Comments by loonpt

Previous | Page 2 of 405 | Next

Posted on May 22 at 1:38 p.m.

tabatha with two contradictory statements:

"they "built" it and they will pay the fines, and pay for the clean-up."

"Yesterday was anti-Chevron day for the messes they have created and not cleaned up."

There you have it, I am right again.

These companies are never held liable for all their damages even though they say they are and I would be willing to bet with some investigative work one could find that taxpayer funds are in part used for these clean-ups and the clean-ups don't actually clean everything up, local affected citizens and businesses get stiffed and don't receive just compensation. And you know what else? It's probably all legal, written right into the oil industry regulations. That is why regulations are worthless and we need to focus on making these companies truly accountable for their actions.

You see, businesses treat this like a math equation...

If the risk with the automatic safety shut off takes it down from a 1% chance of a spill in 10 years time to a .2% chance of a spill within 10 years time, and the predicted cost of a spill is $50 million without the shutoff valve and $10 million with the shut off valve - if the shut off valve costs $100k then a business can figure out what the most economic decision is.

.01 x $50 million = $500k risk cost to not institute automatic safety valve

.005 x $10 million = $50k risk cost if automatic safety valve is installed + $100k for the automatic safety valve = $150k

So if you compare the costs, $500k vs. $150k the rational business decision would be to install the automatic safety valves.

However, if the company has a liability cap or doesn't end up having to pay for the full clean-up, you can see how that result might change.

On Huge Oversight Gap on Refugio Pipeline

Posted on May 22 at 12:23 p.m.

Oh that is total garbage, nativeson.. gas prices will not be affected by a spill like this, there is plenty of oil coming in foreign and domestic that dictate the gas prices.

All Plains American can go out of business if it comes to that for all I care - they should pay for EVERYTHING and restore everything. They were the ones who decided not to buy the safety equipment for their pipe.

If All Plains American were to go out of business, they will sell their infrastructure to other oil companies who, odds are, have a much better safety record. That is exactly what is supposed to happen.

But hey, let's put this argument on a bigger scale and see how your theory works out. Let's say the spill was big enough and expensive enough and that this company going out of business had a significant enough impact on the market to raise gas prices by 10 or 20 cents for some time. If they are that big and that neglectful, that means they have been getting away with using equipment that is less safe and they have been able to put oil on the market all this time at a cheaper rate than it should have cost with the proper safety equipment. That means we would have been receiving a discount all this time on our gas, a discount that was inflated by the fact that they weren't spending money on that safety equipment. Had they spent the money on the safety equipment for all their infrastructure, then gas would have been slightly higher and we never would have experienced the spill.

The point is that yes, the consumer ultimately pays for oil that goes toward safety equipment that prevents spills or toward the damage from the oil spills, but they have to pay for ONE or the OTHER. The oil company is responsible and supposed to be smart enough to invest in enough safety equipment to prevent spills based on the risk of a spill and the cost of damages vs. the cost of the safety equipment. If the business does a poor job making these decisions, then they go out of business. That's how the free market helps regulate these things - but we don't have a free market, we have a regulated oil industry with regulated protections in place for that industry that causes them to make poor decisions in this area.

On Huge Oversight Gap on Refugio Pipeline

Posted on May 22 at 10:35 a.m.

sevendolphins, my argument is a bit more complicated than that. Jarvis' might not be, but mine is.

I am absolutely certain that oil industry regulations in this country protect the oil companies. I am certain that oil companies get away with polluting and when there are accidents they are some how able to evade total liability to clean up and restore all of the damage 100% and give complete restitution to all those they damaged.

There is an abalone farm just down the way from this oil spill. They collect ocean water and farm kelp for their operation. How will they be affected by this? Will they be compensated by Plains All American? Will Plains All American completely restore the affected areas and help re-establish wildlife in those affected areas? Are they compensating all of the federal clean-up agencies completely or is the taxpayer going to help foot the bill?

