Citizens play second fiddle to big oil, even in South Dakota

by

epa-foto

Guess who gets to pay for this mess? You guessed it – not big oil

A letter writer from Rapid City points out the hypocrisy of our legislators and protecting big oil from taking responsibility for an oil spill;

This year, SB171 was proposed to provide for a fee of two cents per barrel to be levied on oil pumped through pipelines crossing South Dakota. A fund was to be created by the proceeds of the fee to be used for cleanup in the event of an oil spill or some contamination emanating from the pipeline. A cap on this participating fund would be established at $30 million.

 

Similar legislation in another state requires a higher per-barrel fee. The bill was killed in the Senate State Affairs Committee by a one-vote margin. The current South Dakota pipeline regulations and the testimonies by the pipeline supporters relating to pipeline spills and safety are mostly reassuring.

 

However, there appears to be a deficiency with regard to who will pay for a cleanup in the event that the pipeline company becomes insolvent or is no longer in business. This missing financial recourse is an important consideration, especially when considering the state’s experience with specific gold mining and solid waste operations in the Black Hills area.

Why wouldn’t we want this limited, alternative protection?

Because our legislators protect business first and make the citizens pickup the tab if something goes wrong.

Posted in: Uncategorized

7 Thoughts on “Citizens play second fiddle to big oil, even in South Dakota”

  1. Ghost of Dude on March 30, 2009 at 7:26 am said:

    In Oklahoma, the reddest of the red states and home of big oil, the oil and gas companies pay to clean up thier disused sites. In fact, they’ve turned a lot of former well sites into parks, playgrounds, and other public land.

  2. l3wis on March 30, 2009 at 7:35 am said:

    I think most of our lawmakers in South Dakota really need to take IQ tests before running for office.

  3. Ghost of Dude on March 30, 2009 at 8:28 am said:

    There would be a lot of districts left unrepresented.

  4. l3wis on March 30, 2009 at 8:58 am said:

    A lot? More like all of them. I think some of the supposed educated legislators in this area of the state come up with more dumb ideas then the rancher legislators in the West. “Uh, yeah, let’s make large scale casinos legal so they don’t come here . . .”

  5. John2 on March 30, 2009 at 9:12 am said:

    Hey dude, take it easy on those “conservatives” – they are just being “compassionate”, dude.

  6. Ghost of Dude on March 30, 2009 at 9:37 am said:

    Heidepreim lost any chance of being our next governor with that one. Even Sibby would beat him if we voted to day.

  7. l3wis on March 30, 2009 at 11:21 am said:

    His Casino idea is kinda like trying to put a fire out with gasoline or letting Rumsfeld and Cheney run a successful war.

Post Navigation