Congress is considering significantly raising the cap (currently $75M), or completely removing it, for damages caused by oil spills. But some senators are against it saying that smaller oil companies wouldn't be able to compete. Is this a logic rubik's cube?
1. We want all drilling companies to make sure their wells are as safe as can be and that contingency plans are in place to handle mistakes (money doesn't assure attaining those conditions, but lack of money assures they're not). This takes a hunk of cash. Smaller drilling companies don't have a hunk of cash.
2. But we like competition; so let's cap the liability and at a low number, allowing smaller drilling companies to drill (but maybe with not enough cash to fund the highest and most costly safety procedures and capitalized contingency plans).
3. Now even the large well-capitalized companies, doing their economic trade-off calculations, therefore find an incentive to shave a bit on safety and contingency plans.
4. So now we've increased the probability of further environmental/economic disasters, from both small and large drilling companies.
5. And now the resulting more probable and huge resulting environmental/economic costs are borne almost exclusively by various governments and tax-payers.
If i just spin this logic rubik's cube central plane one more time, surely the colors will all line up.