I have listened to and read SO MUCH criticism of Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill, from the inane, conniving ad hominems of James Carville, to Bobby Jindal's phony concern trolling about lost jobs, to the blistering attacks by Kossacks here who posit the question of whether Obama cares more about corporate contributions or the environment!
On one point I will concede: Obama cares about his own political survival. But I also believe that he realizes that his survival has become intertwined with the outcome in the Gulf.
A little background: I worked as a senior staff at US EPA Headquarters for 10 years, from the Reagan Administration until the beginning of Clinton's term. I have worked in the Office of Water, administering the provisions of the Clean Water Act. I have litigated hundreds of enforcement actions against some of the largest corporations.
I know something about the real-world process of dealing with a company like BP.
When confronted with an event of this magnitude--an environmental 9-11--you can pull a 'bush' and swagger and threaten, or you can implement a plan to deal with the mess BP and maybe Halliburton have caused after you first ascertain the best way to proceed.
Unlike 9-11, Congress isn't going to give Obama hundreds of billions to fight this environmental war, and BP will fight every step of the way to avoid paying more than they have to. Given those constraints, Obama must play his cards wisely, to effect a juste economic outcome for US citizens, a long-term environmentally sound outcome for Gulf natural resources, and a political outcome that doesn't cripple him going into 2012.
The main statutes that Obama has to enforce here are contained in the 311 provisions of the Clean Water Act. [there may be other laws in play, but the CWA is the main one in this in case] Now, 311 DEMANDS that Obama takes charge of all responses, government and private, where the interests of our nation are at stake. The CWA 311 provisions are really designed to deal with a spill of a finite, defined dimensions--thousands of gallons or billions.
The problem here for Obama is, we still don't know how big this event will be. We can estimate, based on the rate of discharge and capture, but we still don't know when the discharge will be plugged. That event is critical, because if Obama were to demand NOW a solution that would end BP's existence, he basically would be putting the government in charge of plugging the well. And the US Government could only accomplish that by contracting with an oil company, while providing them with legal immunities should their efforts fail. By taking the approach he has taken, Obama is keeping the gun pointed at BP's head.
I realize many here and all over the country are angry with our government for its implied complicity with BP as to the rate of daily discharge--1000 barrels, 5000 barrels, 19,000 barrels, more.. Let me tell you all right now: BP will be fined billions, but they will never be fined for all they spew. Not even close. To expect that outcome is unrealistic, and probably not even desirable.
The REAL money will be spent 1. stopping the gusher, 2. remediation of the shores/estuaries, 3. economic impact to the states where oil washes ashore. I expect those bills to total $25-50 billion.
And it is far more important to have BP spend its money on those 3 items than on a civil penalty, because after a point, BP will cease to function as an ongoing concern if it cannot see a path out of its plight. It will dismember itself and then the lawyers will be in charge, not Obama.
What makes me really angry about all this criticism of Obama is the lack of understanding of the legal process involved. BP is under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, and unlike Exxon who pinned the criminality of their disaster on a drunken captain, the criminal actions here likely came from upper management. This criminal component places a burden on both BP and Obama. He can't just bellow about 'getting them dead or alive' like bush did with bin Laden. There is a thing here called 'due process', and BP could worm out of criminal charges if it could show that the government forced it to incriminate itself.
On the other hand, the criminal charges are Obama's strongest cards to play in forcing BP to pony up for the remediation and economic impact. Those charges, as well as the civil fines, will be negotiated and litigated for years, and Obama, if he is as good a poker player as I believe he is, will hold them over BP's head until he has gotten everything he can get out of them.
Ultimately, people will be disappointed with the criminal and civil penalties. There will be trash talk about how Obama 'let BP off the hook', 'slap on the wrist', etc. This is always how it goes down. But BP knows it has to pay the remediation, economic impact costs, and it PREFERS to spend its money there.
Fines are not tax deductible. Clean up, restoration, monetary civil settlements are.
BP will clean up this mess because it is its cheapest way out.
As far as private lawsuits are concerned--I haven't a clue!