it seems very simple to me. bp is the responsible party, and should be held accountable for the whole thing. there are no caps. if they need to get money from third parties like halliburton. fine, go ahead.

who must NOT pay for this is us. there are no caps on how much harm they can do, so there can be no caps on how much they pay for what they break.

Meanwhile, BP's profit for 4Q 2009 was $3.5B, and 1Q 20120 was $5.6B (after tax).

http://www.bp.com/extendedgenericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061409

This is going to be fun to listen to for the next several
years. (If we are still alive)

I have to admit that this particular subplot to the oil geyser fiasco leaves me scratching my head.

The oil corporations hired the best Elected Misrepresentatives that money could by to pass a "statutory cap" in the first place.

I'm sure that there are obscure (to me, at least) technical fiduciary ramifications to this arbitrary legalism-- it probably favorably affects their stock or bottom line or somesuch. I mean, why cap liability in the first place if not to protect corporations from the disastrous consequences of their own actions?

The ONLY obvious, common-sense purpose of such a cap is to limit the corporations' liability in the event that they in fact CAUSE over $75 million in damages. It seems like another example of legislators' charitable concern for the health and security of corporations-- still another "too big to fail" protection to prevent a corporation from going bankrupt even when it deserves to.

But now that the oil corporations really NEED this outrageous concession, the Elected Misrepresentatives must PUBLICLY echo popular outrage and insist that the liable corporations renounce this duly-enacted safeguard.

Thus, this screwy affected righteousness, in which the politicians profess to be shocked, shocked that this outrageous loophole exists in the first place, and take the position that it would be WRONG of the corporations to actually invoke it.

When the corporations BOUGHT this concession, it was foreseeable that they expected to benefit from it someday, wasn't it? I can't imagine that the politicians legislated the cap with a tacit agreement that the buyers would never actually TAKE ADVANTAGE of the cap if circumstances demanded it.

I suppose that the actual solution for this predicament, if there is one, will give top priority to the ruling corporate/political bunch mutually "saving face" above all else; the presently dominant pseudo-pragmatic political calculus suggests it's the politically feasible thing to do.

If all of these professionals could plug the rupture as effectively as they cover each other's asses, the point would be moot.

The Obama administration is asking BP for a formal position on the $ 75 million "cap" because AG Holder has told him, if he did not already know, that the Supreme Court will rule 8-0 that any retroactive Congressional change of that cap to apply to BP is unconstitutional.
Recently Mr. Obama has blasted the companies involved in the disaster for "pointing the finger at the other company". In his public speech he did essentially the same. Mr. Salazar, his Interior Secretary, bears a major co-responsibility for the disaster which no amount of BP-blasting will wash away. The sentry was asleep for 1 1/2 years of the Obama administration and the boss recently told the oil industry that they would get even more unfettered coastal drilling areas. Yes, it is Mr. Obama's Katrina and he should be held accountable for his failure to change the way things are done in Washington: close eyes for pay.

Obama Administration: Would you consider paying the $75 million?
BP: F*** off.
Obama Administration: Yes sir, thank you, sir!

In the final analysis, this will probably work out like the Exxon Valdez disaster. The courts and the fed will level huge fines and judgments, which will be appealed endlessly. Exxon wound up paying a small tithe of its judgments. The stated intent was to delay it until most of the principals had died off. It worked.

Twenty or thirty years from now, it will still be working its way through the courts while people struggle to survive in the stinking morass that once was their Gulf of Mexico.

Nowadays, I imagine that when it works its way up to the Supremes, the case will be thrown out of court as, by then, it will be illegal to question or sue a corporation, retroactive to the beginning of recorded history, no doubt.

Katrina didn't effect Bush one bit. Served his term and left. People effect are living with the effects of mismanagement.

BP Spill will have no effect on Obama one bit. Will Serve his term and will leave. People effect will live with the effects of mismanagement.

And around it seems to go.

"Based on these statements, we understand that BP will not in any way seek to rely on the potential $75 million statutory cap to refuse to provide compensation to any individuals or others harmed by the oil spill, even if more than $75 million is required to provide full compensation to all claimants, and BP will not seek reimbursement from the American taxpayers, the United States Government, or the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for any amount," Napolitano and Salazar write.

So, our so-called representatives in The White House acknowledge that BP is entitled to the $75 million cap on liability for their criminal negligence out of one side of the face while laying the groundwork on why the federal government is powerless to hold these corporate criminals to account on the other. I believe this is commonly referred to as having your cake and eating it too.

