As a the type of conservative who would like to be less at the mercy of big anything (business/government/religion) it has reconfirmed my belief that both Big Business and Big Government are a bunch of screw ups who care too little about resolving problems.
BTW, we really shouldn’t be calling this a “spill”. It’s a leak, or a gusher. Maybe “oil spill” makes better press than “oil leak”, but this isn’t a spill.
The $75 million cap is for damages under 33 U.S.C. 2702(b). Damages include damages to: natural resources, subsistence use of same, loss profits, loss of state revenues, etc… Interestingly, punitive damages don’t seem to be covered by the cap, by the plain language of the statute, unless federal punitive damages are covered in another area of the USC.
Also interesting is that the cap doesn’t apply if:
Removal costs, for an offshore facility, per 33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(3), are not included within the cap.
So, if the factfinder finds that the responsible party was grossly negligent, no cap on actual damages. What is the standard for a finding of gross negligence in Federal Court?
As a small-L libertarian, I find the concept of damage caps anathema. If you screw up, you should pay, period, subject of course to all of the tort defenses that may apply. If you can’t afford the costs, then you get insurance or you don’t do it. You don’t run to Congress and lobby for an exception
One thing that the Government had the exclusive power to use on the spill is a small nuclear device to seal the wellhead. I recall recently reading that the Soviets used nuclear devices similarly in the 1970s. No idea if it’d work or not, or whether it would merely lead to widespread surface fracturing throughout the region. Absent that, I don’t think the Gov’t has anything superior to what BP is using.
The big problem is that the damn BOP for whatever reason, just didn’t work. Why the BOP didn’t work, is an interesting question, and makes you wonder whether all of the other subsurface BOPs in deepwater will work too when required.
I’ll look at it tonight when I get back to my hotel room. Thanks for the cite.
It means what I said. I’m unsure what you’d want me to cite, however, since I’m commenting on how I’m perceiving your position.
Makes perfect sense to me. I’m unsure why it’s not making sense to you, to be honest. To use an extreme example, if I tell you to build a bridge to the moon using cheese, what will your answer be? If I order you to build it, what will the result be? Because I ordered it, does that mean it will be accomplished? If not, then that pretty much demonstrates the aphorism, as you say…I can’t simply order success and have a realistic expectation that because I ordered it, it will be accomplished. As I said multiple times in the other post, you need to demonstrate that what BP has attempted has been a failure of BP, and that someone else could have reasonably expected to succeed. If you say BP failed, but you can’t demonstrate that anyone else, in the same circumstances wouldn’t have gone through the same process, then you aren’t demonstrating that BP fucked up…merely that the failures were part of the process anyone would have gone through seeking a solution to the problem.
No, you have that backwards. I’m making no such assertions…I’m (again) asking you to backup YOUR assertions that BP is screwing up, or that someone else could be doing better. I never said ‘nothing else can be done’. My take is that what they have tried so far is a natural progression of steps. That they have failed is due to that reality stuff…i.e. you can’t dictate success, merely try different things to attempt to solve a very complex and difficult problem. If you have evidence contrary to that (assuming it wasn’t in the link you provided) then I’m asking you to provide it. Simple, no? 
RL=Real Life.
-XT
See my previous post. The damage cap basically is gov’t mandated insurance.
I’ll quibble with your definition of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund as gov’t mandated insurance. True, it’s a pool of money set aside for compensating those damaged by an oil spill, just as an insurance company has a pool of money for the same purpose.
A significant difference is that insurance companies are run for profit, while the OSLTF is not. Since the insurance company’s own money is at stake, the insurance company can and does regulate the actions of the insured to minimize risk and maximize the insurer’s potential profits. Absent the cap, with multi-billion dollars of consequential damages liability at stake, SwissRe, for example, is going to make damn sure that the subsea BOP works everytime at 1 mile down, or they won’t sign off on a policy. The OSLTF is not motivated to the same degree, in fact can’t regulate the “insured” at all. Regulation is MMS’s job. And MMS won’t lose billions of dollars, or probably even their jobs, if they don’t properly assess the risk of a BOP not working.
Also, absent the 1990 liability cap, private insurance premiums (being based on risk assessment, gigantic liability exposure, and the need to make a profit) might be much higher than the OSLTF tax. This would be the market sending a signal to the oil companies of what this particular offshore drilling actually cost. You don’t get as effective a signal with a fixed tax.
Well, you have a misperception about what I’ve said. You seem to agree that your phrase is an aphorism. So, I’ll leave it at that. I’ve never said that any of things I proposed would guarantee success. Or even that ordering them will be attempted. They are suggestions for possible courses of action. You haven’t illustrated any reason why they wouldn’t work. I think we already agree that the government didn’t start with the necessary resources to do anything about this, and that it would help to get the necessary resources, IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE. I shouted that, because thats what I said from the beginning. Its not ‘dictating success’ to say that making use of available resources would help. My other suggestions were geared towards incentives to get BP to do their best. Are you a communist? Do you think incentives don’t ever work? I think we could agree on lots of reasons why incentives may or may not work. I’ve stated some of my own misgivings, you’ve only responded with an aphorism (and I demonstrated that was patently false). I’m sure BP is doing their best to solve their problem, but BP’s problems are not the same set of problems they have created for others. Please inform me why BP would endeavor to solve the problems of others? Without external incentives, that would be a disservice to their stockholders.
Now you shift gears and say I have to prove BP failed. LOL. The oil is still erupting the ocean floor. Come on, try to present that as success. I’m still laughing at your challenge. I can’t prove anything else would lead to success, because nobody can prove anything that hasn’t happended will happen. But I don’t need a citation to say that everything else that could help must be investigated and implemented if there is a ‘preponderance of evidence’ to show is effectiveness. I don’t like ‘preponderance of evidence’, it means a little more evidence, so I’d prefer to go with something like ‘clear and convincing evidence’ insteads. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ would be idiotic in almost all contexts, because almost everything can be reasonably doubted.
I did not assert that BP is screwing up (and if I did, I was wrong, no time to recheck now. I have no proof of that for their actions following the spill). For reasons which need no citation, already mentioned, incentives help stop screw-ups. I’m not saying everybody screws up without an incentive either. But BP is a business, and they are only motivated to serve their own interests. I never asserted anyone could do a better job, but your argument has asserted that BP is doing the best possible job. You cite something to prove that. Simple, no? 
Honestly, I don’t think we have much of an argument on the logic, only where the facts actually point.
Is there some other form of life? Have you ever taken the Systems Analyst Test?
Sorry to hear you are staying in hotel. I used to travel so much I couldn’t keep track of where I actually lived (we moved once while I was away). Now I prefer to stay within driving distance of my own bed. On the other hand, there were a few really nice hotels.
Hi XT,
If you’re still watching this thread. I’ll get back to you soon. I’ve done most of my posting on other threads in 2 minutes gaps between other things, and did waste time getting in trouble on one thread, simply wasting time on another.
You seem to have some ammunition now since BP managed to achieve some success in the past couple of days. I’m looking for MMS report online that will give an account of the bribery of public officials I mentioned. For accuracy I’ll say I don’t know of anyone convicted of the crime of bribery, but in my book, its bribery never-the-less. We can argue that one too.
Hope you are home, or in a good hotel!
Ed