Oops... Sorry about the oil rig thing

[vern]

In the news is the massive oil spill emanating from a rig in the Gulf of Mexico.  As a candidate for US Congress, this topic is sure to come up.  I am curious about opinions here concerning containment, liability, responsibility and reaction to this disaster.  It has implications, not just with the limited topic of off-shore drilling, but also the upcoming debate on nuclear power.

[Mik]

There should be full liability for any direct harm caused, damage to fisheries, tourism losses, illnesses, injury, and death etc. The losses in aesthetics or natural habitats will be harder to quantify. The Law of the Sea Treaty may have some implications, although the US has not ratified it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-ratification_of_the_UNCLOS

As far as the nuclear debate goes, I would say the pros and cons of one source of energy should be evaluated independently of any disasters or mishaps in another industry. Nuclear energy should be able to stand on its own merits, not just because it looks good in the face of a big oil spill.

[vern]

I'm just looking at preemptive responses to issues that ultimately lead to calls for "regulation".  I could go with liability, as long as the corporation in question didn't close its doors.  Liability to whom though?  Good points there.

The Price-Anderson act was big in 1980 and fueled the nuclear debate... along with 3-mile island.  From a libertarian standpoint, I'm concerned about the "threat" to rights that some enterprises may pose and how to respond as a libertarian candidate.

Here's a link about Exxon Valdez. Check out the litigation section.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_valdez

[Mik]

Liability to compensate those harmed for the damage caused, of course. As you can see from the Exxon Valdez, the company doesn't have to close its doors for that scenario to not work out well. Legal issues can cloud even the clearest of cases when lots of money goes to lawyers. A lot of good it does to settle legal claims in 20 years for fishermen put out of business now. The idea that if you are harmed by environmental pollution all you have to do is sue is not really so great of a public policy position. For a long time it was all the LP had to offer.

Regulation is no better. If you have the lawyers, you can use the regulations to your advantage a lot better than if you don't have the lawyers. The regulations give legal cover as often as they protect against aggression. Most of the money in Superfund, meant to address abandoned waste sites, went to lawyers, not environmental cleanup.

The rule of thumb is; the more laws, the less justice. The more simple, the more straightforward, the better the public policy will be. If you want the privilege to extract non-renewable resources, then you pay for the privilege. If you mix your labor with it to bring it to a place where it is not naturally occurring, it is your responsibility if it spills. If you want to dump byproducts that are not naturally occurring in the air, water, or earth that do not cause significant direct harm, then you should pay for that privilege.

I can, however, see limiting punitive damages to actions where criminal negligence is involved. By the way, The Pennsylvania League of Women Voters has reached their consensus on Marcellus shale drilling:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/05/league_of_women_voters_calls_f.html

The Price-Anderson Act will be good until 2025, so I don't know that it specifically would be an election issue this year. Having limited liability is what being a corporation is all about, and that is why they should be regulated differently than individuals who have rights.

The operators of offshore oil platforms are limited to $75 million in liability for damages, which can be paid from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, although cleanup costs are not indemnified. How clean is clean then becomes the question.

[vern]

The rule of thumb is; the more laws, the less justice. The more simple, the more straightforward, the better the public policy will be....

... Having limited liability is what being a corporation is all about, and that is why they should be regulated differently than individuals who have rights.

I'll be thinking of these ideas in the months ahead.  Thanks.

[mark.d.crowley]

Here’s a little something to know about Yucca Mountain (the repository for nuclear waste).   This article is short. 
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/05/nuclear-industry-suing-feds-stop-yucca-payments/

Since it was proposed the nuclear utilities (i.e. their customers) have been paying a surcharge to help pay for it for over 20 years.  Every lawsuit, political delay, etc. keeps accumulating the surcharge at about $750 million per year.  (My Toshiba/Westinghouse contacts tell me that long ago they quit assuming their customers will ever have the Yucca site for waste disposal, so on-site long-term disposal options are part of a standard set of plant options.)

Yucca Mountain was supposed to have its grand opening this year, but its nuclear waste disposal function has now been abandoned.  Yet the surcharge goes on.  Now the nuclear utilities are suing the federal government to stop this surcharge.  (For laughs, they should ask for all their money to be rebated.) 

We can debate if BP is really “sorry about the oil rig thing” till the cows come home, but one thing is sure -- government means never having to say you’re sorry.

[Mik]

Speaking of Yucca stuff, before they picked that site, Clarion County was on the list as a possible location for a long-term nuclear wast depository. This was because the natural environment was already so degraded by strip mining activity. The problem was it is not far upwind from places like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and of course, Washington DC.

I remember when they were talking about all kinds of options, flying the waste into the sun, burying it on the sea floor, they had some great ideas. Now it looks like it will just sit on a lot somewhere....

BP stock must be going through the floor about now. First they had the problems with the Alaska pipeline, now this.

[mark.d.crowley]

We might not live to see this happen, but it could be the case that all the spent nuclear waste could become really valuable if reprocessed into alternate nuclear fuel.  Our descendants might be glad that we didn’t shoot it into the sun or put it deep underground.   Garbage dumps and landfills could become hot mining property of the future.

[Mik]

Sure, we could think of throwing away garbage as investing in our children's future.

[Roy.Minet]

Nuclear is the best option available for base load power generation.  Nothing else is competitive costwise AND as clean.  There IS a viable solution to the spent nuclear fuel problem (other than storing it safely for thousands of years).  The spent fuel can be reprocessed.  This chain leads to further efficiencies and, eventually, to safe waste products.  France has been reprocessing for years and France is the only country doing reprocessing.  The problem cited with reprocessing and the reason that it is not widely done is that plutonium is produced and then reused as a part of this chain.  It takes very little plutonium to make a fission bomb and the fear is that terrorists might get their hands on enough plutonium to do serious damage.  This certainly is a matter for concern, but might be an easier problem to solve than the alternatives...

[Mik]

Don't India, Japan, Russia and the UK also do reprocessing of nuclear fuel? The ban on commercial reprocessing in the US was lifted in 1981. It is a highly subsidized process though, and the DOE partnered up to set up a facility in 1999, which was the Savannah River site formerly used to make plutonium for weapons. Construction was started on the reprocessing facility in 2007 and is expected to be completed in 2014. I think its primary purpose is to take weapon-grade plutonium and turn it into nuclear reactor fuel.

I don't think there would be any technical reason that the facility could not also process spent commercial nuclear fuel. There are still high-level waste products to deal with, but apparently 96% of the material is recyclable at least once. That might have an impact on the need for more oil, but I'm not sure how.

 

[Roy.Minet]

Nuclear for adequate clean power generation; then plug-in vehicles to reduce the use of oil.  Batter vehicles are very close to viability now -- only need a little more improvement in batteries to extend range and lower cost.

[scottpigeon]

Some of my friends on Facebook were posting things like, "if you support offshore drilling, you should be down there cleaning it up".  The way I see it, is I'd rather oil come from our own shores than to rely on countries around the world that don't particularly like us.  If anything, off shore drilling will become safer now due to this accident, and be more reliable in the future.  Ultimately, I want to see the alternative energy industry become huge, so that we can ween ourselves off of hostile/conflict oil completely.  I'm not sure if the local oil would ever be enough though, as lots of industries rely on oil besides transportation and energy, such as plastics.

[vern]

Nuclear for adequate clean power generation; then plug-in vehicles to reduce the use of oil.  Batter vehicles are very close to viability now -- only need a little more improvement in batteries to extend range and lower cost.

That's the angle I've been interested in for years.  What Scott's saying is true too.

My personal view (very unpopular.. so don't pass it on) is that oil is incredibly under-priced and highly subsidized.  Our transportation infrastructure is a subsidy to oil, a huge public post-war system that we depend upon for our our markets to operate.  The cost of oil recovery is, generally, the internal cost of extraction and distribution... no cost applied to depletion or pollution.  I don't know what to do about it, but that's how I'm seeing it.

It's difficult for "alternative energy" to take hold while the price of oil is "artificially" depressed.

As for offshore drilling being "safer" in the future, that's an interesting topic--- by what mechanism?  Regulation?  Will regulators (and legislators) be less "in the pocket" of big energy now?  Again, interested in other views on this.

[bdively]

I have not looked this up but heard that because of pressure from org. like the Sierra Club, off shore drilling had to be pushed way out to shore.  Way out to shore, where the ocean floor is a mile deep, tremendously increases the risks.   Makes sense to me.  If this leak was in water say 500 ft deep it seems it would be a lot easier to stop.