re: Louisiana Legsislature thinks Big Oil shouldn't have to clean up their mess!

quote:

---

Isn't that up to the free market to decide?

---

i chuckled

quote:

---

Now the derailing of the levee board lawsuit is bullshite and complete crony capitalism.

---

This. The oil companies should be held responsible for the damage they have done to the coast. Now if we could get a lawsuit against the US Corps of Engineers.

quote:

---

The drilling company who probably did the damage is almost certainly out of business but everyone who ever went out and did anything on the property is included in the lawsuit. Are they responsible for cleanup just because they are in the oil business?

---

There are express and implied duties in the Mineral Code on prudent drilling operations. Further, there are duties that the original lessee may have agreed to in the original lease. Also, there are regulatory P & A duties. These duties are frequently assigned to operators down the line. In sum, through the history of operating a well, multiple companies incurred obilgations and the legacy lawsuit is utilized to enforce those obligations.

quote:

---

Second, our system does not require the landowner who is the plaintiff, but who was likely not the owner at the time of the damage, to use the money for the cleanup. It often just goes into the pockets of the new owner and his attorneys

---

First, the damage occurs over a period of time and can continue until there is a remediation of the land. So, the damage can be caused by the operations during one landowner's ownership, but the damages continue after the causation of the damage. Second, since the enactment of Act 312 of 2006 and amendments to the Act, there must be a remediation plan that sets aside funds for cleanup. Second, not all of the funds go to landowner and his attorneys. For example, there was a jury trial in Cameron Parish in Nov. 2011, where the jury awarded $36 million for Act 312 remediation and $18 million for private damages. The Third Circuit recently held that the plaintiffs' attorneys could not take their contingency fee on the $36 million for clean-up.

Further, Act 312 was in direct response to the Corbello case, which did not require clean-up. Yet, the Corbello family agreed to put money in escrow for clean-up. When the family sought to implement a clean-up plan, they were denied a wetlands permit (required because the property contained wetlands). Why? Because Shell Oil opposed the permit. To this day, the money sits in an escrow account because the family cannot secure the permit. If the family had proceeded with clean-up, it would have gone against what the O & G industry repeatedly says: landowners will not use funds for clean-up.

Is the current system of litigating legacy lawsuits the best way to ensure fairness for all parties? No. But I think the O & G industry's piecemeal approach to legislation has caused more problems since the Corbello decision. The fact is that the O & G industry wanted Act 312 and declared it a victory. But they continue to go back and amend Act 312 in hopes of eventually eliminating contractual obligations that a company agreed to. And the Legislature is so tied to this industry's contributions that their decisions defy the legislators' political ideologies. For the conservative legislator, it defies the logic that everyone should be responsible for their own obligations, protecting the rights of landowners, and eliminating governmental regulations in favor of mutual agreements among private parties. For the liberal legislator, it defies the logic that big, scary O & G should bear the responsibility of cleaning up the mess. Yet, legislators on both sides of the aisle are persuaded by the money and misrepresentations of a special interest group that has accumulated tremendous wealth from the natural resources of La.

Finally, Adley's bill was supposed to be this great compromise between the O & G industry and landowners. Yet, this is a gross misrepresentation of the negotiations behind the bill. The industry and the Louisiana Landowners Association knocked out this "compromise" without any input from the attorneys who represent over 80% of the landowners who currently have lawsuits. The LLA represents the interest of a few landowners who happened to be the largest landowners in La. The LLA does not represent the interest of small landowners who have less resources to protect their land. So to call it a compromise is an insult to the legislative process.

quote:

---

In sum, through the history of operating a well, multiple companies incurred obilgations and the legacy lawsuit is utilized to enforce those obligations.

---

Multiple companies also raked in huge profits off of the well.

quote:

---

I think that the Corps is immune from liability. . . at least that what appears to be the fallout from Katrina cases involving the Corps.

---

I hope history looks negatively on the Federal government and the Corps for their levees only policy in Louisiana.

Damn, that was a comprehensive, well-written post.