The Accountability of the Offshore Drilling Platform’s Oil Pollution Damages in the COPC Incident:...

TheAccountabilityoftheOffshoreDrillingPlatform’sOilPollutionDamagesintheCOPCIncident:InComparisonwiththe

UnitedStatesGulfofMexicoOilSpillIncident

ZHANGLiying* LIUJia**

* ZHANGLiying,professorandvicedeanofFacultyofInternationalLawofChinaUni-versityofPoliticalScienceandLaw,Ph.Dadviser,arbitratorofChinaMaritimeArbitra-tionCommission,andexecutivememberofChinaMaritimeLawAssociation.E-mail:[email protected].

** LIUJia,FacultyofInternationalLawofChinaUniversityofPoliticalScienceandLaw.E-mail:[email protected].

Abstract:TheBohaiBayoilspillhasbroughttotheforecertainissuescon-cerningtheassignmentofliabilitytopartiesinvolvedinoffshoreenvironmentaldamages.TheincidenthashighlightedweaknessesinChina’scurrentsystemofaccountabilityinoffshoreoildrilling,namelyambiguousdefinitionofre-sponsibleparty,incompleterangeofclaimants,vaguescopeofcompensationandlaxadministrativepunishment.TheU.S.GulfofMexicooilspillanditsaftermath,bycontrast,demonstratedelementsofaneffectivelegalresponsetoasimilarenvironmentalincident,specificallywithrespecttoliabilityandcom-pensation,andcanthereforeserveasaninstructivecasestudyineffortstoad-vancetheChineseoffshoredrillinglegalregime.Aftercomparingthetwoaforementionedincidentsandtherespectivelegallessonslearnedtherein,theauthorsconcludethatelucidatingtheprocessofidentifyingresponsibleparties,expandingthescopeofcompensation,andincreasingliabilitylimitsareneces-saryactionsforimprovingtheefficacyandefficiencyofrelevantChineselaws.

KeyWords:OffshoreDrillingPlatform;GulfofMexicoOilSpill;LiabilityforOilPollutionDamage;COPCIncident

InJune2011,ConocoPhillipsChinaInc.(COPC),operatingChina’slar-gestoffshorediscovery,PengLai19-3,sawoilspillincidentssuccessivelyonits

151TheAccountabilityoftheOffshoreDrillingPlatform’s

OilPollutionDamagesintheCOPCIncident

ChinaOceansLawReview (2011Number2)

BdrillingplatformandCdrillingplatform.Theincidentstookatremendoustollontheecologicalenvironmentofthesurroundingwatersaswellasthelo-caleconomy.OnJuly5,2011,theChineseState OceanicAdministration(SOA)officiallyreleasedaninvestigationreportidentifyingCOPCasthepartyliablefortheincidents.However,COPCtookatoughanduncooperativestanceforatimeaftertheincidentsbyconcealingthesituationofoilspillsandlyingabouttheresultsofoilpollutionclearance.OnAugust16,theSOAannouncedthatitwouldhirelawyerstosueCOPC,anditindeedestablishedaBohaioilspillclaimspanelonAugust30.Thelawsuit,however,didnotmaterializeevenafteroneyear.OnAugust24,COPCheldapressconferencedeclaringthatitwouldbearliabilityfortheoilspills“accordingtoChineselaw".Afterward,COPCsetuptwoBohaiBayFundsonSeptember6and18,respectively;how-ever,theamountsofthefundsortheiroperationweredisclosed—COPChadbeenpermittedtomanagethefundsin-houseinsteadofdeferringtoacredibleandneutralorganization.Clearly,COPChadnoplantodisclosethese,despitepublicscrutiny.ThepublicandvictimswereobligedtowaituntilDecember30,2011,afullsixmonthsaftertheincidents,atwhichtimetheTianjinMari-timeCourtatlastbegantohearthecaselodgedbyfarmersclaimingcompensa-tionforlossescausedbythePengLai19-3oilspillincident.①OnJanuary25,2012,theMinistryofAgricultureannouncedthatfollowingadministrativeme-diation,theMinistryofAgriculture,ChinaNationalOffshoreOilCorporation(CNOOC)andCOPChadagreedthatthelatterwoulddesignateRMB1billiontosettlelossesclaimsrelatedtofisheryresources;COPCandCNOOCwouldfurtherdesignateRMB100millionandRMB250million,respectivelyfromtheirMarineEnvironmentandEcologicalProtectionFunds,whichwouldbeusedfornaturalfisheryresourcesrestorationandpreservation,fisheryresourceenvironmentalmonitoringandassessment,aswellasrelevantscientificre-searchwork.②Butthemethodbywhichthefiguresabovewerecalculatedandthequestionofwhetherthissumofmoneycanadequatelycompensatedamagesarebeingwidelyquestioned.

