BP Would Be Barred From New U.S. Leases in House Bill

[Robbien]

Source: Bloomberg

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc would be barred from new U.S. offshore leases to drill for oil or natural gas because of past safety violations under an amendment approved by a House panel.

The House Natural Resources Committee adopted the amendment by voice vote today while considering legislation to toughen safety standards for offshore drilling after the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

“It’s a question of whether or not they get to exercise the privilege of being able to drill going forward,” said Representative George Miller, a California Democrat who sponsored the amendment. “One of the things you should bring to this game is a safety record. You have a company that had an egregious safety record, a fatal safety record.”

Companies with violations of federal or state safety standards more than five times the industry average going back seven years would be barred under the amendment. BP is the only company that would fail those standards, Miller said.



Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-14/bp-would-be-barred-from-new-u-s-leases-in-house-bill.html

---

I guess companies with violations of safety standards more than four times the industry average are good citizens and can drill.

As much as I dislike BP, this ruling is just stupid and highlights how much the congresscritters pander to BigOil. Violators of safety standards are considered just fine, unless their name is BP.

[Donnachaidh]

1. and that provision would be stripped out by Senate oil puppets

It sounds promising, but BP has far too many bought and paid for reps in both the house and senate.

[elleng]

5. or stripped out in the House itself, eh?

[Donnachaidh]

14. it's really a toss up as to *who* - but it will be done.

Faster than you can say *public option*. :shrug:

[JoeyT]

22. Faster than you can say

"ACORN wasn't guilty, but lets drive through a bill of attainder to strip them of funding anyway, because they only help poor people and minorities, and looking tough trumps them any day!"

[1monster]

20. Ah, but is BP going to be able to continue to keep up the payments on their

bought and paid for reps?

[JuniperLea]

2. How exactly is banning pandering?

The bar is too low, no doubt, but at least the bar is being set now. Clearly there was no bar at all before.

[Robbien]

4. Making a law that it is okay to violate industry safety standards

is not pandering?

The bar is set at industry standards. The fact that standards are not enforced is not a reason to institute a new law saying you can break the standard and be okay, but if you break the standard more than the other guys are breaking the standard then you are out.

[JuniperLea]

8. Again... it's new law where none existed...

Can't this be a start, something from which to build where nothing existed before?

[Robbien]

10. The Industry Standard is the law

And the Clean Air and Water Act is the law.

BP broke both the Industry Standard and the Clean Air and Water Act. Penalties under these acts, if enforced, should chase BP out of the country fast. But no one is talking about enforcing the penalties just making this new arbitrary law which says its okay to break Industry Standards and the Clean Air and Water Act.

[pinto]

3. If I remember correctly, the *vast majority* of oil related OSHA violations / fines were

cited / levied to BP. Although a limited piece of legislation in many ways, this is long overdue.

[dkf]

6. What is your solution? Cut them off at less violations or forget the idea period.

[Robbien]

7. Make the violation penalty more painful

They killed 15 people in Texas and paid a few million while making billions. Penalties should fit the crime.

But making a law saying that it is okay to break the law is not the solution.

[Psephos]

9. If BP goes bankrupt, then they won't make reparations and damages payments.

A case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face?

Successful parasites do not kill the host, because that also kills the parasite. (I'm talking biology here, not politics.)

[Robbien]

11. BP isn't going to make full reparations

Just like Exxon Valdez didn't make full reparations.

BP has already announced it will be closing its claims offices in a couple of weeks and everything turned over to the $20 billion fund. That $20 billion fund administrator has already said it won't pay any claims unless the victim signs away their rights to future reparations.

[Psephos]

12. The damage awards are going to be way over $20 billion.

This will be in the courts for many years to come, and many billions of $$ beyond that escrow payment. Unless BP is gone.

I would treat them like a draft horse. Yoke them in, drive them to pull the cart, keep driving them until the work is done. Horses can't work if they can't eat.

[Robbien]

13. That draft horse method is the treatment given to Exxon Valdez

for the first couple of years, then the favored son treatment that BigOil receives was given back to Exxon.

Exxon had its court multi-billion dollar penalty recently reduced to mere pennies. And it still hasn't paid.

[Donnachaidh]

16. How many people were awarded damages against Exxon, and then DIED before they collected?

????

[Donnachaidh]

15. you know what? If they go bankrupt then SEIZE assets, including those of the CEO

And everyone else in an upper management position in that company.

I'm sick to death with the Monty Pythonesque squalling of *they'll RUN AWAYYYYYY* that keeps allowing these ecological TERRORISTS to get away with murder end eco-cide.

We need to STOP worshiping at the altar of Corporations and start kicking asses and taking names. We go after drug dealers and take everything that isn't nailed down -- it's PAST time that we should be doing that to BP and the other corporate criminals.

[Psephos]

18. One-time assets seizure vs. ongoing revenue stream.

The assets pale in comparison to the revenue stream. Oil in the ground will not be awarded to claimants, but once monetized, can be directed to claimants. If BP dissolves, other companies who end up producing the leases will not be similarly obligated. If you set aside the emotion of it, the economic choice becomes more clear.

I'm interested in seeing the maximum payout to those damaged by BP's negligence.

[dipsydoodle]

21. Correct

Its the income stream which needs protecting.

[dipsydoodle]

17. Token gesture

I don't think BP would apply for any in the future. Aside from that by the time they're owned by Petrochina any applications would probably be disallowed anyway.

[Kingofalldems]

19. When will Scalia and Co. jump in

to nix this one?