Oil spill off Louisiana coast

Current Events Environmentalism
21

The problem is that the fact of driving a car, trimming a tree, having a fire or drilling for oil is not initiation of force per se in the way that an actual threat is. It is proper for the government to prohibit threats (period, without any qualifications), and not proper for the government to prohibit dangerous acts. To what extent should the government prohibit a person’s performance of dangerous acts without them having the ability to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions?

I’ve not even come close to making my mind up about this issue, but as of right now I lean towards having the safety of oil drilling in the Gulf increased and reviewed on a regular basis. To an extent, I think the government already does this with the energy sector, specifically nuclear energy. Additionally, while the drilling for oil in the Gulf is not an initiation of force, I consider the potential for oil spill to be a real threat to the property owners that line the coast; and really I should change my terminology because I don’t consider an accident to be an initiation of force, although it can turn in to one.

Maybe this issue is more about scale than anything, like a rational position on pollution. For example, while a factory is indeed releasing a certain level of pollutant into the air or water way, and tainting property in some manner, there is no claim that should be allowed unless the scale of the pollution becomes significantly higher. Likewise, threat involved with someone burning brush, a few times a year for lawn care, cannot be equated to the hypothetical threat of some business that burned the brush, at the same spot, on a regular basis. In one case, the individual will still be held responsible, but there is significantly less threat; however, the business or regular burning has an very high threat and is more like to lead to the neighborhood being burnt to the ground. Of course, sometimes, the burning of brush is illegal due to local burn bans. That recently occurred here last week when there had been no rain, the dew point was below 25, and the wind was blowing 20+ mph.

22

Maybe not grounds for building codes in particular, but maybe a requirement to exercise proper care with your candle or to not light it at all if you’re a butterfingers. Going with your hypothetical, there is a known possibility (“could”) that it will damage your neighbors property if proper care isn’t exercised. Risky behavior is threatening behavior if undertaken with conscious, hence deliberate, recklessness.

At this point I am for more oversight, but I won’t go as far as saying BP behavior, though conscious and deliberate, was reckless–if that is even what you are saying. BP did have supposed methods of preventing the spills, and I don’t think there is really a case for negligence here. However, on the other hand, large oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, through off shore rig accidents, is not unheard of. The Ixtoc I rig explosion, that I just recently read about, a rig with similar fail-safes, caused the biggest oil spill in the history of the world, and it happened in the Gulf. It seems like some sort of mitigation system would be in place to deal with such a thing, 31 years after the incident; something other than small oil booms that seem more geared towards lakes, instead of oceans with waves, should have been at the ready. I don’t think there’s any doubt, however, that there will be more preparedness for the next event.

23

If an act is known to be dangerous, then how is it different from an act that is threatening?

I guess I consider it self-evident that the two are different. Although perhaps you are distinguishing “threats that are perfectly proper” versus “threats that are to be prohibited and prosecuted”. Examples of dangerous acts which should not be prohibited by law are: driving a car, driving a big-rig, demolishing a building, making a fire, manufacturing chairs, manufacturing paint, selling gasoline.

Furthermore, is not an inability to take responsibility, though involving a derivative question of compensation, ultimately entailed by the concept of ‘threat’, i.e. the threat that, once wronged, you won’t be compensated for the wrong done against you?

No: if you threaten to destroy a person’s property, that fact does not entail that you will be unable to take responsibility for the act (whether or not you make good on the threat). A threat is directly saying, or implying by word or deed, that you will initiate force against another person. There is no connection between threatening a person and you being able to compensate a person.

I am suggesting that a dangerous act and inability to take responsibility for foreseeable harm is a kind of threat, hence properly within the ambit of government prohibition. An example would be the requirement to carry auto insurance to compensate victims hurt in a possible collision.

An inability to compensate victims is not a threat. The problem, I think, is that “threat” is used by people in two ways. One is with respect to any risk, so that a rock might threaten a bird (if it falls on the bird) and clouds might threaten a party. The other sense, specifically applicable to discussions of law, is the initiation of force by a person, without the actualization of force. So when we say that it is proper for the government to prohibit “threats”, that specifically means only the initiation of force, and it does not mean that it’s proper for the government to outlaw all risks. The only excuse for ever saying that the government should respond to threats is to specifically identify the initiation of force where the force has not been actualized.