TheU.S.GulfofMexicooilspillanditsaftermath,bycontrast,demon-stratedelementsofaneffectivelegalresponsetoasimilarenvironmentalinci-

251

①

②

XinhuaNewsAgency,TianjinMaritimeCourtacceptedtheConocoPhillipscase,atht-tp://news.sina.com.cn/c/2011-12-30/132923724284.shtml,31November2011.PengLai19-3fieldoilspillincidentscametoanagreementoncompensation,athttp://www.moa.gov.cn/sydw/hbhyzj/bjdt/201201/t20120131_2471823.htm,7February2012.

dent,specificallywithrespecttotimelyaccidentmanagementandcompensationpayment.OntheeveningofApril20,2010,BritishPetroleum’s(BP)"Deep-waterHorizon"drillingrigexploded,killing11workers,andsubsequentlyoilgushedfromtheseafloorattheMacondooilhead.TherelevantU.S.authori-tiesincludingthejudicialsystemwerefullyinvolvedinthehandlingoftheac-cident,andapresidentialcommitteewasestablishedforthwithtoinvestigateintotheincident.Inlessthantwomonths,BPvoluntarilycreatedaUSD20billionfundandsetuptheGulfCoastClaimFacility(GCCF)tooperatethefund,organsspecificallydesignedtoallocatecompensationtooilspillvictims.TheU.S.DepartmentofJusticefiledalawsuitofcivilcompensationagainstBPExplorationandProductionInc.,AnadarkoExploration&ProductionLP,AnadarkoPetroleumCorporation,MOEXOffshore2007LLC,and5otherco-defendants.ThecivilclaimslitigationswereheardattheNewOrleansfederalcourt.Inaword,theUnitedStatestookdecisivemeasurestoholdBPaccount-able,thusreducingfurtherdamages.

ThePengLai19-3fieldoilspillsandtheMacondospillbothinflictedseri-ousoffshoreoilpollution,butwithdrasticallydifferentconsequencesfortheresponsibleparties.ThisdisparityresultedfromthecontrastingaccountabilitysystemsofoffshoreoilpollutiondamagesbetweentheUnitedStatesandChi-na.Contrarytotraditionalvessels’oilpollutiondamages,therearefewinter-nationalconventionsandregulationsthataddressoilpollutiondamagesfromoffshoredrillingplatforms.TheComitéMaritimeInternational(CMI)hasproposedthreedraftsofinternationalconventions,theRio,SydneyandCanadaDrafts,overthepast30years,yetnonehasbeencodifiedintointernationallaw.TheInternationalMaritimeOrganization(IMO),aspecializedagencyoftheUnitedNations,evenremovedtheissueofoffshoredrillingplatformoilpollutiondamagefromitsworkplan,asitisdifficultfornationstoagreeonthecontentsofthevariousdrillingplatformconventiondraftsasaresultoftheirwidelydifferinginterestsandpositions.①Inaword,accountabilityforoffshoredrillingplatformoilpollutiondamagesbasicallydependsondomesticlawsofeachnation.

Thechiefelementsofanaccountabilitysystemforoffshoredrillingplat-formoilpollutiondamagesincludetheidentificationofaresponsiblepartyor



① LiTiansheng,TheOutlineoftheLegislationofOffshoreDrillingplatform-FromVesselstotheDevelopmentofOceanEconomy,JournalofDalianMaritimeUniversity,Vol.1,2011,pp.1~5.


parties,identificationofclaimants,thescopeofcompensationandliabilitylim-its,amongotheraspects.ThepresentpaperwillanalyzethePengLai19-3oilspillincidentsfromtheseperspectivesonthebasisofChineselawanddiscusswaystoimprovetherelevantChineselawswithreferencetoU.S.lawsandthehandlingoftheGulfofMexicooilspillincident.

