the price of all oil related products go up. If you have that big of an issue with it, don't use products that require oil. Of course that is pretty much everything nowadays, in one form or another. At some point, people have to accept that it is the cost of doing business. **** happens.

[twa]

Has it come out that BP demonstrated gross incompitence? I haven't heard. I think they should be helping pay the clean up bill. But unless they did something seriously wrong, I don't think we should be fining the company billions. That will just make the price of all oil related products go up. If you have that big of an issue with it, don't use products that require oil. Of course that is pretty much everything nowadays, in one form or another. At some point, people have to accept that it is the cost of doing business. **** happens.

BP is responsible for ALL cleanup costs(including paying for whatever federal help) whether they are at fault or not.

Any other parties found liable will be added as holders in liability.

I can certainly see raising the economic impact cap,but 10 billion is a fools route(which naturally the Dems will support:ols:)

[gbear]

There is a side of me which wonders if BP wouldn't leap for joy at having to pay $10B.

It caps the total expenditures. It wouldn't matter how many industries or families it impacts. Their total would be $10B. They could throw that in their long term debt columns and raise their total liabilities to around $146.5B. Their total assets are currently around $240.6B. It would hurta little, but it would hardly cripple them or make them raise their prices by a factor of 3 or 4.

The market hates uncertainty. Give them the $10B fine, and suddenly there is an upper ceiling on bad it can be for the company. My bet is if that ever passed, BP stocks would shoot back up as they probably already should be doing without the bill.

[JMS]

10 billion dollars for economic impact seems pretty reasonable considering the oil fiasco in the Gulf has the potential to cost well more than the petty amount they are currently capped at, especially because there you have to factor in the tourism industries of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and a huge coastline of Florida, not to mention a HUGE fishing industry throughout the entire region, especially because these can take years to recover.

Absolutely the tourism industry and the fishing industries in the gulf states certainly are worth a lot more than 10 billion. They will be devistated by this spill for years.

[TheGreatBuzz]

BP is responsible for ALL cleanup costs(including paying for whatever federal help) whether they are at fault or not.

Any other parties found liable will be added as holders in liability.

I can certainly see raising the economic impact cap,but 10 billion is a fools route(which naturally the Dems will support:ols:)

I'll give you they, or their insurance company, should have to pay for actual clean up cost but thats it...none of this paying for economic damage, etc....as i said, sometimes you have to accept that **** happens.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'll give you they, or their insurance company, should have to pay for actual clean up cost but thats it...none of this paying for economic damage, etc....as i said, sometimes you have to accept that **** happens.

OMGness, so if I own a store that is connected to yours and mine burns to the ground, and takes yours with it you're honestly going to sit there and tell me that you're not going to sue me for lost revenue? Please.

[TheGreatBuzz]

OMGness, so if I own a store that is connected to yours and mine burns to the ground, and takes yours with it you're honestly going to sit there and tell me that you're not going to sue me for lost revenue? Please.

Bad analogy....A better one would be that if your store burned down and people didn't want to come to my store because of the huge eye sore...and under that situation, no. That is just part of the risk of being in business.

[JMS]

You guys would rather pay 10 dollars a gallon right?

Yeah how dare anybody try to hold BP or Haliburton responsible for their actions... Don't they know if BP's profits which were about 5 billion just first quarter of 2010 are interfeared with the earth will stop rotating and all human life will float off into space?

Corporations aren't people, ( unless it's to their advantage)... how dare anybody try ot hold them responsible for cutting corners on safety in order to maximize profits...

Again Kilmer is right... If BP were forced to pay half their profits or 10 billion in a single year in order to blunt the economic impact for the natural disaster which they caused, if that action were taken against one oil company... clearly it would cause oil prices to sky rocket 500%...

[TheGreatBuzz]

Yeah how dare anybody try to hold BP or Haliburton responsible for their actions... Don't they know if BP's profits which were about 5 billion just first quarter of 2010 are interfeared with the earth will stop rotating and all human life will float off into space?

Corporations aren't people, ( unless it's to their advantage)... how dare anybody try ot hold them responsible for cutting corners on safety in order to maximize profits...

