Assuming the federal government didn't maximize its response to the spill...

[Hosnon]

...could it have been to avoid any issue of responsibility for damages?

At dinner last night, a very "like-minded" friend of my mom's suggested it as a reason for a lackluster federal response to the spill. Had Obama nationalized the response (e.g., taken over BP's equipment), the issue of liability would have become much more complex. BP and the right would have been able to make the argument that it was the feds who screwed up the clean-up effort, and had it been left to BP (i.e., the private sector), everything would have been unicorns and rainbows.

It's a plausible explanation and one that I hadn't considered (or seen here on DU). And I wouldn't put it up there with "Chess master" moves, etc. I'm sure his legal advisers brought this up immediately.

What do y'all think?

[Cant trust em]

1. It is my understanding that laws passed after Exxon Valdez put the onus on the oil company

If Obama had chosen to nationalize the response and push BP out of the way, would that also eliminate BP as being financially responsible for the clean up? Seems like this would eliminate BP’s legal responsibility for anything and we’d wind up getting stuck with the bill. That would probably be BP’s greatest dream.

[Hosnon]

4. That was the crux of her point. nt.

[Cant trust em]

5. Seems like there are 2 factors here.

1. Political fallout and the blame game
2. Who is the responsible party to pay for it.

[Hosnon]

6. I see them as directly linked. Were the political climate more favorable to BP,

due to a government-led response that had the exact same problems BP is having, Obama might not have been able to get the $20 billion.

In other words, the Administration might have actively chosen to make sure that BP is both legally and politically responsible for every aspect of the problem (the former ensuring full restitution; the latter, immediate reinstitution).

[Cant trust em]

7. That's a good point. nt

[NoNothing]

2. I don't buy that

First of all, what is more important? Making a good lawsuit case or PREVENTING THE DAMAGE? If the government really thinks the former is more important than the latter, that suggests a dangerously screwed-up set of priorities.

Second of all, it probably wouldn't even matter. Whether the clean-up would have been more or less expensive if BP did it itself is irrelevant to the question: did BP cause the problem?

To put it in another context, if your negligence caused someone to be injured, you can't claim you aren't liable because they didn't come to you for medical treatment.

[Hosnon]

3. Your first point assumes that the government could have prevented a significant amount of damage.

The calculation very well could have been: "The chances that a government-led effort will be better are very low. Assuming complete responsibility for the clean-up increases the likelihood that BP will be able to effectively argue that it shouldn't be responsible for all damages."

And your legal analogy doesn't work, primarily because the law recognizes that choosing to help can create a duty to provide a certain level of expertise (e.g., we don't want someone who doesn't know CPR to attempt it and make the problem worse).

[Mimosa]

8. I think your mom's friend is smart.

Also BP was very willing to turn over escrow funds to the Feds in order to avoid the responsibility.