Ⅰ.ResponsibleParty:COPCiswhileCNOOCisnotthatSure

PengLai19-3oilfieldisco-developedbyCNOOCandCOPC,whichhavesignedanOffshoreOilExplorationandExploitationContractagreeingCNO-OCowns51%equityandCOPCowns49%,andthatCOPCistheactualopera-torofoilexplorationandexploitation.Thedefinitionoftheterm“responsibleparty"hasbeenpromulgatedwithinseveralChineselaws.Article90oftheMarineEnvironmentProtectionLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaprovidesthat“ANYPARTY(emphasisadded)thatisdirectlyresponsibleforapollu-tiondamage…shallrelievethedamageandcompensateforthelosses."Arti-cles65and68oftheTortLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaprovidethatthe“polluter"ora“thirdparty…shallassumethetortliability",whileArticle41oftheEnvironmentalProtectionLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChinapro-videsthat“AUNIT(emphasisadded)thathascausedanenvironmentalpollu-tionhazardshallhavetheobligationtoeliminateitandmakecompensationtotheunitorindividualthatsuffereddirectlosses."Inaddition,theRegulationsofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaConcerningEnvironmentalProtectioninOff-shoreOilExplorationandExploitationdescribetheresponsiblepartyas“THEENTERPRISE,INSTITUTIONOROPERATOR(emphasisadded)whohasviolatedMarineEnvironmentProtectionLawandthepresentRegulations".By“Operator"itrefersto“anentityengagedinoperationsofoffshoreoilexplora-tionandexploitation".COPCisnotonlythe“operator"butalsothepollutingentity.Thisliabilitycannotbeascribedtoanythirdparty,thereforebylawCOPCmustassumeresponsibilityforthedamagesinflicted.However,astowhetherCNOOCisalsoaresponsibleparty,therelevantlawsandregulationsdonotprovideadefinitiveanswer.Article25oftheRegulationsofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaontheExploitationofOffshorePetroleum Re-sourcesinCooperationwithForeignEnterprisesprovidesthat“[i]ncaseanoperatororsubcontractorviolatestheprovisionsoftheseRegulationsinimple-mentingpetroleumoperations…[a]lleconomiclossescausedasaresultof

451

thisshallbebornebytheresponsibleparty."Theterm“responsibleparty"asusedinthisarticleappearstoindicatetheoperatororsubcontractorwhovio-latestheregulation,andaccordingtoarticle26ofthesameregulations,“opera-tor"meansanentityinchargeofimplementingtheoperationspursuanttotheprovisionsofapetroleumcontract,and“subcontractor"referstoanentitythatrendersservicestotheoperator.InthecaseofthePengLai19-3spills,CNO-OCactedasthepartyawardingthecontract,notasanoperatororsubcontrac-tor,andsoitcannotbeconsideredaresponsiblepartyundertheseregulations.ButitshouldbenotedthatCNOOCisnotaresponsiblepartyundertheRegu-lationsofOffshorePetroleumResourcesinCooperationwithForeignEnterpri-sesdoesnotmeanitisnotobligedtoassumeitsliabilityunderarticle90oftheMarineEnvironmentProtection Law,Article65ofthe TortLaw ofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,andArticle41oftheEnvironmentalProtectionLaw,becausethesearticlesusepotentiallyvaguetermslike“polluter",“anypartywhoisdirectlyresponsibleforthepollution"and“aunitwhohascausedthepollution"withoutappendinganydetaileddefinition.Suchambiguouspro-visionsmakeitdifficulttoquicklydeterminetheresponsiblepartyandpursueaclaimafteranincidentofoilspillpollution.

ReturningtotheGulfofMexicoincident,thesiteofthespill,calledMC252,wasjointlyexploitedbyBP,AnadarkoandMOEX,whohold65%,25%and10%ofequityrespectively.AtthetimeoftheaccidentBPwasactingastheoperator.①AccordingtoSec.1002(a)oftheOilPollutionActof1990(OPA1990),“eachresponsiblepartyforavesselorafacilityfromwhichoilisdischarged,orwhichposesthesubstantialthreatofadischargeofoil,intooruponthenavigablewatersoradjoiningshorelinesortheexclusiveeconomiczoneisliablefortheremovalcostsanddamages…"②Sec.1001(32)specifiesthattheterm“responsibleparty"meansthefollowing:(A)Inthecaseofavessel,anypersonowning,operating,ordemise-charteringthevessel;(B)Inthecaseofanonshorefacility(otherthanapipeline),anypersonowningoroperatingthefacility…;(C)Inthecaseofanoffshorefacility,thelesseeorpermitteeoftheareainwhichthefacilityislocatedortheholderofarightofuseandeasementgrantedunderapplicableStatelawortheOuterContinentalShelfLandsAct(43U.S.C.1301–1356)fortheareainwhichthefacilityis



①

②

LiZhigang,AnalysisandEnlightenmentofMexicoOilLeakageAccidentLiabilityDivid-ed,InternationalPetroleumEconomics,Vol.8,2010,pp.15~21.OPA1990,Sec.1002(a).


