"Spill. Baby. Spill"

[tvashtarkatena]

Military Commissions act of 2006.

 

And of the three cases that have been brought with this legislation one plead out and two were dismissed. Ex Post Facto is generally regarded as unconstitutional, but you knew that, right? I'd love to hear about the telecom legislation you mentioned, I'm unfamiliar with it but I'd bet its more of the same.

 

I think the use of Ex Post Facto legislation against the BP will only result in an expensive legal battle assuming the proposed bill passes. In the end I think the legislation is just going to make a bad situation worse.

 

 

Ex Post Facto imposition of penalties for crimes comitted (e.g., fines and imprisonment) is clearly prohibited by the Consitution, but this limitation does not apply to civil penalties (i.e., compensatory and punitive damages). However, legislated limitations to damages, which are a civil matter, are subject to change Ex Post Facto. Therefore, to whatever extent the BP offenses of topical concern are a civil matter, rather than being a violation of criminal code, the legislated cap on penalties for those offenses can be changed by the legislature now or later. Moreover, to whatever extent that damages can be shown to be a result of fraud on the part of BP, all bets are off for contractual obligations that would spare BP from related damages; that is, contractual protections that BP might otherwise enjoy are null and void to the extent that BP fraudulently claimed compliance with said contract(s). In this case, BP explicitly -- and fraudulently -- claimed a full preparedness to prevent the damage now underway.

True dat. If their pants are on fire, they're gonna pay dearly to have that shit put out.

[Choada_Boy]

Why has this not been designated a National Emergency? You'd think the Navy would have the technology to deal with the well head a bit better than BP's toy submarines. My thinking is that the technology exists to recover nukes from a sunken boomer, if required. Adaptable?

[kevbone]

Why has this not been designated a National Emergency?

 

 

Or why is it that there are people in jail for having a pound of pot (or choose your drug) in there house. And the owners of the oil company who are responsible for killing 11 people on there oil rig might get a fine, and that is all. The system is really messed up.

 

[j_b]

Conflict of Interest Worries Raised in Spill Tests

By IAN URBINA

 

Local environmental officials throughout the Gulf Coast are feverishly collecting water, sediment and marine animal tissue samples that will be used in the coming months to help track pollution levels resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but there is just too much overlap between these people,” Mr. Kirschenfeld said.

 

Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, since those readings will be used by the federal government and courts to establish liability claims against BP. But the laboratory that officials have chosen to process virtually all of the samples is part of an oil and gas services company in Texas that counts oil firms, including BP, among its biggest clients.

 

Some people are questioning the independence of the Texas lab. Taylor Kirschenfeld, an environmental official for Escambia County, Fla., rebuffed instructions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to send water samples to the lab, which is based at TDI-Brooks International in College Station, Tex. He opted instead to get a waiver so he could send his county’s samples to a local laboratory that is licensed to do the same tests.

 

Mr. Kirschenfeld said he was also troubled by another rule. Local animal rescue workers have volunteered to help treat birds affected by the slick and to collect data that would also be used to help calculate penalties for the spill. But federal officials have told the volunteers that the work must be done by a company hired by BP.

 

“Everywhere you look, if you look, you start seeing these conflicts of interest in how this disaster is getting handled,” Mr. Kirschenfeld said. “I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but there is just too much overlap between these people.”

 

The deadly explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig last month has drawn attention to the ties between regulators and the oil and gas industry. Last week, President Obama said he intended to end their “cozy relationship,” partly by separating the safety function of regulators from their role in permitting drilling and collecting royalties. “That way, there’s no conflict of interest, real or perceived,” he said.

 

Critics say a “revolving door” between industry and government is another area of concern. As one example, they point to the deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management at the Interior Department, Sylvia V. Baca, who helps oversee the Minerals Management Service, which regulates offshore drilling

 

She came to that post after eight years at BP, in a variety of senior positions, ranging from a focus on environmental initiatives to developing health, safety and emergency response programs. She also served in the Interior Department in the Clinton administration.

 

Under Interior Department conflict-of-interest rules, she is prohibited from playing any role in decisions involving BP, including the response to the crisis in the gulf. But her position gives her some responsibility for overseeing oil and gas, mining and renewable energy operations on public and Indian lands.

 

Officials in part of what will remain of the Minerals Management Service, after a major reorganization spurred by the events in the gulf, will continue to report to her.

 

“When you see more examples of this revolving door between industry and these regulatory agencies, the problem is that it raises questions as to whose interests are being served,” said Mandy Smithberger, an investigator with the nonprofit watchdog group Project on Government Oversight.