But what the question then really turns on is foreseeability, as well as a legally enforceable requirement to mitigate risk.

To the extent that that’s true, it’s because the law should have nothing to say about unforseeable outcomes, be it w.r.t. prevention or even civil penalties. Thus I think it goes without saying that if the consequences really are unforseeable, then that is basically too bad for the folks that suffer the loss.

What exactly is this legally enforceable requirement to mitigate risk? If it is “legally enforceable”, then it would mean that a person / business has an obligation to prevent a specific level of risk, by some kind of prophylactic action. Example: “no explosive device capable of producing more that 100 newtons of force may be kept or brought within 100 meters of any person or property of another person”.

The point is that it is not the function of government to make life nice for everybody. The function of government is to use force in an objectively specified manner to prevent the initiation of force. Engaging in a dangerous activity is not the initiation of force, therefore it is not proper for the government to prohibit all dangerous acts.

Relying on the word “threat” will confuse the discussion, and I do regret having said that it is proper for the government to prohibit threats. It is only proper for the government to prohibit the initiation of force – “threats” in a very restricted sense.

24

A threat is directly saying, or implying by word or deed, that you will initiate force against another person.

Agreed; I misunderstood your statement. The question should be whether force is initiated. However, my question then is this: can force be initiated by conscious and deliberate recklessness? Driving a car should not be prohibited, but what about driving a car recklessly on a crowded highway in a manner that puts others’ safety at risk? Does that count as initiation of force?

25

It’s my understanding that with the current ownership and rules of the road, it does count as initiation of force, which is why the police can step in. If the road was actual private property, it would depend on the property owner’s rules. Is driving like that putting someone “at risk”? Yes, but it’s not an initiation of force until property damage happens (a crash), or if the reckless driver is breaking the rules of a privately owned road. If someone is running fast on a sidewalk and waving their arms around crazily, they are putting others at risk of getting a punch in the face, but it’s not a threat nor is it an initiation of force, until someone is hit. What if someone is driving extremely slowly on a fast moving highway? I’d say that’s putting others’ safety at risk too, but until a crash happens, then there hasn’t been an initiation of force. What about cell phone use? Putting on make-up? Chatting in the car? All of these are “reckless” behaviours while driving, but it’s the same argument that if something is “risky” then government should put a stop to it (at least it has with cell phone use).

26

It’s my understanding that with the current ownership and rules of the road, it does count as initiation of force, which is why the police can step in. If the road was actual private property, it would depend on the property owner’s rules. Is driving like that putting someone “at risk”? Yes, but it’s not an initiation of force until property damage happens (a crash), or if the reckless driver is breaking the rules of a privately owned road. If someone is running fast on a sidewalk and waving their arms around crazily, they are putting others at risk of getting a punch in the face, but it’s not a threat nor is it an initiation of force, until someone is hit. What if someone is driving extremely slowly on a fast moving highway? I’d say that’s putting others’ safety at risk too, but until a crash happens, then there hasn’t been an initiation of force. What about cell phone use? Putting on make-up? Chatting in the car? All of these are “reckless” behaviours while driving, but it’s the same argument that if something is “risky” then government should put a stop to it (at least it has with cell phone use).

The problem I have with this reasoning is that, in my view, the initiation of force begins with a conscious choice. It can’t be that one chose to behave recklessly, but force was initiated only at the point where that choice had damaging consequences. For example, I think that firing a gun at someone, if it can be considered the initiation of force at all, is the initiation of force when the choice is made to pull the trigger, even if the bullet misses the target. It follows that if driving recklessly can be considered the initiation of force at all, that the initiation begins when the choice is made to drive recklessly, whether or not there’s a crash.

27

In choosing to drive recklessly, the initiation of force is against the authority governing the road.

Actually colliding with someone is a separate initiation.

28

In choosing to drive recklessly, the initiation of force is against the authority governing the road.

Actually colliding with someone is a separate initiation.

I still don’t understand why the choice (to drive recklessly) and the consequence (the actual collision) are treated as separate and distinct. To me, this flies in the face of causality: what caused the actual collision IOF, other than the choice to drive recklessly? We are dealing here with culpability of the most important kind. I don’t dispute that there is force involved in the actual collision, I am asking at what point was that force initiated? Is force not initiated by and with the conscious choice of the individual who initiates it? I submit that force cannot be initiated by circumstances, it is initiated only by persons at the point that they choose to initiate it, that therefore the two initiations are actually one and the same (against both the authority governing the road and the person with whom the collision occurs). The reason is that the actual collision was caused by the choice to drive recklessly, i.e. the only choice that was made.

29

This has happened before.

IXTOC I Bahia de Campeche, Mexico 1979-Jun-03

On June 3, 1979, the 2 mile deep exploratory well, IXTOC I, blew out in the Bahia de Campeche, 600 miles south of Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. The IXTOC I was being drilled by the SEDCO 135, a semi-submersible platform on lease to Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX). A loss of drilling mud circulation caused the blowout to occur. The oil and gas blowing out of the well ignited, causing the platform to catch fire. The burning platform collapsed into the wellhead area hindering any immediate attempts to control the blowout. PEMEX hired blowout control experts and other spill control experts including Red Adair, Martech International of Houston, and the Mexican diving company, Daivaz. The Martech response included 50 personnel on site, the remotely operated vehicle TREC, and the submersible Pioneer I. The TREC attempted to find a safe approach to the Blowout Preventer (BOP). The approach was complicated by poor visibility and debris on the seafloor including derrick wreckage and 3000 meters of drilling pipe. Divers were eventually able to reach and activate the BOP, but the pressure of the oil and gas caused the valves to begin rupturing. The BOP was reopened to prevent destroying it. Two relief wells were drilled to relieve pressure from the well to allow response personnel to cap it. Norwegian experts were contracted to bring in skimming equipment and containment booms, and to begin cleanup of the spilled oil. The IXTOC I well continued to spill oil at a rate of 10,000 - 30,000 barrels per day until it was finally capped on March 23, 1980.

30

The question should be whether force is initiated. However, my question then is this: can force be initiated by conscious and deliberate recklessness? Driving a car should not be prohibited, but what about driving a car recklessly on a crowded highway in a manner that puts others’ safety at risk? Does that count as initiation of force?

I need to think though this a few times, but I have a clearer understanding of the nature of the problem. When you hit someone or physically trespass against them, that is actual force. Initiation of force is the initial act in a causal chain terminating in actual force. Whether your act is the initial act in a chain leading to actual force is not controlled by whether you are deliberate or reckless; in fact, deliberateness and recklessness are relevant only in determining whether you should be held legally liable.

31

To me a more interesting question presents itself: should oil companies be allowed to drill if unable to cover the cost of a major accident or catastrophe?

This essentially dovetails with my original question.

More importantly, the assumption made by Russk and Seeker is that money can return the damaged party to the original state before the initiation of force. As we talked about the Exxon Valdez spill, it is clear from all the studies in that case the Prince William Sound has not returned to its previous state, despite the cleanup efforts. So in cases where the damages are not reversible, or at least for not many years, does the government have an interest in mitigating risky behavior that have the potential for catastrophic consequences?

32

What exactly is this legally enforceable requirement to mitigate risk?

One thing to try to keep in mind is how private property would likely end up being divvied up in the society that ought to be. So talking about things like candles starting chain fires in a neighborhood means you’re likely talking about a subdivided housing development with shared roads and probably some common agreements.

33

More importantly, the assumption made by Russk and Seeker is that money can return the damaged party to the original state before the initiation of force. As we talked about the Exxon Valdez spill, it is clear from all the studies in that case the Prince William Sound has not returned to its previous state, despite the cleanup efforts.

Are you saying that unless something is restored to its previous state, the notion of restoration is pointless? 'Cause I remember a kid stole a dollar from me in grade school. The teacher made him give it back, but I wasn’t returned to my previous state: several of my cells had divided in the mean time.

Does that mean the government should close down schools, so this inherent risk schools have, by which kids may stay forever in an altered state can be averted?

So in cases where the damages are not reversible, or at least for not many years, does the government have an interest in mitigating risky behavior that have the potential for catastrophic consequences?

I answered that question. The current government does have that interest, because they are a collection of fascists. A rights respecting government would not, because mitigating risk that is inherent in all actions is obviously inherently in conflict with all rights to action.

As long as you fail to use individual rights as the underlying principle governing political relationships, you’re not going got understand the answer, no matter how many times you ask the question. Nor will you come up with a solution that is objective, and not monstrously fascist. If you want politicians to have power over BP based on the concept of “risk”, you want them to have power over everyone. There are no risk free actions.

34

The one thing that nobody has addressed yet is why BP is drilling here to begin with. Are there easier places to extract oil? Can oil companies overcome the regulatory barriers to drill there? Does drilling in such places involve less risk? I ask because I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that’s the case. Offshore drilling seems to be easier to get a bureaucrat to sign off on - the farther away the better.

Actually, it looks like this was close to being addressed already:

Perhaps it would not be so hard to drill if oil companies were allowed to drill closer than, what, 60 miles from shore?

35

The one thing that nobody has addressed yet is why BP is drilling here to begin with.

My understanding is that there’s a fair amount of oil there. That is enough reason to a company to pursue the oil, IMO. It does not matter whether there are easier places to extract oil.

The question about regulatory impediments to liberty do, assuredly, play a role in a company’s decision to engage in business, but the question does not play any role in moral evaluation. However, I do not believe that there are any serious regulatory issues w.r.t. “off shore” versus “on land” that actually motivate the choice to drill in a particular spot. Rather, the pickin’s are slimmer on land.

36

Are you saying that unless something is restored to its previous state, the notion of restoration is pointless? 'Cause I remember a kid stole a dollar from me in grade school. The teacher made him give it back, but I wasn’t returned to my previous state: several of my cells had divided in the mean time.Does that mean the government should close down schools, so this inherent risk schools have, by which kids may stay forever in an altered state can be averted?

Which is indicative of…what? What do cells subdividing have to do with anything? It is certainly not a similar situation to having an entire ecosystem affected by toxic oil and having it still impacting the environment (and thus people’s income) 20 years later. I mean if we’re going to have even a semi-serious conversation here, you’ve got to figure out why such false equivalencies are only distracting from any point you wish to make.

The current government does have that interest, because they are a collection of fascists.

I think you meant to say statists. Fascism is a term that really does not apply here. Unless you have your own definition you are working from that I am not aware of, please see here.

As long as you fail to use individual rights as the underlying principle governing political relationships, you’re not going got understand the answer, no matter how many times you ask the question. Nor will you come up with a solution that is objective, and not monstrously fascist.

Why are you obsessed with misusing the word fascist? Anyway, I am not deviating from the underlying principle of individual rights ruling supreme. My question is in relation to the competing rights of two parties, one to partake in his autonomous action, and the other to the protection of his property from the (potentially) threatening actions of that first party. Now when I say potentially, I mean an action that can be considered reasonably and significantly dangerous to another’s property or person.

In the case of BP and this spill, it can be argued, and has been by others on this very thread other than me, that government oversight may be warranted when certain actions, such as off shore oil drilling, create a level of potential destruction that threaten the individual rights of property owners. The threat to be mitigated can not be trivial or inconsequential, but must pose a significant hazard.

Now let’s take a look at the Exxon Valdez spill, and the actual efforts to be made whole through the court system. The actual damages paid in 1989 up front ($300 million) by Exxon to commercial fishermen only applied to the fishing season that year. Fishermen in Alaska made $100,000 per year on average, but only received about $10,000 each. At the time, it was thought the ecosystem would repair itself in a few years, and this affected the lawsuit, but that was not the case. As you can see, suing a company like Exxon won’t yield a payout for up to 20 years, a period of time many died before being adequately compensated. If you’re a company with the resources of Exxon, you can employ a myriad of delay tactics, and bury your opponents in legal filings and bogus scientific “studies”, all of which has to be countered by your own attorneys working for free for 20 years in the hopes that maybe they’ll get a payout down the line that will make it all worth it. Most firms couldn’t afford to even take your case, and the big firms would only take it if they could get a big payday through a punitive damages claim. So there is no chance Exxon will be sued for actual damages beyond that first year because 1)the studies showing definitively that the oil caused the decline in the fishing were only completed years later, and 2) those potential plaintiffs would have to wait a similar time to see another lawsuit through, and 3) what law firm would take the case?