Again Kilmer is right... If BP were forced to pay half their profits or 10 billion in a single year in order to blunt the economic impact for the natural disaster which they caused, if that action were taken against one oil company... clearly it would cause oil prices to sky rocket 500%...

Problem with this argument is you think that BP would be willing to forgo the $5B without passing it on to the customer. Whatever cost you put on a company WILL get passed onto the consumer. In the end, a company like that will always get their $5B+ profit.

*Edit: Also can you point out what corners were cut on safety? Not saying it didn't happen, I just haven't heard of it. And it sound like you have all the inside info.

[JMS]

Bad analogy....A better one would be that if your store burned down and people didn't want to come to my store because of the huge eye sore...and under that situation, no. That is just part of the risk of being in business.

Bad Analogy.... a better analogy.... If you dump your trash all over the neighborhood and it attracks rats, makes people sick, and stops people from coming to my store... You can definitely be held financially responsible...

BP doesn't have the legal ability to treat the entire gulf coast as their property. Giveing them the all clear to spill oil as they see fit.

BP skirted several saftey requirements and it's come home to hurt them. They shouldn't have the ability to pass that along to the folks who live on or near the gulf coast as a cost of them choosing to live near the oceon... because you think it's their ocean?

[JMS]

Problem with this argument is you think that BP would be willing to forgo the $5B without passing it on to the customer. Whatever cost you put on a company WILL get passed onto the consumer. In the end, a company like that will always get their $5B+ profit.

Yeah I'd love to see BP raise their price of gasoline to 10$ per share while Exxon and Shell are lowering their price of gasoline to around $2. ( last sumer gas prices hit 2$ and this summer looks like it will follow suit )..

That's called competition. That's how the market is supposed to work. We don't have much competition, but we have enough to keep BP from passing on their financial burden for this disaster to the consumer.

*Edit: Also can you point out what corners were cut on safety? Not saying it didn't happen, I just haven't heard of it. And it sound like you have all the inside info.

(1) British Patrolium opted out of using an expensive emergency shut off system mandated in European waters.

(2) BP was using an exploritory rig, rather than a production rig in order to save money... The exploritory wasn't designed for actually producing production volumes of oil.

(3) BP applied for and recieved an exemption from doing environmental and safety studies, on the grounds they were unnecesary.

Looks like the cause of the blow up was the cement casement for the well, installed by Haliburton failed. But this is also partially BP's fault. They contracted the work, and they inspected the work.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Bad analogy....A better one would be that if your store burned down and people didn't want to come to my store because of the huge eye sore...and under that situation, no. That is just part of the risk of being in business.

It's not a bad analogy because it fits perfectly in that the fishing industry is being ruined because BP was cheating with their blow out preventors.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Bad Analogy.... a better analogy.... If you dump your trash all over the neighborhood and it attracks rats, makes people sick, and stops people from coming to my store... You can definitely be held financially responsible...

BP doesn't have the legal ability to treat the entire gulf coast as their property. Giveing them the all clear to spill oil as they see fit.

BP skirted several saftey requirements and it's come home to hurt them. They shouldn't have the ability to pass that along to the folks who live on or near the gulf coast as a cost of them choosing to live near the oceon... because you think it's their ocean?

Ok, I'm not going to keep bouncing around analogies because there is no perfect one.

But don't make it sound like BP said "Oh what do you want to do today? I think we will try to pollute as much of the gulf as possible just to see if we can get away with it! Sounds like fun!" I said they should pay for the clean up costs. But you have to draw the line somewhere.Stop at ACTUAL clean-up costs. Not effects 2 and 3 steps removed. Can I sue them because BP let oil spill out which caused a news flash to come over the TV which caused me to stub my toe on the coffee table walking over to the TV?

[TheGreatBuzz]

(1) British Patrolium opted out of using an expensive emergency shut off system mandated in European waters.

(2) BP was using an exploritory rig, rather than a production rig in order to save money... The exploritory wasn't designed for actually producing production volumes of oil.

(3) BP applied for and recieved an exemption from doing environmental and safety studies, on the grounds they were unnecesary.

1)They weren't required to have it. Talk to your lawmaker. They didn't break any law here.

2)Gotta use exploritory equipment some time. That is how advances happen.

3)If they recieved an exemption, then talk to the people that gave them the exemption.

[JMS]

Bad analogy....A better one would be that if your store burned down and people didn't want to come to my store because of the huge eye sore...and under that situation, no. That is just part of the risk of being in business.

Here is my problem with your entire argument.... If you allow BP to be held blameless in this economic disaster, you esentially ensure it will occure again and again and again. A strong incentive to ensure oil companies act responsibly, is that the liability for not doing so impacts their bottom line.....

In the last decade BP has been fined about $800 million, or about 0.5% of their profits over that decade. Clearly their safety lapses is just a part of doing business. They can ignore them and just write the checks. Spend $800 million in order to make $400 billion.

Holding them responsible for the damage they caused gives them incentive to take their safety violations more seriously.

And again we aren't talking about an outragous amount of money here... 10 Billion would likely hit their books over 5-7 years.... It's still a drop in the bucket for BP.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Fine no analogy:

BP caused a huge spill that threatens the fishing and tourism industries and is now hurting both industries. BP owes not only for all of the clean up...all of it, but also the loss of income that their spill has cost the businesses up and down the coast that would have made money from their businesses had BP not been negligent and caused a massive oil spill in the Gulf.

[Kilmer17]

I want to know why the left wing and the media is still giving Obama a pass on this. I of course know the answer, I just like watching you guys spin into a pretzel attempting to defend him.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Here is my problem with your entire argument.... If you allow BP to be held blameless in this economic disaster, you esentially ensure it will occure again and again and again. A strong incentive to ensure oil companies act responsibly, is that the liability for not doing so impacts their bottom line.....

In the last decade BP has been fined about $800 million, or about 0.5% of their profits over that decade. Clearly their safety lapses is just a part of doing business. They can ignore them and just write the checks. Spend $800 million in order to make $400 billion.

Holding them responsible for the damage they caused gives them incentive to take their safety violations more seriously.

Never said blameless. But there needs to be a limit. And if consumers have an issue with their business practices, don't buy from BP. I bet they will feel that a lot more.

Again, where are we going to draw the line at what they have to pay for? Can I sue them because the cost of crabs may increase?

[TheGreatBuzz]

Fine no analogy:

BP caused a huge spill that threatens the fishing and tourism industries and is now hurting both industries. BP owes not only for all of the clean up...all of it, but also the loss of income that their spill has cost the businesses up and down the coast that would have made money from their businesses had BP not been negligent and caused a massive oil spill in the Gulf.

Well, I know that is your opinion. And we disagree. But the questions is still out there. Where are you going to draw the line? Can I sue because what I pay for a bushel of craps goes up 30% because of the oil spill?

[JMS]

1)They weren't required to have it. Talk to your lawmaker. They didn't break any law here.

So they can only be held responsible for things they were "required to have"? You don't think they should be held responsible for doing what they needed to do, just what they were legally obligated to do?

So an airplane which drops from the sky halfway between DC and Chicago because it ran out of gas shouldn't be marked against the airline... Hell their is no government regulation requiring them to have enough fuel to make it to their destination...

We don't legislate reasonable competence. Clearly they could use a redundant tested mechanism for turning off the oil flow. That certainly seems like reasonable competence. They made the decision not to employ this system they regularly use on other wells in order to save money. Clearly the mechanism they believed to be sufficient were not.

2)Gotta use exploritory equipment some time. That is how advances happen.

Nope... Exploritoy equipment is used to 'explore for oil', it's not used to actually harvest the oil. In this case BP opted to use the exploritory rig for production in order to save the time and money of swapping out that rig.

3)If they recieved an exemption, then talk to the people that gave them the exemption.

An exemption isn't a cart blanch to hold you unresponsible for desasters directly related to your actions. Why not talk to both.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well, I know that is your opinion. And we disagree. But the questions is still out there. Where are you going to draw the line? Can I sue because what I pay for a bushel of craps goes up 30% because of the oil spill?

That's what judges are for.<---dangling participle and all. But, my guess is that if you hire a lawyer because you're paying more for craps...(LOL) you're going to make the news, but for completely different reasons.