located…;(D)InthecaseofadeepwaterportlicensedundertheDeepwaterPortActof1974(33U.S.C.1501–1524),thelicensee;(E)Inthecaseofapipeline,anypersonowningoroperatingthepipeline;(F)Inthecaseofana-bandonedvessel,onshorefacility,deepwaterport,pipeline,oroffshorefacility,thepersonswhowouldhavebeenresponsiblepartiesimmediatelypriortotheabandonmentofthevesselorfacility".①Sec.1002(d)prescribesthethirdpartyliability,thatis,inanycaseinwhicharesponsiblepartyestablishesthatadischargeorthreatofadischargeandtheresultingremovalcostsanddamageswerecausedsolelybyanactoromissionofoneormorethirdpartiesdescribedinsection1003(a)(3)(orsolelybysuchanactoromissionincombinationwithanactofGodoranactofwar),thethirdpartyorpartiesshallbetreatedastheresponsiblepartyorpartiesforpurposesofdeterminingliability.②Ac-cordingtothesestatutes,thethreeco-exploitingcompaniesmustassumere-sponsibilityonthebasisoftherelevantprovisionsoftheJointOperatingA-greement,whichcontractualizedtheiroperationsattheMacondodrillsite.TransoceanOffshoreDeepwaterDrillingInc.ownedtheDeepwaterHorizonPlatformandleasedittoBP,soitassumedthethird-partyliabilityifthecausesoftheaccidentincludedtheinferiorqualityoftheplatform.Insum,astheOPA1990hasdetailedandspecificprovisionsontheresponsiblepartiesforoilpollutiondamagescausedbyeachkindofvesselorfacility,therelevantrespon-siblepartiescanbeidentifiedquicklyinaccordancewiththelawincaseofanaccident,whichlaysasoundfoundationforsubsequentcompensationclaimsandpenaltyadministration.

Ⅱ.ClaimantsIncludeTwoCategories:SOAandUnitsorIndividualsSufferingLosses

ClaimantsforoilpollutiondamagesfallintotwocategoriesunderChineselaw,namelythemarineenvironmentaladministrationcompetenttofilealaw-suitonbehalfofthestateandunitsorindividualssufferinglosses,withrespecttothedamagescausedbyoilpollutiontomarineecologicalenvironment,ma-rineresourcesandmarineprotectedareasandlossesincurredtothelifeorpropertyofanyunitorindividual.Ononehand,article90oftheMarineEnvi-ronmentProtectionLawprovidesthat“foranydamagescausedtomarineeco-

651

①

②

OPA1990,Sec.1001(32).OPA1990,Sec.1002(d).

systems,marineaquaticresourcesormarineprotectedareasthatresultinheav-ylossestotheState,theinteresteddepartmentempoweredbytheprovisionsofthisLawtoconductmarineenvironmentsupervisionandcontrolshall,onbe-halfoftheState,claimcompensationtothoseheldresponsibleforthedama-ges."Inotherwords,theSOAhastherighttosueCOPConbehalfoftheStateforanydamagescausedtomarineecosystems,marineaquaticresourcesormarineprotectedareas.InthePengLai19-3oilspillincident,theNorthSeaBranchoftheSOAestablishedaspecialworkgroupledbychiefdirectorFangJianmenginearlyJulytocomprehensivelylaunchthemarineecologicaldamageclaimsbyofferinglegalservices,ecologicalevaluation,evidencecollection,andsoon.BySeptember,afterthereviewbyexpertsonlawandoceanscience,thepublicselectionoflawfirmswasalmostcompleted.①TheSOAselectedfourlawfirms,ZhongLunofBeijing,HaiJianofGuangzhou,YingTaiJinDaofShanghaiandWenTaiofShandong,andwasgoingtoinstitutelegalproceed-ingsagainstCOPCintheQingdaoMaritimeCourt.②Ontheotherhand,article41oftheEnvironmentalProtectionLawprovidesthat“aunitthathascausedanenvironmentalpollutionhazardshallhavetheobligationtoeliminateitandmakecompensationtotheunitorindividualthatsuffereddirectlosses."TherearesimilarprovisionsonenvironmentaltortintheTortLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,whichistosaythatanyunitorindividualwhohassuffereddirectlosses,suchasfarmersinthepollutedareas,canbringsuittoclaimdam-agesfromoilpollution.OnDecember13,2011,107farmersfrom LaotingCountyofHebeiProvincefiledalawsuitagainstCOPCwiththeTianjinMari-timeCourt,requestingcessationofinfringement,eliminationofhazard,andRMB490millionascompensationforlosses.③TheTianjinMaritimeCourtac-ceptedthiscaseonDecember30,2011.④

ThelegislationonclaimantsinChinaisrelativelyreasonable,thoughithascertainflaws.First,thecategoriesofclaimantsarenotcomprehensive.Forin-



①

②

③

④

Anonymous,ConocoPhillipsisfacingitsdeadline,andtheSOAwillclaimcompensationforoceanecologicaldamages,OceanWorld,Vol.9,2011,p.6.DuHaiandJiangWang,ThelawsuitagainstConocoPhillipsisaroundthecorner,Eco-nomicGuidance(JiNan),7September2011,athttp://news.163.com/11/0907/03/7DAMG99S00014AED.html,20December2011.WangJiajunandShiQiao,Farmersfrom LaotingcountyHebeiprovincesuedCono-coPhillips,andTianjinMaritimeCourthasn’tacceptedityet,athttp://www.cnr.cn/ne-wscenter/gnxw/201112/t20111214_508924283.shtml,20December2011.XinhuaNewsAgency,TianjinMaritimeCourtacceptedtheConocoPhillipscase,atht-tp://news.sina.com.cn/c/2011-12-30/132923724284.shtml,31November2011.


stance,Chineselawonlyprovidesthatthestateoceanadministrationshallfilealawsuitintheeventofdamageagainstmarineecosystems,marineaquaticre-sourcesormarineprotectedareas,withoutidentifyingrelevantclaimantswithrespecttoremovalcosts,reductionoftaxrevenues,costsforprovidingin-creasedoradditionalpublicservices,amongothers.Second,thelegalsetupofclaimantanddamagesevaluatorisunreasonable.TheSOAisnotonlytheclaimantonbehalfoftheStatefordamagestomarineecology,resourcesandprotectedareas,butalsothebodyorganizingevaluationofthesedamages.TheSOAispartofthegovernment,soitsdamagesevaluationwascredibletothepublic.Asanimportantbasisfordeterminingtheamountofcompensation,theconclusionoftheevaluationcouldhardlybequestionedasanormalproofpro-videdbytheplaintiffinthecourt,whichwouldcompromisetheequalityoftheplaintiffandthedefendant.

InSec.1002(b)ofOPA1990,thecompensationcoverssevenkindsofdamagesandcosts,andthecorrespondingclaimantsaretheUnitedStates,aState,anIndiantribe,orapoliticalsubdivisionofaState;aUnitedStatestrus-tee,aStatetrustee,anIndiantribetrustee,oraforeigntrustee;①corporationsandindividuals,etc.②ComparedwithChineselaws,OPA1990isobviouslymorespecificandcomprehensive.Forexample,itspecifiesthatthegovern-mentorindividualsmayclaimcompensationforremovalcostsincurredpursu-anttolaw;andtherearespecificprovisionsondamagessuchasnetlossofta-xesand“netcostsofprovidingincreasedoradditionalpublicservices",whichareabsentinChineselaws.Furthermore,intheUnitedStates,theinvestiga-tionofoilspillaccidentsisledbytheUnitedStatesCoastGuard,andthelaw-suitisfiledbytheDepartmentofJustice.Suchanarrangementavoidsade-partmentactingconcurrentlyasplaintiffanddamagesevaluator.OnDecember15,2010,AttorneyGeneralEricHolderannouncedacivillawsuitregardingDeepwaterHorizonoilspillinWashington,namingninedefendants,includingtheoilwelldeveloperBPExplorationandProductionInc.,AnadarkoExplora-tion&ProductionLP,TritonAssetLeasingGMBHandTransoceanOffshoreDeepwaterDrillingInc.,thelastofwhichownedthedrillingplatform,andclai-

851

①

②

OPA1990,Sec.1006(a)identifies“trustee":ThePresident,ortheauthorizedrepresenta-tiveofanyState,Indiantribe,orforeigngovernment,shallactonbehalfofthepublic,In-diantribe,orforeigncountryastrusteeofnaturalresourcestopresentaclaimforandtorecoverdamagestothenaturalresources.OPA1990,Sec.1002(a).

mingcompensationfordirectorindirectdamagessuchasremovalcosts,eco-nomiclosses,naturalresourcedamagesandenvironmentaldamages.①Besides,morethan140thousandcorporationsandindividualshadjoinedthecivilsuita-gainsttheresponsiblepartiesoftheGulfofMexicooilspillaccident.Theclaimantsweremainlyownersandproprietorsoffishingenterprises;farmerswhoalsocatchfish,shrimpandcrabs;processorsofmarineproducts;owners,proprietorsofdistributionmarkets,retailmarkets,seafoodmarketsandrestau-rants,andtheiremployees;entertainmententerprises’owners,proprietorsandtheiremployees;ship-owners,seamen,charters;amongothers(13kindsinto-tal).②Theselawsuits,havingdevelopedintoclassactionNo.MDL-2179,wereheardbyJudgeCarlJ.BarbieroftheLouisianaFederalDistrictCourtbegin-ningFebruary27,2012.