 

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/earth/21conflict.html

[olyclimber]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011918090_apusrandpaul.html

 

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHHAAHAAAAAAAAAFUCKENA!

[prole]

BLAME GAME!!!!

 

[prole]

That's thinking outside the box!

[tvashtarkatena]

YOu gotta love guys that drop the 'y' from 'Randy' for enhanced gravitas.

 

Can anyone explain to me what un-American actually means?

[prole]

Apparently, "Ayn" sounded too girly for Ron. What a douche.

[olyclimber]

Ayn Ron Rand Paul!

[prole]

Sometimes accidents should "just happen".

[prole]

Like forcibly drowning these fucks in a bathtub of oil...

[j_b]

As if we needed more evidence that teatards are mostly corporate tools.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

As if we needed more evidence that teatards are mostly corporate tools.

 

AND REGRESSIVE OIL COMPANY SHILLS!

[j_b]

you are finally catching on. It's about time.

[prole]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2o6t-0fU10&feature=related

[olyclimber]

Brahs this all could have been avoided with the Henry Ford Peace Love Car! Hemp for President!

 

http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml

 

get the Facts:

 

http://www.illuminati-news.com/marijuana-conspiracy.htm

 

[prole]

I am simply stunned that I'm not hearing more about this from certain quarters...

 

Oil companies have a rich history of U.S. subsidies

Some say the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe can be linked to Congress' policy of oil-friendly tax breaks and financial benefits.

 

By Kim Geiger and Tom Hamburger, Tribune Washington Bureau

 

May 25, 2010

 

It was close to 2 a.m. when Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and others on a House-Senate conference committee saw just how much clout the oil industry had when it came to winning special tax breaks and other financial benefits from Congress.

 

At issue was the 2005 Energy Policy Act — the largest energy bill in years. The committee chairman, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), a friend of the industry, had saved some big issues for the end: billions of dollars in tax and royalty relief to encourage drilling for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and other offshore areas. There was even a $50-million annual earmark to support technical research for the industry.

 

At the time, drilling was already proceeding at a brisk pace, and industry profits were setting records. "With all the money they are making," Markey said to his top energy aide, who recalled the scene, "why does the government need to subsidize their work and their research?"

 

That point of view did not prevail. The bleary-eyed lawmakers wanted no part of Markey's amendments. The bill was eventually passed in both houses with bipartisan support. Notably, then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois voted in favor.

 

Today, Markey and other critics complain that these policies have cost the U.S. Treasury tens of billions in lost revenue, and led to a reckless search for oil in fragile environments like the deep floor of the Gulf of Mexico. He and others say the unfolding catastrophe at the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded April 20 in a disaster that killed 11, can be directly linked to oil-friendly legislation over the last two decades.

 

On Monday, three senators introduced a bill to reduce tax breaks and royalty waivers they deemed a giveaway to big oil companies.

 

Industry officials contend that the incentives have resulted in gains in domestic production, additional fees paid to the Treasury, and many jobs created in gulf state oil communities. And they say there is no connection between the industry incentives and the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig.

 

But there is little disagreement that the industry received significant federal support for such deep-water drilling. Since the government began aggressively issuing offshore drilling permits under President Reagan, the industry has received tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies, including exemptions from royalty payments — the fees due when a company extracts resources from U.S. government property.

 

The royalty waiver program was established by Congress in 1995, when oil was selling for about $18 a barrel and drilling in deep water was seen as unprofitable without a subsidy. Today, oil sells for about $70 a barrel, but the subsidy continues.

 

The Government Accountability Office estimates that the deep-water waiver program could cost the Treasury $55 billion or more in lost revenue over the life of the leases, depending on the price of oil and gas and the performances of the wells.

 

Congress had originally intended to provide royalty relief only when oil prices were especially low. But an Interior Department error in the drafting of contracts in the 1990s led the industry to argue against pegging the relief to oil prices.

 

Oil companies won a lawsuit last year requiring the government to pay back $2.1 billion in royalties from previous years, including about $240 million to BP.

 

An increasing number of analysts say the waiver program has pushed drilling into fragile and remote areas where emergency response plans were inadequate.

 

"If it wasn't profitable for them to do it, then that's a good argument for leaving the oil in the ground," said Robert Gramling, who studies the history of the oil industry at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette. The government-subsidized rush to deep-water exploration led to a situation where the industry was doing "things that were technically possible but were beyond our ability to undo them if we find out we have a problem."

 

At the industry-funded American Petroleum Institute, policy advisor Allison Nyholm disputes Gramling's conclusions and points out that the incentives yielded an enormous jump in energy resources. In addition, she said, the expansion of drilling in the gulf created tens of thousands of jobs.

 

But through the years, critics have argued that the incentives are no longer necessary.

 

"No reputable economist believes that increasing the amount of [offshore] drilling we do will have any real impact on energy prices," said Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, in a hearing last year as he called for the end of some of the royalty waiver programs and for a more cautious approach to drilling.

 

In addition, several analysts say, billions more have been lost to the Treasury through another form of subsidy — favorable packaging of federal leases sold by the Interior Department.

 

Bill Freudenburg, a professor of environmental studies at UC Santa Barbara who has worked with Gramling studying the economics of offshore drilling, contended that such packaging had in effect given away drilling rights. He noted that in the early 1980s, the Interior Department began selling drilling leases at an average rate of $263 per acre compared with $2,224 per acre in the previous decades.

 

A 2008 General Accounting Office report found that out of 104 jurisdictions throughout the world, only 11 received a smaller portion of oil revenue than the U.S. government.

 

"We were just stunned by how badly the American taxpayer has been getting screwed," Freudenburg said.

 

"I don't know of too many places where it is harder and more expensive to get oil out of the ground than the North Sea off of Norway. And Norway somehow manages to get a 75% take [of oil revenue], basically double of what we get."

 

Mark Salt, a BP spokesman, said, "We are active in a whole range of countries and a whole range of licensing regimes, including Norway. Royalty relief is a widely used system and it's a matter for governments to determine their efficacy."

 

At the American Petroleum Institute, Nyholm said it was a mistake to look only at the lease price or the royalty rate.

 

"The government's take includes royalty rates, lease sale bids, bonus bids that are paid at the time of the lease. It includes rents and taxes. … Different countries structure their programs differently. We have a very, I would say, complicated structure." But, she adds, it has yielded strong results, such as new exploration and job creation.

 

The industry also argues that comparing the price per acre on drilling leases unfairly pits an era of easy discovery against one in which production is far more problematic.

 

The bill introduced in the Senate on Monday would charge an excise tax — worth $5.3 billion over 10 years — on oil produced under certain leases. It would also close other tax breaks to industry, including some items that President Obama had suggested ending.

 

A different approach in the House, which would require companies that seek new leases to renegotiate existing royalty waivers or pay a fee, has cleared that body on multiple occasions but never won approval in the Senate.

 

Industry lobbyists have rallied effectively during previous efforts to rein in the oil exploration and subsidy programs. All told, the oil and gas industry spent $174.7 million and registered 788 lobbyists to influence lawmakers and regulators last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research organization. Since 1998, the industry has spent $966.8 million on lobbying, making it the sixth-biggest-spending interest group in Washington, the center found.

 

"Previous attempts to close these loopholes were dead on arrival because of the industry's clout," said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who co-sponsored the bill with Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). "Maybe that won't be the case this time."

[Crux]

Gulf oil spill: BP says 'top kill' plug going to plan

[olyclimber]

Another crisis NOT gone to waste. BP's campaign donation is rewarded, and once, again, the Democrat Party protects high profits for Big Oil by limiting supply.

 

BP has been in charge from the moment they gave the order, over the protest of Transocean, which caused the explosion, and eleven deaths in the first place.

 

Deepwater Horizon was an inside job.

[G-spotter]

Top Kill never works. Leon Czolgosz tried it out 1901.

[Peter_Puget]

NYT Linky -

 

The vast amount of oil that Iraqi occupation forces in Kuwait dumped into the Persian Gulf during the 1991 war did little long-term damage, international researchers say.

As Iraqi troops retreated from Kuwait, they opened the valves of oil wells and pipelines, pouring up to 8 million barrels into the gulf. But researchers found little lasting damage.

 

Help me Mr Math! How long will the current spill need to flow to create that kind of damage......?

[rob]

Oh you're right. It's not a big deal at all. [rolleyes]

[G-spotter]

NYT Linky -

 

The vast amount of oil that Iraqi occupation forces in Kuwait dumped into the Persian Gulf during the 1991 war did little long-term damage, international researchers say.

As Iraqi troops retreated from Kuwait, they opened the valves of oil wells and pipelines, pouring up to 8 million barrels into the gulf. But researchers found little lasting damage.

 

Help me Mr Math! How long will the current spill need to flow to create that kind of damage......?

 

25,000 barrels day X 40 days = 1 million barrels.

So 8 times as long to get the same volume.

 

But you said "create the same damage". In dollar terms, Iraqi marshes are cheap and US marshes are expensive. So the 1 million barrels already spilled have likely surpassed the 8 million barrels in Iraq in terms of financial cost of damage caused

[prole]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCEvDKOuhic