Bloomberg has an excellent investigation into Louisiana’s oil regulators, finding that the state fines oil companies for oil spill less than 1 percent of the time over the last five years.
Unfortunately, I can’t find the story on the Web. It appears to be terminal-only, at least for now. So no link for you! Hope you can afford that $20,000 a year subscription.
Most of those spills, unlike the BP/Transocean/Halliburton spill, are small. But there are a lot of them—4,000 a year, which is more than any other state. And even when they are relatively large, they’re as likely as not to go unpenalized. The state’s average fine is 93 percent less than the federal government’s average fine for spills in Louisiana.
Bloomberg’s Ken Wells, Aaron Kuriloff and Charles R. Babcock paint a grim picture of the state’s regulators—if you can even call them that—giving the soft touch to companies that repeatedly pollute the state.
In 2009, Louisiana punished oil companies for fewer than one in 100 spills, the data show. Fines are measured in thousands of dollars, not millions. They take years to collect and are seldom levied against even repeat spillers. A small gas station operator was penalized for faulty paperwork while the state’s biggest oil producer paid no fines in more than a dozen spills since 2002, according to state records.
Louisiana hasn’t pressed criminal charges against anyone. And check out why the state says that is:
Louisiana says one reason for its lack of prosecutions is that few companies willfully spill crude oil. “Oil is a valuable product,” said Rodney Mallett, DEQ press secretary. “Rarely will someone knowingly or deliberately discharge oil.”
Well, no kidding. Do you doubt that they recklessly discharge it sometimes, though?
Here’s how the state treats its largest oil producer, Hilcorp Energy Co., which has had thirteen (documented) spills since 2002:
The largest incident, in December 2002, totaled 1,000 barrels. It created what state enforcement documents called a “dead zone” in 7 acres of cypress forest in the Atchafalaya Basin about 130 miles west of New Orleans.
Bloomberg reports that Hilcorp faced a tiny fine of about $32,000—but Louisiana let it off the hook with no penalty. Bloomberg is good to juxtapose those numbers with how much the company makes in Louisiana: It produced half a billion dollars worth of oil in the state last year alone.
Bloomberg also gets some very good on-the-record quotes, including this one from a former state oil inspector:
From 1982 to 1997, Kerry St. Pe recommended fines in “hundreds and hundreds of cases” as a DEQ inspector in southeastern Louisiana, he says.
“But in terms of actual penalties that were levied based on my investigations, I can count them on one hand,” said St. Pe, 60, a marine biologist who now heads the Barataria-
Terrebonne National Estuary Program in southeastern Louisiana. He said the main reason was “political pressure to the contrary,” which he described as a sense that vigorous enforcement in the field was being discouraged in Baton Rouge, the state capital.“When oil companies see it’s cheaper to pollute than to prevent spills, it creates a culture of noncompliance,” St. Pe said.
And it gets an excellent kicker from St. Pe:
“Corporations are like children,” he says. “If you allow your kids to have all the candy they want, you’ll get them fat and all keyed up on sugar. And when you then try to discipline them, you wonder why they won’t listen. It’s the same with these corporations. In Louisiana, they virtually get everything they ask for, so why should they behave?”
It’s a great piece of work. Let’s hope Bloomberg releases it into the wild soon so everyone can read it.
Of course one shares the sympathy and the outrage for the victims of government mismanagement in the aftermath of Katrina who lost their lives, their homes, their livelihoods.
But I can't muster any sympathy for the good citizens of Louisiana on this particular issue or any other account. They consistently elect the most corrupt and inept and scandal-plagued politicians -- Democrats and Republicans -- and vote year after year to keep them in office -- mayors, police chiefs, parish administrators, congressmen, governors. They refuse to pony up for their children's better education or to upgrade their infrastructure, their government and their legal system, to preserve their plentiful natural resources; they refuse to hold their their local and state government officials accountable for working in their, the citizens', interests instead of succumbing to the bribery of big business.
This is a truly case of citizens getting the government they voted for, and the poor quality of life that goes along with that.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 02:09 PM
I always get a chuckle when people use the word laissez-faire pejoratively. A yard sale is run w/o govt interference; therefore the yard sale is laissez-faire; therefore it is bad.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 10:36 PM
If the yard sale is being used as a pretext to sell crack cocaine "from the attic" to neighborhood children - and the authorities refuse to investigate because they believe yard sales should be laissez-faire, then the authorities should be ridiculed for justifying their abdication of 'protecting the public' duty for the sake of an empty headed slogan.
Real life requires some nuance. Those who lack nuance and let a few thousand oil spills go unpunished under their watch are "laissez-failures".
(Or more likely, they're bribed and seduced by the power of the industry, which produces a distortion in the market, don't it?)
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 5 Feb 2011 at 01:10 AM
Regulators coming to a symbiotic relationship with the industries they regulate - stop the presses! Sophisticated 'laissez-faire' (by CJR standards) writers have wearily argued and documented the inevitablility of this sort of thing since the New Deal, but to no avail. It would require that journalists, academics, and political activists re-think their addiction to the use of political rules and laws as the best way to promote the public good. So the bigger companies co-author the rules (they have to - they know more about their means and measures and products (which evolve over time) than any regulator ever can. And the public essentially pays more for the product (i.e., the costs of the regulators and their rules) for little in return - just appearances and intention.
This just in - by a coincidence, bourgeois liberalism relies heavily on appearances and intentions in evaluating the history of governmental policies since the beginning of the urban era.
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 7 Feb 2011 at 12:38 PM
Police coming to a symbiotic relationship with the criminals they regulate - stop the presses! Sophisticated 'laissez-murder' (by CJR standards) writers have wearily argued and documented the inevitablility of this sort of thing since the the Big Bang, but to no avail. It would require that journalists, academics, and political activists re-think their addiction to the use of political rules and laws as the best way to promote the public good. So the bigger syndicates co-author the rules (they have to - they know more about their means and measures) and products (which evolve over time) than any officer of the law ever can. And the public essentially pays more for the product (i.e., the costs of the regulators and their rules) for little in return - just appearances and intention.
Nah, that's not really how the world works. You don't solve a corrupt law enforcement problem by dissolving law enforcement. You don't solve a weak regulatory environment by dissolving regulations and the enforcing regulatory authorities. You get people from the disciplines the regulations are supposed to protect to be regulators. You get legislation, designed by the people the laws are supposed to protect, to be regulations. There are reasons why BP doesn't have accidents in Europe on the scale that it has in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XaXIles66s
BP doesn't get to own the process lock, stock, and barrel. In the US, you have an ideology that claims "Government is the problem" and that the solution to the government problem is more industry, more industry friendly laws and regulators, and more industry people leading and funding government.
That was the Bush administration approach to rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, that's been the Obama administration approach to the banking/housing crisis, that's been both of their approaches to environmental management and resource extraction. How is that working out for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Nc-kxWfmc
Really. How is that regulatory exception riddled, industry friendly, minimal government working out for you?
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 7 Feb 2011 at 08:47 PM
this story points out what have long been obvious: bidness will do everything it can -- particularly in a bad economy -- to leverage its power and influence and do everything it can to eliminate more and more needed govt regulations. and, as usual, it will likely get away with it. the cry went up just the other day from the u.s. chamber of commerce: "turn us loose! let us create jobs! jobs! jobs! get rid of all these senseless, bureaucratic reglatons!"
meanwhile, the lesson goes unlearned and is repeated over and over: industry spews all kinds of poisons into the air, water and land. it happens over and over at the city, county, state and federal levels in every state in the country. regulations that do exist are either weakly enforced or ignored altogether in the name of the economy.
as dylan said in a song: "its a wonder we can even feed ourselves."
#6 Posted by JTFloore, CJR on Wed 9 Feb 2011 at 10:55 AM
It would require that journalists, academics, and political activists re-think their addiction to the use of political rules and laws as the best way to promote the public good.
#7 Posted by louisiana jones act attorneys, CJR on Tue 16 Aug 2011 at 08:53 PM