Ⅲ.FuzzyScopeofCompensationandLackofEffectiveMethodforCalculatingLosses

ThescopeofcompensationwasthebiggestproblemencounteredinthecourseofsuingCOPC.Article47oftheFisheriesLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaprovidesthat“[f]oranyonewhodestroystheecologicalenvironmentoffisherywaterareasorcausesanyfisherypollutionaccident,hislegalliabil-itiesshallbeinvestigatedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsintheLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaontheProtectionofSeaEnvironmentandtheLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaonthePreventionandCureofWaterPollu-tion."However,noneoftheprovisionsintheMarineEnvironmentProtectionLawandtheEnvironmentalProtectionLawtouchesonthescopeofcompensa-tion.Theonlyspecificprovisiononthescopeofcompensationisarticle28oftheImplementationMeasuresofRegulationsofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaConcerningEnvironmentalProtectioninOffshoreOilExplorationandExploi-tation:(1)theremovalcostsincurredbythesufferersoftheseawater,biologi-calsourcesdamagesoftheoceanenvironmentalpollutioncausedbyoperators’actions;(2)theeconomicallosses,repaircostsofdamagedinstrumentsofpro-



①

②

AttorneyGeneralEricHolderAnnouncesCivilLawsuitRegardingDeepwaterHorizonOilSpill,athttp://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-101215.html,9February2012.The13kindsofclaimantscanbegotten,athttp://www.gulfoilspilllitigationgroup.com/,22November2011.


duction,andcostsofpreventivemeasuresresultedfromtheoceanenvironmen-talpollutioncausedbyoperators’actions;(3)costsofinvestigationontheacci-dentscausedbyOffshoreOilExplorationandExploitation.①Insum,thescopeofcompensationinthisprovisionincludeswaterandbiologicalsourcesdama-ges,removalcosts,economiclosses,costsofinvestigation,etc.Thoughpoten-tiallyuseful,thoseguidelinesaremerelydepartmentalrulesthatcarrylittlele-galweight,tothepointthattheyprobablywillnotbeconsideredincourt.Inaddition,thescopeofcompensationprovidedforbythesemeasuresisverylim-ited,mostlyfromtheperspectiveoftheState,hardlycoveringthescopeofcompensationforenterprisesorindividualssufferinglosses.Consequently,intheCOPCoilspillincidents,thecompensationclaimslodgedaccordingtothecurrentlawsandregulationsarefarfromoffsettingthelossessufferedbyvic-tims,andontopofthat,manyofthereasonableclaimshavenolegalbasis.

Withrespecttothescopeofcompensation,theprovisionsintherelevantU.S.lawaredetailedandspecific,whichprovideahelpfultutorialforChineselegislators.Sec.1002ofOPA1990stipulatesthatthecompensationshallcoverremovalcostsanddamages.Theremovalcostsreferredtoinsubsection(a)are—(A)allremovalcostsincurredbytheUnitedStates,aState,oranIndiantribe…;and(B)anyremovalcostsincurredbyanypersonforactstakenbythepersonwhichareconsistentwiththeNationalContingencyPlan.

Thedamagesreferredtoinsubsection(a)arethefollowing:(A)NATURALRESOURCES.—Damagesforinjuryto,destructionof,

lossof,orlossofuseof,naturalresources,includingthereasonablecostsofas-sessingthedamage,whichshallberecoverablebyaUnitedStatestrustee,aStatetrustee,anIndiantribetrustee,oraforeigntrustee.

(B)REALORPERSONALPROPERTY.—Damagesforinjuryto,ore-conomiclossesresultingfromdestructionof,realorpersonalproperty,whichshallberecoverablebyaclaimantwhoownsorleasesthatproperty.

(C)SUBSISTENCEUSE.—Damagesforlossofsubsistenceuseofnatu-ralresources,whichshallberecoverablebyanyclaimantwhosousesnaturalresourceswhichhavebeeninjured,destroyed,orlost,withoutregardtotheownershipormanagementoftheresources.

061

① TheImplementationMeasuresofRegulationsofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaConcern-ingEnvironmentalProtectioninOffshoreOilExplorationandExploitation,athttp://www.soa.gov.cn/soa/governmentaffairs/faguijiguowuyuanwenjian/bumenguizhang/webinfo/2008/05/1270102486971287.html,22December2011.

(D)REVENUES.—Damagesequaltothenetlossoftaxes,royalties,rents,fees,ornetprofitsharesduetotheinjury,destruction,orlossofrealproperty,personalproperty,ornaturalresources,whichshallberecoverablebytheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates,aState,orapoliticalsubdivisionthereof.

(E)PROFITSANDEARNINGCAPACITY.—Damagesequaltothelossofprofitsorimpairmentofearningcapacityduetotheinjury,destruction,orlossofrealproperty,personalproperty,ornaturalresources,whichshallbere-coverablebyanyclaimants.

(F)PUBLICSERVICES.—Damagesfornetcostsofprovidingincreasedoradditionalpublicservicesduringorafterremovalactivities,includingprotec-tionfromfire,safety,orhealthhazards,causedbyadischargeofoil,whichshallberecoverablebyaState,orapoliticalsubdivisionofaState.①

ItisnothardtodrawaconclusionthatOPA1990hasprovidedawell-roundedscopeofcompensation,sowell-definedastospecifylossofprofitsorimpairmentofearningcapacityduetotheinjury,destructionorlossofrealproperty,personalproperty,ornaturalresources,whichshallberecoverablebyanyclaimants.

Inaddition,withrespecttooperability,noeffectivemethodforcalculatingenvironmentalandpersonaldamagesisavailableinChina,despitethefactthatthecalculationofdamagesisthebasisformakingclaimsofcompensation.Duetotheabsenceofaneffectivecalculationmethod,thereasonabilityandobjectiv-ityoftheclaimstendtoberegardedwithsuspicion,asthecourtlacksasolidlegalgroundduringitshearingandjudgment.InthementionedcaseofLaotingCounty,107farmersclaimedatotalofRMB490millionascompensation.However,itisuncertainwhetherthisamountwillbesupportedbythecourtbecausethereisnouniformandcrediblemethodofcalculation.TheMarineEnvironmentProtectionLawandotherrelevantlawsandregulationsinChinaarefaroutdated,whichgivesrisetodifficultiesindamagescalculation.SincetheamendedMarineEnvironmentProtectionLawwasenactedin2004,relatedsupportingregulationshavenotbeenamendedandimprovedaccordingly,andnorelatedrulesforimplementationoftheLawhavebeendelivered.Moreover,someimportantstandardsconcerningtheoceanicenvironmentarestillunavail-able.②Onthecontrary,theU.S.NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdminis-



①

②

OPA1990,Sec.1002(a).WangShuming,ZhouYanandLiYan,Studyandreviewonthepollutionandrehabilita-tionofBohai,JournalofChinaOceanUniversity,Vol.4,2009,pp.27~31.


tration(NOAA)andDepartmentoftheInterior(DOI)havebothmaderulesaboutthecalculationofdamages.ThecurrentDOIrulesprovidethatthedam-agesinclude“thecostofrestoration,rehabilitation,orreplacementoracquisi-tionoftheequivalentofanyresourcesandtheirservices",“thecompensablevalueofalloraportionoftheserviceslosttothepublicforthetimeperiodfromthedischargeorreleaseuntiltheattainmentoftherestoration,rehabilita-tion,replacement,and/oracquisitionofequivalentofbaseline,"andadminis-trativecostsandexpensesnecessaryfor,andincidentalto,theassessmentaswellasinterest.ThenaturalresourcedamagesassessmentundertheNOAArulesincludespre-assessment,restorationplanningandrestorationimplemen-tation.①SuchprocedurehasbeenformulatedespeciallytoaddressoilspilldamagesorthethreatofoilspilldamagesasdefinedbytheOPA.TheNOAArulesandDOIruleshavespecifiedthemethodofcalculationofenvironmentalandresourcesdamagesaswellastheassessmentprocedure,bywhichthecal-culationofdamagescanbeoperatedwithasolidlegalbasis.

Ⅳ.AdministrativePenaltyistooMildtoHaveaDeterrentEffect

Withrespecttoadministrativepenalty,therangeofpenaltyonwhichrele-vantpunishmentsarebasedisobviouslytoolimitedtoplayaroleindeterringCOPC.InthePengLai19-3fieldoilspillcase,theceilingforadministrativepenaltyisRMB200thousand,asprovidedinarticle38oftheEnvironmentalProtectionLaw:“AnenterpriseorinstitutionwhichviolatesthisLaw,therebycausinganenvironmentalpollutionaccident,shallbefinedbythecompetentdepartmentofenvironmentalprotectionadministrationoranotherdepartmentinvestedbylawwithpowertoconductenvironmentalsupervisionandmanage-mentinaccordancewiththeconsequentdamage…"andarticle85:“IncaseoftheconductofanyoffshoreoilexplorationandexploitationinviolationoftheprovisionsofthisLaw,thuscausingpollutiondamagetothemarineenviron-ment,theStateoceanicadministrativedepartmentshallgiveawarningandim-poseafinenotlessthanRMB20,000butnotmorethanRMB200,000."TomajorcorporationssuchasCOPC,afineofRMB200,000forinflictingseriouseconomicandenvironmentaldamagesisbutadropinthebucket.ThemildpunishmentwasanimportantreasonwhyCOPCconcealedtherealsituation

261

① WangShuyi,LiuJing,AnalysisofU.S.compensationsystemofnaturalresourcesdama-ges,LawReview,Vol.1,2009,pp.71~79.