Were all of the fishermen in the gulf fairly compensated for their losses? Were all of the other damaged businesses fairly compensated? Is there still economic fallout from that spill that is being overlooked?

Let me explain to you why this is important - if oil companies are completely and totally responsible for all of the damages they cause, including loss of business and total restoration in the case of an accident - then they have to figure those costs against adding safety equipment so accidents don't happen. That is how business works, they consider the risk of investment versus the return. When the government gets in the way and creates pro-oil industry regulations that shield these companies from being completely liable for their accidents, then the companies don't have an incentive to be as safe as they need to be because their financial risk is reduced.

You can't expect that people who own oil companies are going to have as much respect for the environment as you or I. But you CAN hold them financially responsible for their actions and help deter them from having these unsafe practices - or - you can allow the government to create industry regulations which will inevitably be written by the oil industry and then passed on to politicians who they give significant campaign contributions. But you can't just block campaign contributions because that won't fix the problem. They could promise them a job later on, or give their cousin a really lucrative job, there is no way to stop government corruption.

So you can keep fighting the oil industry and add to the millions of pages of government regulation and play a legal and political game of cat and mouse, or you can simply hold these companies responsible for their actions. I posit that the second alternative is the most simple and effective at protecting the environment.

On Huge Oversight Gap on Refugio Pipeline

Posted on May 21 at 11:07 p.m.

I think the Independent should investigate previous Plains All American spills and see if they were held totally liable for cleaning up the spills, damages and whether complete restoration of the area occurred or whether there is still fallout from some of their previous accidents.

On Huge Oversight Gap on Refugio Pipeline

Posted on May 21 at 8:49 p.m.

I never thought the Independent would write an article showing the ineffectiveness of federal safety regulations. That part at least was kind of nice.

Better make sure Plains All American pays to clean it up- all of it- and help restore the aquatic life that once was.

They should be paying the volunteers as well.

On Huge Oversight Gap on Refugio Pipeline

Posted on May 21 at 2:37 p.m.

jukin, you might check out the new bladeless wind turbines that don't kill birds:

On As Refugio Oil Slick Spreads, Spill Estimate Rises

Posted on May 21 at 1:47 p.m.

Nah, Jarvis is actually right about 28.75% of the time, often when many others are disagreeing.

On As Refugio Oil Slick Spreads, Spill Estimate Rises

Posted on May 21 at 1:43 p.m.

Let's not mention that the Indy and Edhat scrubbed their site of the news stories and comments related to the original reports of multiple shooters in the car - and - one shooter murdered and another one taken into custody as reported by the Sheriffs to the media that night. That WAS the official story right up until the manifesto was released publicly in the wee hours of the next morning. I guess it was all just a big 'mistake'.

On 'Sometimes You Hear the Bullet'

Posted on May 21 at 1:37 p.m.

That was a fantastic explanation, nativeson. Let's all just live in the land of fairy tales and lolipops where stupid people literally "don't have brains" and people who ignore evidence of staged massacres and blame it on law abiding gun owners literally "don't have a heart".

The people second most responsible for these tragedies, besides the ones who carry them out, is the general public who keep buying the framed mainstream media version of events along with their tyrannical anti-freedom agendas.

On 'Sometimes You Hear the Bullet'

Posted on May 21 at 1:31 p.m.

Maybe DrDan can explain with logic rather than simply attempting to assert some type of intellectual authority why banning a less lethal method of murdering people, in this case hand guns in the hands of an amateur, is some how better than the alternative of killing many times more and injuring many times more with his car.

I'm not going to "try again", YOU try again. Anybody with any objectivity prefers three people dead to 10 or more dead and perhaps ten times the amount injured. So explain to me why you prefer to see more people murdered and injured in this type of tragedy.

Defend your positions with some intellectual integrity.

On 'Sometimes You Hear the Bullet'

Previous | Page 2 of 405 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: