[DEFEATED] - Repeal Oil Spill Recovery

[Refuge Isle]

Motivation

There are two main complaints with the target resolution:

1. It has a glaring loophole, namely that corporate operators can declare bankruptcy (or shift assets away into offshore trusts or whatever), and then walk away from any damage caused by an oil spill, and leave governments to (literally) clean up afterwards. This has the perverse effect of getting oil operators to be as thinly capitalised as possible. BP couldn't walk away from Deepwater Horizon as it was (and still is) a large company. But not every operator would have as much capital as BP.

2. The bifurcation issue was raised in the original drafting thread. (This refers to oil rigs under WA jurisdiction being placed under substantially greater penalties than those outside WA jurisdiction, even if they are in the same waters). I think there are various ways to get around the jurisdiction issue but that's more for a potential replacement.

I opposed it in TNP when this went to vote. It also duplicates substantially with GA95.

Target: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
Original debate thread: viewtopic.php?t=543073

Replacement

Prevention of Pollution from Ships and Oil Rigs
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=557915

Note that because oil rigs that are floating are technically ships (Deepwater Horizon was technically a semi-submersible vessel registered to the Marshall Islands), I expanded a parallel resolution to give some cover to this topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon

Draft 2

The World Assembly (WA),

Applauding the intent of the target resolution, GA731, "Oil Spill Recovery" in assisting the recovery from oil spills, on top of two existing resolutions, GA95 and GA658;

Perplexed that the target introduces a complex mechanism in its process of recovering damages from oil spills, but contains a glaring loophole, namely that:

• Firstly, Clause (3)(a) governs the behavior of offshore drill operators in an oil spill, but it imposes full liability on the operator of the effects of the oil spill after the spill has taken place, not before;
  
• Secondly, Clause (3)(a) also states that "if the [o]perator is unable to cover the full finances required without substantial financial burden", the relevant WA state "may provide financial support", and "in extreme cases", WA committees "may finance the recovery following the cleanup, with... the offshore drill operator pay(ing) the financed funds back to the (WA)";

Dismayed that some offshore drill operators may be limited liability setups (with barely any capital), and this mechanism for recovering damages perversely encourages operators to simply declare bankruptcy and walk away if a spill happens, or have unscrupulous corporate lawyers hide valuable assets immediately after an oil spill, leaving the WA on the hook for clean-up costs with no prospects for recovery from a bankrupt operator;

Flummoxed that, in addition, that the management of such operators are not penalised even if they were found to be in gross negligence;

Frustrated that the other punitive measures imposed on WA states by this resolution (but not non-WA states) result in a bifurcation of the market, to the detriment of WA states;

Reiterating that the WA considers oil spills an important international issue given the potential catastrophic impact on shared maritime ecosystems, but that the target resolution fails to further the said purpose beyond existing resolutions, particularly GA95, and perversely introduces a loophole for polluters to escape from financial repercussions;

Hereby repeals the target resolution, "Oil Spill Recovery".

Char count: 2,084

[Tinhampton]

Extraordinarily fully-throated support.

[Simone Republic]

Bump

Bump... bump... Bump... bump... Bump... bump... Bump... bump... Bump... bump... Bump... bump... Bump... bump... Bump... bump...

[Simone Republic]

I don't believe my own stuff is that good, so bump again for feedback.

[Starman of Stardust]

"It has long been the position of the Union that minor economic harm is an acceptable cost to be taken when conducting the moral duty of protecting the natural environment from ourselves. These arguments, which contradict that premise, thus do not receive the support of the Democratic Stellar Union."

[Lumiere du Premier]

You could also add to your arguments that a provision to secure appropriate criminal penalties for intentional instances of oil spills is needed and lacking in the original resolution you're repealing, because in the current target, 6. outlaws such criminal activity and behavior, but leaves nothing else to go on, meaning its relatively easy for culprits and violators to easily walk away with little to no penalty.

[Simone Republic]

(OOC)

You could also add to your arguments that a provision to secure appropriate criminal penalties for intentional instances of oil spills is needed and lacking in the original resolution you're repealing, because in the current target, 6. outlaws such criminal activity and behavior, but leaves nothing else to go on, meaning its relatively easy for culprits and violators to easily walk away with little to no penalty.

I tend to just go with the main arguments in a repeal. I mean, yeah, it is a flaw. I just haven't delved that deep into every flaw with that resolution. I'd briefly mention it.

"It has long been the position of the Union that minor economic harm is an acceptable cost to be taken when conducting the moral duty of protecting the natural environment from ourselves. These arguments, which contradict that premise, thus do not receive the support of the Democratic Stellar Union."

I think you read the argument backwards. The argument is that I can set up an off-the-shelf company to dump the liabilities of an oil spill into it (dime-a-day exercise for a corporate lawyer) and then walk away from it.

[Simone Republic]

Draft 1

Draft 1

The World Assembly (WA),

Applauding the intent of the target resolution, GA731 (Oil Spill Recovery) in assisting the recovery from oil spills, on top of two existing resolutions, GA95 and GA658;

Perplexed that the target introduces a complex mechanism in its process of recovering damages from oil spills, namely that:

• Firstly, Clause (3)(a) governs the behavior of offshore drill operators in an oil spill, but it imposes full liability on the operator of the effects of the oil spill after the spill has taken place, not before;
  
• Secondly, Clause (3)(a) also states that "if the [o]perator is unable to cover the full finances required without substantial financial burden", the relevant WA state "may provide financial support", and "in extreme cases", WA committees "may finance the recovery following the cleanup", with the General Accounting Office creating a financing plan where the offshore drill operator shall pay the financed funds back to the (WA)";

Dismayed that some offshore drill operators across the WA multiverse may be limited liability companies or partnerships (and potentially rather thinly capitalised), and this mechanism for recovering damages perversely encourages operators to simply declare bankruptcy and walk away if a spill happens, leaving the WA on the hook for clean-up costs with no prospects for recovery from a bankrupt operator;

Flummoxed that, in addition, that the management of such operators are not penalised even if they were found to be in gross negligence;

Frustrated that the other punitive measures imposed on WA states by this resolution (but not non-WA states) result in a bifurcation of the market, to the detriment of WA states;

Believing that this is an important international issue given the potential catastrophic impact of an oil spill on shared water resources for multiple WA states, and that sensible regulations in this area is warranted;

Hereby repeals the target, Oil Spill Recovery.

Char count: 1,655

Onto Draft 2.

[Starman of Stardust]

I think you read the argument backwards. The argument is that I can set up an off-the-shelf company to dump the liabilities of an oil spill into it (dime-a-day exercise for a corporate lawyer) and then walk away from it.

"The now-submitted repeal argues that the target's restrictions would result in a 'detriment [to] WA states', presumably economic. This argument is in principle unacceptable to the Democratic Stellar Union, and the repeal thus does not receive our support."

[The Overmind]

Again, respectfully, not supporting the repeal and replace of a relatively new, skilled, GA author so a nearly 50x GA author can further monopolize the game. Irreparably opposed.

[Simone Republic]

I think you read the argument backwards. The argument is that I can set up an off-the-shelf company to dump the liabilities of an oil spill into it (dime-a-day exercise for a corporate lawyer) and then walk away from it.

"The now-submitted repeal argues that the target's restrictions would result in a 'detriment [to] WA states', presumably economic. This argument is in principle unacceptable to the Democratic Stellar Union, and the repeal thus does not receive our support."

(IC)

"Oh your IC believes in Stalinism?"

[Starman of Stardust]

"The now-submitted repeal argues that the target's restrictions would result in a 'detriment [to] WA states', presumably economic. This argument is in principle unacceptable to the Democratic Stellar Union, and the repeal thus does not receive our support."

(IC)

"Oh your IC believes in Stalinism?"

"I am unsure what my 'IC' or 'Stalinism' are, but yes, we believe that minor economic harm is an acceptable cost for a form of living which respects the environment."

[Bisofeyr]

I obviously oppose this attempt, but I find the following in the "dismayed" clause to be a particularly slimy argument:

leaving the WA on the hook for clean-up costs

The WA is not "on the hook" for clean-up costs in the event that it is impossible to make the offshore drill operator pay, given that the proposal merely gives the WA the option to finance the clean-up. Given that the GAO is on the team that creates such a financing plan, if the offshore drill operator is unable to pay back the costs in the manner that the target prescribes, they would not give such financing in the first place, unless the disaster is truly so massive that they decide that the costs are worth the environmental help. In short, your issue with this makes little sense, as it imposes no additional requirements on the WA while giving them more leeway in how they deal with oil cleanups. I can't see how something which only gives more options with no required downside is means for repeal at all.

I also feel that your argument generally regarding LLCs is fairly moot given how broad the definition of "offshore drill operator". Your argument honestly may be more compelling if you attacked it from the other angle, arguing that the definition should not be so broad, though I wouldn't find that particularly strong either.

Flummoxed that, in addition, that the management of such operators are not penalised even if they were found to be in gross negligence;

This is a bad argument. Nothing in the target limits or even comments on penalization of management in gross negligence. This has to do with funding and operating the post-spill clean-up; members can charge liable individuals on their own if they like, but it's not relevant to complain that the target does not do an action that was loosely not in its purview.

[Anthropoi]

Hey sorry for inquiring so late, will try not to do so this close to vote next time but for now I have a few questions, i hope you dont mind answering them:

Firstly, Clause (3)(a) governs the behavior of offshore drill operators in an oil spill, but it imposes full liability on the operator of the effects of the oil spill after the spill has taken place, not before;

What does this mean exactly? How does imposing liability of an incident after differ from doing so before it happens? In both cases you can only hold them responsible if that incident happens right or am I misinterpreting this clause?

Dismayed that some offshore drill operators may be limited liability setups (with barely any capital), and this mechanism for recovering damages perversely encourages operators to simply declare bankruptcy and walk away if a spill happens, or have unscrupulous corporate lawyers hide valuable assets immediately after an oil spill, leaving the WA on the hook for clean-up costs with no prospects for recovery from a bankrupt operator;

Is this not covered by GA#95 since it requires for the companies to have insurance in case of an oil spill? Regardless, your replace covers this loophole the same way GA#95 does so how does your replace not have the same issue?

[Purrium]

Um…. It is currently rejected like 30% to 70% rough estimation.

I don’t think people are actually reading the resolution before voting.

[Great Britain-and Northern Ireland]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland officially supports this proposal.

[Yarmatia]

opposed af. maybe let's try not putting in zero effort to repeal things that people actually spent time to craft

[Purrium]

We are back at 56-44 with FOR in the lead!!

[Purrium]

Also what the hell does “Flummoxed” mean?

[Purrium]

Welp…. This resolution has no chance

[Simone Republic]

opposed af. maybe let's try not putting in zero effort to repeal things that people actually spent time to craft

(OOC)

The piles of repeals against resolutions drafted years in the making says otherwise. The GA doesn't remotely give a flying **** about the efforts that go into a resolution.

Hey sorry for inquiring so late, will try not to do so this close to vote next time but for now I have a few questions, i hope you dont mind answering them:

Firstly, Clause (3)(a) governs the behavior of offshore drill operators in an oil spill, but it imposes full liability on the operator of the effects of the oil spill after the spill has taken place, not before;

What does this mean exactly? How does imposing liability of an incident after differ from doing so before it happens? In both cases you can only hold them responsible if that incident happens right or am I misinterpreting this clause?

This is largely an implicit complaint that the resolution fails to ascertain at what point liability has incurred. At some point, in a oil spill, it's possible that the oil spill is designed by say design flaws that occurred years before the oil rig was even built. The resolution did not account for that.

Dismayed that some offshore drill operators may be limited liability setups (with barely any capital), and this mechanism for recovering damages perversely encourages operators to simply declare bankruptcy and walk away if a spill happens, or have unscrupulous corporate lawyers hide valuable assets immediately after an oil spill, leaving the WA on the hook for clean-up costs with no prospects for recovery from a bankrupt operator;

Is this not covered by GA#95 since it requires for the companies to have insurance in case of an oil spill? Regardless, your replace covers this loophole the same way GA#95 does so how does your replace not have the same issue?

I tend to consider repeals in IRL contexts. In this case, the setting up of limited liability companies is very common in the oil industry. (In the US, limited liability partnerships are also common because of US tax issues that I would not discuss here as that gets rather technical). So frankly, if you are a lawyer (and there are plenty of GAers who are lawyers, this is a game largely designed for nerds after all) this is what you'd do (in fact, what you are required to do since that's in the client interest. So the GA is on the hook no matter what.

I think you read the argument backwards. The argument is that I can set up an off-the-shelf company to dump the liabilities of an oil spill into it (dime-a-day exercise for a corporate lawyer) and then walk away from it.

"The now-submitted repeal argues that the target's restrictions would result in a 'detriment [to] WA states', presumably economic. This argument is in principle unacceptable to the Democratic Stellar Union, and the repeal thus does not receive our support."

(IC) "That's due to the rulers of your nation having no clue in economics."

I obviously oppose this attempt, but I find the following in the "dismayed" clause to be a particularly slimy argument:

leaving the WA on the hook for clean-up costs

The WA is not "on the hook" for clean-up costs in the event that it is impossible to make the offshore drill operator pay, given that the proposal merely gives the WA the option to finance the clean-up. Given that the GAO is on the team that creates such a financing plan, if the offshore drill operator is unable to pay back the costs in the manner that the target prescribes, they would not give such financing in the first place, unless the disaster is truly so massive that they decide that the costs are worth the environmental help. In short, your issue with this makes little sense, as it imposes no additional requirements on the WA while giving them more leeway in how they deal with oil cleanups. I can't see how something which only gives more options with no required downside is means for repeal at all.

I also feel that your argument generally regarding LLCs is fairly moot given how broad the definition of "offshore drill operator". Your argument honestly may be more compelling if you attacked it from the other angle, arguing that the definition should not be so broad, though I wouldn't find that particularly strong either.

That's not what you specified. If the offshore drill operator is unable to pay back the costs of the cleanup, the GAO is on the hook. The fact that Deepwater Horizon the US government was able to wring enough money from BP and TransOcean was rather due to luck. It should be the case that the operators always have sufficient funds to pay for clean-ups first, rather than use the government as a recourse.

[Yarmatia]

opposed af. maybe let's try not putting in zero effort to repeal things that people actually spent time to craft

(OOC)

The piles of repeals against resolutions drafted years in the making says otherwise. The GA doesn't remotely give a flying **** about the efforts that go into a resolution.

you do realize you're a huge part of that problem, right? or have you never stopped to think how it might feel to spend time crafting a resolution, get it passed, only for someone to come along and lazily try to rack up points or whatever by getting things repealed without contributing anything constructive to the game?

[Bisofeyr]

That's not what you specified. If the offshore drill operator is unable to pay back the costs of the cleanup, the GAO is on the hook. The fact that Deepwater Horizon the US government was able to wring enough money from BP and TransOcean was rather due to luck. It should be the case that the operators always have sufficient funds to pay for clean-ups first, rather than use the government as a recourse.

You're under the assumption that the WA would finance a company that cannot pay them back. This is part of the cost-benefit analysis, and the GAO being part of the decision-making process ensures that the WA does not make fiscally irresponsible decisions. I intentionally worded it so that corporations cannot simply use the WA as a blanket crutch.

[Verdivale]

Dear Assemblymen,

I am writing to inform you that the government of Verdivale has officially released a document regarding our position on the proposed repeal of the "Oil Spill Recovery" resolution (GA731).

Best Regards,
Lily Morgan
Secretary of Environmental Protection

[Erstavik]

A resolution including language such as “or have unscrupulous corporate lawyers hide valuable assets immediately after an oil spill” is not serious and frankly unbecoming of the WA. This is a hard no and I hope it fails spectacularly. It never should’ve reached quorum.

//Emperor Luke