So one alternative to the Exxon scenario is to have some regulatory oversight in place to mitigate the possibility of future occurrences. This is a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry.

37

And here is a link to an analysis of the Exxon litigation. A long but thorough explanation of how you can get screwed in the court system fighting for your rights.

Interesting bit from the conclusion that goes to my point:

Courts continue to struggle to manage these massive cases, seeking to use the legal tools at hand. Powerful and well-funded defendants do not lack imagination or incentive to pose innumerable legal barriers, and aggressively assert their legal rights and otherwise use the law, the courts and the judicial system to serve their interests. Plaintiffs who sustain injuries must be prepared for years of litigation, during which time the laws may change, their resources may be exhausted, and their lives must continue.

38

Litigation procedures and tactics are a separate issue than the oil spill. Simply drilling for oil cannot be perceived as a threatening action worthy of any government interference until it infringes on others’ property or life. All future occurrences or accidents can’t be accounted for and should not be handled by the law until they exist. Until then, prevention of accidents is the prerogative of the property owner doing the action to first mitigate his own loss of property and life, then others. Usually this actually means taking extra precautions to avoid damages to others (for example, Factors of Safety in engineering). However, in cases where these precautions failed, a decision on criminality and due cost has to be handled by courts after the fact.

39

Interestingly, there was no compensation whatsoever by the Mexican government (or Pemex itself) for damages caused by the state-owned Pemex oil company in the IXTOC I disaster. A government can screw you over worse than a company can.

40

Which is indicative of…what? What do cells subdividing have to do with anything? It is certainly not a similar situation to having an entire ecosystem affected by toxic oil and having it still impacting the environment (and thus people’s income) 20 years later. I mean if we’re going to have even a semi-serious conversation here, you’ve got to figure out why such false equivalencies are only distracting from any point you wish to make.

I did not equivocate anything. I merely pointed out the ridiculousness of your claim, that the role of a government should be to restore harmed parties to their previous state. If you want, I can quote back that the post where you formulated that specific thought, I directly addressed.

think you meant to say statists. Fascism is a term that really does not apply here. Unless you have your own definition you are working from that I am not aware of, please see here.

Why are you obsessed with misusing the word fascist?

I used it correctly. Fascism is precisely the national control of corporations and economic activity in general the current administration is aiming for. Statism is a wider term, that includes fascism, socialism, communism, and other forms of central planning.

In the case of BP and this spill, it can be argued, and has been by others on this very thread other than me,

Appeal to popularity.

In the case of BP and this spill, it can be argued, and has been by others on this very thread other than me, government oversight may be warranted when certain actions, such as off shore oil drilling, create a level of potential destruction that threaten the individual rights of property owners. The threat to be mitigated can not be trivial or inconsequential, but must pose a significant hazard.

Argued how? Stating and then repeating is not an argument. Not even when there is supposed team work behind the effort.

The actual damages paid in 1989 up front ($300 million) by Exxon to commercial fishermen only applied to the fishing season that year. Fishermen in Alaska made $100,000 per year on average, but only received about $10,000 each. At the time, it was thought the ecosystem would repair itself in a few years, and this affected the lawsuit, but that was not the case

What are you talking about? The Supreme Court ruling I linked you to was made in 2008.

I also don’t believe any of those ridiculous numbers. Find some credible sources, or stop repeating them. Your math is ridiculous. It would mean there had to have been 30.000 fishermen (who divided the 300 million you claim EXXON paid out), all making 100.000 every year from fishing, who could no longer fish because of the spill. That makes it 3 billion dollars in yearly income, from fishing. If we were to assume a very generous 10% profit from revenues for the industry, that makes it a 30 billion dollar/year industry, wiped out by Exxon. (that’s above Alaska’s GDP, fyi)