Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stay Informed on May 1, 2010 at 10:51

I agree with you. I am very upset about our sea life and how it will effect them. Once again us humans are being selfish saying what about gas prices going up us us us us. What about the animals and how they feel. We are just going to destroy the ocean one oil rig at a time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J.Shaler on May 2, 2010 at 6:09

I feel the same way. I also have another concern about fire. Is is possible that by error or on purpose the growing oil slick could be set on fire and be out of control and unstopable?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stay Informed on May 1, 2010 at 10:48

Herman it is not the same as a plane crash. An oil spill effects our enviornment in a lot of ways and our economy. Imagie all the people that will not have tourist dollars because of the oil washing up on the beach. The fisherman that will suffer. The resturants that will suffer. Plus all of our ocean friends that will die because of this. We need to get rid of offshore drilling and convert to running our cars off Natural Gas. Oil is the devil and things will never change until we decide to use a diffent solution

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 1, 2010 at 12:25

Tax on Oil May Help Pay for Gulf Spill Cleanup
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON — The federal government has a large rainy day fund on hand to help mitigate the expanding damage on the Gulf Coast, generated by a tax on oil for use in cases like the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Up to $1 billion of the $1.6 billion reserve could be used to compensate for losses from the accident, as much as half of it for what is sometimes a major category of costs: damage to natural resources like fisheries and other wildlife habitats.

Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government, although they are responsible for the cost of containing and cleaning up the spill.

The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import. The tax adds roughly one tenth of a percent to the price of oil. Another source of revenue is fines and civil penalties from companies that spill oil.

The result is a rainy-day fund, which over the years has been used mostly for spills that exceed the liability caps by relatively small amounts. But the trust fund managers have warned that a single big spill could make a sizable dent in the reserve.

The money is also used to prepare for spills, including anticipatory measures like stockpiling oil containment booms. And Congress can use money from the fund to reimburse the Coast Guard and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration for their spill-related expenses.

“The idea behind creating it was that we wouldn’t have to wait on money to clean up an oil spill,” said Michael C. LeVine, the Pacific senior counsel for Oceana, an environmental group.

A federal supervisor at the scene of a spill can authorize states to spend up to a quarter-million dollars on the spot. The president can authorize up to $50 million a year without Congressional approval.

When a rich and well-insured company like BP is responsible for the spill, the government will seek reimbursement of what it spends on cleanup from the company and its insurers. Experts say the fund is invaluable in spills involving smaller companies, which may not have money for cleanup, or in cases where the identity of the responsible party is not instantly clear.

But damages in oil spills can run to big money. “One billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it really might not be,” said Mr. LeVine, who is based in Juneau, Alaska.

Companies that lose business — fishermen who cannot fish, or hotel owners who cannot rent out rooms — can seek damages. So can governments that see tax revenues decline.

A count made by the Department of Homeland Security last August found that since 1991, there had been 51 instances in which liability exceeded caps. In most years it was a handful; in 1999 there were 11, because of a typhoon in American Samoa that wrecked eight fishing vessels that spilled oil. Numerically, cargo vessels and fishing vessels are the biggest culprits, but oil tankers and barges cause the most dollar damage.

The fund’s single largest expense so far came after a tanker in the Delaware River, the Athos I, spilled tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil in 2004.

Money can be sought by the states for expenses like restoration of a damaged wetland or compensation for loss of use of a resource.

Payments are limited by the amount actually on hand in the fund; if this spill depletes the trust fund, it might take time to replenish it for future use. The balance was projected to rise to about $1.9 billion from the current $1.6 billion — but that was before the spill.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stay Informed on May 1, 2010 at 13:14

Wow that is interesting thanks for sharing that

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by drilltheshale on May 4, 2010 at 10:16

Senator Menendez is introducing a bill to raise the $75 million cap, retroactively. There is clear precedent for retroactive civil liability (think Superfund). If this passes, BP and Transocean will be paying a lot more than $75 million.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by H1 on May 1, 2010 at 14:41

Unfortunately, you missed my point. It really is that simple.

And yes, it should be under the Political Forum. Maybe an administrator can move it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stay Informed on May 2, 2010 at 4:04

No I think you missed my point. This is something that is a little more difficult to just shrug your shoulders and say oh well lets move on. This is a huge mess and effects us all. Our economy, our food, our wildlife. It does upset me when people seem to not care about those things. To me the most important thing is the animals it upsets me to have to see them suffer because of us humans. I don't want to see them suffer or even the fisherman who rely on the ocean to provide. Or even citys who rely on tourist dollars. What now? Plus I really love oysters, Shrimp, Crab, Lobster, fish. Even beach towns like Charleston, Sc get their Oysters from Louisana. They don't get them from Charleston it effects EVERYONE! Not just Lousiana. Also I don't want to see New Orleans suffer again from something like this. They will because of the tourist dollars will slowly die down. I love Acme Oyster house I hope you guys make it threw this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by H1 on May 2, 2010 at 7:36

Once again you missed my point. I in no way shrugged my shoulders and said oh well. You don't throw the baby away with the bathwater.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stay Informed on May 2, 2010 at 7:50

I have never heard you don't throw the baby away with the bathwater before. I love that! Okay I am sorry I guess I am not understanding your point very well. Can you please explain it to me so I might have better understanding. Thank you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by drilltheshale on May 4, 2010 at 10:20

SI, it's even bigger than that. The Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary serves as a kind of marine nursery to a large part of the Gulf. Fish caught from Mississippi to Alabama to the Florida coast are hatched there. It could (could) be an incredible loss. Big thanks to all those working very hard to contain this potential disaster.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stay Informed on May 4, 2010 at 12:39

Wow that is really upsetting. I feel very sad that we made this happen. I want more responsibility from human beings even myself.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page