• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Addressing BP’s Willingness to Pay for the Oil Spill

    It will be a long time before we know how much the oil spill is going to cost in terms of total economic damages, but it is certain to be higher than the $75 million liability cap set by the 1990 Oil Pollution Act and could even be higher than the additional $1 billion provided through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. BP has said it will pay all legitimate claims beyond the $75 million limit yet politicians are understandably skeptical, and so want their promise put in writing..

    Some Members of Congress have proposed to raise the liability cap arbitrarily to $10 billion or remove it altogether, which raised concerns that smaller, independent oil companies would be unable to get insurance. Whether to raise the cap and by how much, and all the related particulars, is a matter needing careful thought. The issue at the moment is BP and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill specifically.

    To deal with the immediate issue, Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced legislation that would codify BP’s commitment to pay all legitimate costs. By essentially creating a contract with BP, the Vitter-Murkowski bill gets around complicated legal issues of retroactivity and breaching existing lease contracts. It would also expedite the claims process and protect against fraudulent.

    BP is said that it would pay all legitimate claims and the Vitter-Murkowski amendment would codify that commitment. Nonetheless, some members of Congress are suggesting that an additional tax is needed to pay for the spill costs. Just last week Members of Congress suggested a one-cent increase per-barrel of oil produced – from eight cents to nine –to increase the amount of funds available in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and ostensibly make more money available for clean up. Now they’re talking about quadrupling it. The AP says:

    “Responding to the massive BP oil spill, Congress is getting ready to quadruple — to 32 cents a barrel — a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade. The tax is levied on oil produced in the U.S. or imported from foreign countries. The revenue goes to a fund managed by the Coast Guard to help pay to clean up spills in waterways, such as the Gulf of Mexico.”

    Why is Congress set on increasing the oil tax to help finance the cleanup? BP, the responsible party, is already on the hook for all the direct cleanup costs, and with its new commitment as codified by Vitter-Murkowsky BP is on the hook for all legitimate indirect costs. While addressing the future of the oil spill trust fund and liability caps will be a critical policy debate going forward, these matters should not be settled in a rush. Instead, policymakers should focus on stopping the spill, cleaning it up, and ensuring that the responsible parties pay. The Murkowski-Vitter proposal does exactly that.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Addressing BP’s Willingness to Pay for the Oil Spill

    1. sunforester, wine co says:

      BP doesn't owe the U.S. a dime for any damage caused by the Deepwater spill. Last night on Fox News, Newt Gingrich revealed that President Obama obstructed (and is still obstructing) the best way that the spill could have been mitigated from Day 1. All Obama had to do was give the green light to the EPA to give permission for BP's 50 large oil tankers (ready and waiting nearby) to arrive at the site and pump into its tanks all of the oil and seawater coming up from the leak. As done elsewhere in the world for such spills, the tankers would have separated the oil from the seawater, put the clean seawater back into the ocean, and kept doing so with tanker after tanker until the well could be sealed. But Obama didn't allow his agencies to grant BP's tankers access to Federal waters, so now we have a completely manufactured crisis that already has been devastating to Gulf Coast businesses and families, not to mention the intended chill put on offshore drilling that otherwise would have increased the economic security of our country. This is a low, mean way to promote cap and trade legislation, and Obama should be held to account fully for his misdeeds. BP performed honorably in a situation in which they were hamstrung, and should not be held liable for any damage that Obama caused from his deliberate promotion of harm to our country.

    2. Scott Merkel ,Nashvi says:

      Is this oil rig on U.S. soil ?. If not, then why should our tax

      dollars pay for any clean up? .

    3. Pingback: » Financial News Update – 05/27/10 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×