I seem to recall hearing on here somewhere that environmental regulations have actually made oil spills like the recent one more likely, as they discourage exploitation of resources closer to shore and push drilling out into deeper, more risky water. Is this the case?
Yes there’s a limit to how close to land you can drill. There’s also a 75 million dollar limited liability for cleanup costs drilling offshore.
So what laws exactly are there?
I looked… couldn’t actually find anything like H.R. 302.102. It seems like its impossible to pinpoint the exact bills behind most of our ‘laws’. Sorry. All I can find is hearsay evidence. If you google oil spill 75 million liability you’ll find it pops up, but all in mostly media articles.
<
I think upon closer inspection that you’ll find environmentalist policies, intended to protect the environment, were one of the root causes of the disaster.
- Environmentalist policies led to the artificial demand for deep-water exploratory drilling by restricting or eliminating off-shore and land-based drilling operations in the US.
- Environmentalist policies and influence on the current administration crippled their ability to effectively respond to the crisis - i.e., they didn’t use the approved plan for the situation and were more worried about the dispersant chemicals than the oil. While the plan itself might not have even worked, executing it at that time probably offered the best opportunity to at least contain the spill until private industry came up with an adequate solution (which, BTW could be many months away).
The cap on damages appears to be a deal swung between the state and the oil corporations. Why would it surprise anyone for the state to offer such benefits to a corporation, which is itself a government-endorsed legal structure? I just love the people running around talking about “evil corporations” and “more government regulation” in the same breath. It’s government intervention in business that creates the “evil” they’re complaining about.
Honestly, the state has their fingers in every aspect of this crisis - now a disaster. Do I expect the Obama administration to fix the problem that they and their predecessors created? Certainly not, although I think we’ll all pay for their actions. BP will be the scape goat, along with a lot of other companies. The state will pass draconian laws that significantly impact the economy based on faulty assumptions that energy is some magical thing that they can just imagine into existence. Some are predicting $8-$10 per gallon for gas after all is said and done.
You can begin to see a pattern where the solution to one crisis begets another crisis. This is the process the central planner follows on the path to dictatorship. The sheeple will demand it.
I looked… couldn’t actually find anything like H.R. 302.102. It seems like its impossible to pinpoint the exact bills behind most of our ‘laws’. Sorry. All I can find is hearsay evidence. If you google oil spill 75 million liability you’ll find it pops up, but all in mostly media articles.
Ah fair enough. I’m asking because I’m in a discussion on another site about the spill, and I made the claim about said restrictions encouraging offshore drilling having heard about it before, but now that they asked for a citation on such legislation I’ve sort of hit a wall.
Any ideas K.C.?
This is not a good argument because not only is it unreasonable to simply claim that without the restrictions on drilling in the United States an oil rig like Deepwater Horizon would not have been built, furthermore the claim that was environmentalist concerns alone that crippled President Obama’s reaction to the disaster is purely speculative.
That does not mean that it was their fault or that it was even a primary cause of the disaster. Until the disaster is investigated, the only prudent thing to criticize the government for is its sluggish reaction to it.
This simply glazes over all of the risks of potential disaster involved with drilling for oil in the sea. Surely the objections to drilling on land are more often than not ridiculous, but this disaster has shown that the potential externalities may justly warrant not drilling for oil offshore.
yaaaaaaAAAAAARGH I HATE LEFTISTS SO MUCH I FOUND THIS
The 75 million limited liability is contained in section §1004 of the Oil Polution Act of 1990.
**
Congress and the Senate are trying to amend and extend this liability to 1 billion + cleanup in H.R. 5214 and S.3305
For offshore drilling, if you are within 3 miles of the coast you can be taxed through the teeth by whatever state. United States Code Title 43, Chapter 29, Subchapter 3, 1337 (2)
Yes this is one sentence.
So we can say that if there were fewer taxes, there would be more closer to shore drilling.
And for people who bitch that there’s not enough regulation in place, take a look at this. United States Code Title 43, Chapter 29, Subchapter 3, 1347
So that is way too much research. Tell the god damn idiots you’re debating to shove it out their @$$ for blowing hot air at you asking you for citations of laws and such. Really let them have it. Please. Its so unfair that this kind of burden of proof is shouldered by you. Me actually. But really, this is too much. Shut the hell up leftists.
“Obama’s move allows drilling from Delaware to central Florida, plus the northern waters of Alaska, and exploration could begin 50 miles off the coast of Virginia by 2012…”
where i was from in nc , during the late 80s mobil oil did exploration looking for oil and gas and if i remember correctly determined there was enough resources for a profit even after some states got there share of revenues.
i jus tlike cheap gas at teh pump and if i owned mobil stock the drilling oof of the east coasst may have given them a boost.
an article i remember reading an article that said that this exploration took place between 18 to 35 miles offshore. but i dont know if the articel was correct or not.
i dont know if i can even see 18 miles from shore.??
this article http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=4471 says
“Exploration costs currently run under $3 per barrel in much of the Mideast, and below $7 for oil hidden deep under the ocean.”
i dont know if offshore drillig at this point makes much of a difference at teh pump or not if the above info is true. considering oil use in teh economy having varied sources is as much of a security issue as a cost issue…hurricanes in the gulf…instability in the mideast…icebergs near alaska, etc.
That’s awesome man, thanks heaps. And cheers to everyone else posting in this thread too.
I should point out that the media is flat out lieing on the 75 mil limited liability. The companies are forced to pay 75 mil PLUS cleanup costs… so they aren’t getting away scott free at all.
My interpretation of the new bill before congress and senate, Oil Bailout Prevention act of 2010 or whatever I linked to, is just a response to look like they’re doing something.
I believe BP just got their clean-up bill from the government today at over $1B.
The thing I think is sad here was there was a general concern from the people of Florida to avoid damage to their beaches by pushing for restrictions to off shore drilling. Whether or not companies would have done deep water drilling or not had the off-shore drilling been permitted remains to be seen (although I believe companies would have taken the most cost effective, least risky venture). I just think it’s interesting and sad about the unintended consequences of government intervention (both from the Federal government and the states) in this particular incident.
The current “fix”, cut and cap, may or may not work out. Most experts are saying it won’t. The real solution requires digging a relief well. We could be several months away from that happening, some predicting the leak continuing as long as Christmas. In general, deep water drilling is much more risky than the off-shore variety - and it would seem the consquences of impact are much greater as well. Oil will probably reach the Atlantic and follow the gulf stream as far north as North Carolina. The full environmental and economic impact may be incalculable.
I agree that I’m somewhat speculating on how much influence the environmentalist lobby has on the administration’s decisions (more likely hearsay on my part). This isn’t exactly the most transparent administration as was promised during the 2008 presidential campaign. But it has been reported that the request was made from BP to the WH to follow the plan devised for this type of disaster, and the request wasn’t approved. I’ve heard, while down in Mobile, that the reason they did not burn the oil in the early stages of the disaster was there was more concern over the oil and dispersant chemicals polluting the air. They are well beyond the point of using this technique as an option to reduce the amount of oil in the water, now on it’s way to the beaches of the southeastern US.
Oh, and you can most definitely see the oil rigs off the coast of Alabama and Mississippi. Not sure if they’re 18 miles out. At night you can see pretty far out.