Big Oil found their target.
Just now, as expected, Robert Menendez sought unanimous consent for the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010, which would raise the liability cap on oil spills from $75 million up to $10 billion. And it would have surely passed. Big Oil needed one Senator to raise an objection and fend off those who want fair compensation for people unwittingly affected by the underwater gusher in the Gulf and other disasters in the future. And they found her in Lisa Murkowski: amazingly, the Senator from Alaska, the site of the last major oil spill in America, the Exxon Valdez disaster.
“I don’t believe that taking the liability cap from $75 million dollars to $10 billion dollars… 133 times the current strict liability limit, isn’t where we need to be right now,” Murkowski said, objecting to immediate consideration of the bill. She cited the Administration’s unwillingness to put a specific number on the liability cap as a reason not to move to consideration now (thanks for providing the talking point, President Obama!). “I do think we need to look at the liability cap, but we need to be careful of unintended consequences of just picking a number,” she concluded. And she actually tried to turn this into a fight for the little guy, saying that smaller oil producers wouldn’t be able to get insurance with that kind of liability cap, and that it should be structured in a way that “doesn’t give big oil a monopoly over the entire OCS (Outer Continental Shelf).”
Menendez responded by saying that “When BP makes $5.6 billion in three months, $10 billion is a drop in the bucket.” He rebutted Murkowski’s claim that small claimants could go through state courts to get recompense in a way that is not capped by reminding the Senator from Alaska of what happened in the Exxon Valdez case. “It took 20 years. And some of them fell off the way because they couldn’t hang in there. And they lost everything.”
But at least Big Oil got off easy today, thanks to Lisa Murkowski.
UPDATE: Majority Leader Reid was quick with a response:
“Nevadans are alarmed by the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and they want to ensure that the environmental impact is minimized and that we never allow this to happen again. But they also want to make sure that the negligent oil companies who cause disasters like this pay to clean it up, not taxpayers. That’s why Democrats, led by Senators Menendez, Lautenberg and Nelson, are trying to pass common-sense legislation to ensure that BP pays for the full cost of cleanup and that taxpayers in Nevada and across America are protected.
“Inexplicably, Republicans are protecting negligent oil companies like BP and blocking our efforts to prevent a BP bailout. Through their obstruction, Republicans are leaving taxpayers on the hook to pay for BP’s negligence.
“Republicans should drop their objections, and support our efforts to hold big oil companies accountable and prevent a BP bailout. I am committed to protecting taxpayers in Nevada and across America from paying for corporate negligence.”






33 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Senator Murkowski maybe needs to spend some time in Valdez, AK.
Maybe the next 20 years or so?
More destruction and death wrought from the Big Dick’s ‘walk on the darkside”
What if this had been a Chinese deepwater platform such as might one day be in Cuban waters in their side of the Florida Straits ?
People need to start going to whatever public events these sort of congress critters have with signs saying just what they are ; corporate whores.
She has a thing for dead fish. LINK.
Ah, but what did they PAY her to put out this objection? I’m sure that Murkowski doesn’t go down on BP for free, now does she?
One person can block legislation like this?
Lemme ‘splain.
Menendez et al wanted to bring it up immediately. The Senate operates under unanimous consent, so one Senator can block that consideration. This doesn’t mean that the Senate can never take up the bill, it just means that they would need a cloture vote to move to proceed on it. Menendez et al were trying to fast-track it, and considering what’s happening in the Gulf right now, I’d say that’s warranted.
oh yeah don’t want to give ‘em that big monopoly they currently don’t have.
Reid said something. We can all rest easy now.
Big Oil needed one
Senatorunprincipled whore to raise an objection and fend off those who want fair compensation for people unwittingly affected by the underwater gusher in the Gulf and other disasters in the future. And they foundherthat unprincipled whore in Lisa Murkowski:Suggested edits.
Don’t blame Murkowski for being an unprincipled oil whore. It’s her nature.
Aha!
They didn’t have to look hard or far, either. I suspect that her name was at the top of their list, based on her previous actions.
Oil whore
I’d just like to congratulate the GOP on political suicide.
They’re now revealing in garish display what’s been obvious since at least 2000: the GOP is basically a PR-wing of BIg Oil and Big Banking.
So I’d like to give a shout-out to the GOP for good tactics in this skirmish.
Too bad they don’t recognize that long-term, this is self-defeating.
After all, how many 20-somethings do you know who are really going to get excited about ponying up their future earning power to cover BP’s butt in a world where they can’t even order certain kinds of seafood, due to fears about pollutants?
BP stabs GOP in back.
Pity, really.
Relish the irony.
Anyone actually surprised that big oil could get Congress to go they way they wanted? Yeah, let’s vote for a Republican or Democrat in the Fall. They’re awesome. Oh no, one person stood up to them. Let’s all go cower in the corner.
Now if only that GOP President we have, you know, the one saying “Drill, Baby, Drill” and the one that’s OWNED by big banking… Yeah that one, if only he would switch parties to his trued party and let us have our party back.
I’m not holding my breath.
More rotating villains. Why didn’t the Democrats force her to filibuster? That would make great TV the Senator from Alaska talking for hours on the floor of the Senate all to defend the interests of rapacious oil companies. I think the only reason that the Democrats let Republicans get away with these things is because they want them to, just don’t want to take the responsibility for them.
Why, legally, should there be any government imposed liability limits?
You’d think that the free-market racketeering ‘conservatives’ would champion keeping big government out of interfering with the marketplace.
Forget a Cap it won’t work they will weasel their way around it. Here’s and IDEA how about Criminal charges and toss some asses in jail I have been waiting for this to happen to Wall Street and the banks.
Her office contact information, for those who want to share their thoughts with her:
(202) 224-6665 (tel.)
(202) 224-5301 (fax)
Until they can *cap* the leak, the liability cap should be removed completely, and not even discussed again until such time as the leak is resolved, and all those affected have been compensated.
(Sadly, how does one compensate the earth, the fish, the birds?)
Remove the caps!
White punks on dope and oil whoreS smoking crack?
WTF!! PROTECT CORPORATIONS WHILE FUCKING AMERICANS
Is THIS GROUNDS FOR CIVIL WAR? Corporations have replaced the slave owners. Slave owners fought a civil war to protect the disgusting institution. What will big oil do to protect its status quo rape of men and environment in the lust for profit????????????????????????
Lie Cheat steal kill?? U BET!
They long ago stopped being even Republicans or the GOP. They should henceforth be called the FAP (“F*** Americans Party”). And blue dogs like Ms. Mary L of Lousiana could become the new GOP (“Gobs of Oil Party.”)
I wonder whats Murkoski’s position on the coastal drilling ban proposed by the other western coastal states.
She reminds me of a coke whore.
And, institute Capital Punishment for guilty corporations.
A new low.
But I have a solution! Let’s cap the liability at the combined value of the companies (all of them, hence no use in finger pointing) working on a rig at the time of the misfortune. And they could perhaps monitor each other’s safety practices to protect themselves ~ a nice benefit.
Voila! A small company is not disadvantaged because they are not asked to pay more than they have. There. Done! Now that wasn’t hard at all.
Tomorrow ~ IQ tests for all members of congress.
The Second Republic will have no House Of Lords.
Hell, I’m with you. I don’t understand why there should be any cap, and certainly not $10B. I agree the current $75M cap is crap, and I’m not defending Murkowski for obstructing the bill. But can someone answer the obvious question for non-legal types like me: why is there a cap at all? and if there is good reason for one, why is Menendez making it only $10B.
I personally believe BP, TransOcean, and Halliburton should have the burden of proof to show why they should not be immediately nationalized in order to compensate the country for the damages this gusher is going to end up causing. Sum up their market caps and I bet you still don’t have enough to cover it. (BP $151B + RIG $21B + HAL $26B = $198B; no way this spill doesn’t cause $198B if they don’t get it capped soon.)
And, why are we protecting the profits of foreign companies?
BP is British
TransOcean is now incorporated in Switzerland (?) no coastline there.
HB is headquartered in Dubai
Reader-A brilliant solution, and so simple. I’m forwarding it to Senator Menendez’s office. Thanks.