The fix is in ladies and gentlemen--expect taxpayers to be ponying up the money to bailout another multinational corporation.

Does anyone really believe that the Obama administration will really hold BP totally responsible for the Gulf oil spill, without finding a way to put the taxpayers on the hook for a large amount of the cost for the cleanup, or possibly even using taxpayer dollars to pay off the people who have suffered from the oil spill? Does anyone think that the government is going to hold anybody responsible for the deaths of 29 miners in West Virginia?
Does the term TORT REFORM come to anybody's mind. This is exactly what corporate America, the Republicans, and corporate Democrats have been trying to acheive over the last thirty years. Complete and total Laissez-faire capitalisim, maximize the profits for corporate America while putting the risk of their criminal adventures on the American taxpayer. Whether it is oil extraction, mining, building automobiles, oil refineries, medical care or corporate retail. The idea has been to make it as easy as possible for corporations to skirt their resonsiblity and to prevent individual citizens to seek redress for harm done to them by large corporations. Whether it's BP's oil spill in the Gulf, Toyota's runaway cars, GM's exploding saddlebag fuel tanks or the dead workers at BP's Texas City refinery, the 11 dead workers on the Deepwater Horizon or 29 dead miners in a West Virginia coal mine. It has been the mission of American corporations, the last 5 Presidents of the United States and the Congress over the last thirty years to protect big business from law suits or criminal responsibility for the actions of corporations. This they call TORT REFORM. What it really is, is a criminal conspiracy to protect corporations from their legal responsibilities for their wrongdoing.
The American people need to realize that the law suit was the method that the Founding Fathers gave the American people for the redress of grievances against large corporations. Lately, this seems like another right that the American people are willing to hand to the government and big business without a fight. This will be just another thing that the American people will come to regret, for once you give up a right it is very hard to get it back!

The Oil Pollution Act (101 H.R.1465, P.L. 101-380 [1]) was passed by the United States Congress to mitigate and prevent civil liability for future oil spills off the coast of the United States; as the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to regulate navigable waters. It was written and passed into law after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

The bill was introduced to the House by Walter B Jones (Republican-North Carolina) along with 79 cosponsors. It enjoyed widespread support, passing the House 375-5 and the Senate by voice vote before conference, and unanimously in both chambers after conference.

Thank your lawmakers for this little bit of corporate welfare.

I have yet to hear obama take responsibility for anything that has happened since taking office. Not one thing. It is never his fault.

He who talks of the blame game. Of course, nothing is ever anyone's fault, either. That is part of his m.o. He isn't 'into' fault finding. He is so cool and calm.

He thinks this appears to be refreshing. He is so above the fray. I don't think the guy has a real opinion on anything. Nor does he care.

No more speeches! No more attempts to "capture" or divert the gusher to an awaiting tanker!
PLUG IT UP!!!!!

How long do you think this gusher would be pumping oil into the ocean if it was threatening Martha's Vineyard?

The danger of the damages cap is it tries to measure the infinite.
Infinite needs and corporate spite using less than a drop in bucket.
History did not change for all time, or cut short its prime.
When Obama sold out so long ago, to continue consumer crime.
Rather than face up to a changing dying natural world,
He promised to keep the American oil power fantasy devine.

Obama is smart to push them to commit them to discard the $75 million liability cap now, while the heat is on. We shall see what commitment BP actually give. Perhaps BP will make such a commitment and honour it, although what I actually expect is for them to say something which emotionally expresses their very strong commitment, but is carefully phrased so as to allow plenty of wiggle room later on.

Right now, if BP were to insist that $75m is the end of their liability, it would get them off the hook money wise, but would invoke a huge public anger and negative PR, that might not only lock them out of future contracts but also cause a protest at the service station.

Even if they do not use their liability cap, it does not mean that they will pay too much in the end. They will still be able to fight the compensation cases in court over a period of six or seven years, and get their compensation reduced by a factor of 10 when people have forgotten their outrage. This was the pattern for Exxon, for example. When the heat was on, they were to pay $5 billion. Half a decade later when things quietened down, they fought the suite tooth and nail, and only ended up paying $0.5 billion.

I wish such language as ""The public has a right to a clear understanding ... therefore, in the event that our understanding is inaccurate, we request immediate public clarification ..." would be used more often by the Obama regime. For example, it should have been used in relation to many facets of our ongoing wars.