severaltimesaftertheincidentandwasinsincereinmakinganapology.Astoadministrativemediation,onJanuary25,2012,theMinistryofAgri-

culture,CNOOCandCOPCtogetherannouncedthatfollowingadministrativemediation,COPChadagreedtoputupRMB1billiontosettleclaimsoflossesrelatedtomarineproductscultivationandnaturalfisheryresourcesintheaf-fectedareasoftheHebeiandLiaoningprovinces;andthatCOPCandCNOOCwouldalsodesignateaportionfromtheircommittedmarineenvironmentalandecologicalprotectionfunds,whichareRMB100millionandRMB250million,respectively,tobeusedfornaturalfisheryresourcesrestorationandpreserva-tion,fisheryresourcesenvironmentalmonitoringandassessment,aswellasre-latedscientificresearch.①Nevertheless,theissuesofwhetherthemediationwasauthorizedandapprovedbythefishermensufferinglosses,howthea-mountofRMB1billionwasarrivedat,whetherthissumofmoneyisenoughtosettlealldamages,andhowthedamagesaretobeallocatedarebeingwidelydiscussedbythepublic,andonemustwaittoknowiftheactualresultsofme-diationwillwithstandthetestoftime.

TheU.S.laws,onthecontrary,donotdrawalinebetweencivilliabilityandadministrativeresponsibility,butinsteadsetauniformliabilitylimitationinstead.TheapplicablelawforliabilityintheGulfofMexicoCaseistheOPA1990.Sec.1004(a)(3)ofthelawprovidesthat“foranoffshorefacilityexceptadeepwaterport,thetotalofallremovalcostsplus$75,000,000".②Inaddi-tion,Sec.1004(c)(1)providesthat“[s]ubsection(a)doesnotapplyifthein-cidentwasproximatelycausedby—(A)grossnegligenceorwillfulmisconductof,or(B)theviolationofanapplicableFederalsafety,construction,oroperat-ingregulationby,theresponsibleparty,anagentoremployeeoftheresponsi-bleparty,orapersonactingpursuanttoacontractualrelationshipwiththere-sponsibleparty(exceptwherethesolecontractualarrangementarisesincon-nectionwithcarriagebyacommoncarrierbyrail)."③IntheGulfofMexicooilspillincident,theU.S.DepartmentofJusticefiledalawsuitagainstthere-sponsiblepartiesofthisincident,citingviolationsoffederalsafetyandopera-tionalregulations,including:1.Failuretotakenecessaryprecautionstosecure



①

②

③

AnadministrativeagreementhasbeenreachedonfishingdamagescausedbyPengLai19-3fieldoilspillincidents,athttp://www.moa.gov.cn/sydw/hbhyzj/bjdt/201201/t20120131_2471823.htm,7February2012.OPA1990,Sec.1004(a)(3).OPA1990,Sec.1004(c)(1).


theMacondowellpriortotheApril20thexplosion;2.Failuretoutilizethesa-festdrillingtechnologytomonitorthewell’scondition;3.Failuretomaintaincontinuoussurveillanceofthewell;and4.Failuretoutilizeandmaintaine-quipmentandmaterialsthatwereavailableandnecessarytoensurethesafetyandprotectionofpersonnel,property,naturalresources,andtheenviron-ment.①Therefore,accordingtotheOPA1990,BPandtheotherdefendantsmustshoulderresponsibilityforremovalcostsanddamagescompensationwithoutlimitation.ThuswecanseethattheU.S.governmenthassetastrictandhighliabilitylimitationagainsttheresponsiblepartiesthroughlegislationtofacilitatethecomprehensiveenforcementofclaimsincaseofanaccident.

InChina,however,nosuchprovisionisavailablethatstipulateslimitsofliabilityforoffshoreplatformoilpollutiondamages,andliabilitylimitationhasonlybeensetforthforoilpollutiondamagesfromshipsinthecorpusofChi-neselaw.Besidessettingastrictandhighliabilitylimitation,astheUnitedStateshasdone,administrativepenaltyisalsoanindispensablemeasure.Itisimperativetoincreasethedegreeofpunishmentsothatiteffectivelydeterspo-tentialpolluters,forduetothelackoftimelyamendment,thepenaltiesinclud-edintherelevantlawsandadministrativeregulationsareconspicuouslyinsuffi-cientinlightofpresentneeds.Somelocalregulationshavesetgoodexamplesfortheeventualamendmentofcentralgovernmentslawsandregulationscon-cerningadministrativepenalty.Forexample,theMeasuresofOceanicEcologi-calDamagesandLossesCompensationofShandongProvincehaveraisedthelimitsofliabilitytoRMB200million.Indeed,thecentralChinesegovernmenthasmadeprogressinsomeareas:article83oftheLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChinaonthePreventionandControlofWaterPollutionprovidesthat“iftheaccidentisordinaryorrelativelyserious,thefineshallbecalculatedontheba-sisof20%ofthedirectlossescausedbytheaccident;iftheaccidentisseriousorextraordinarilyserious,thefineshallbecalculatedonthebasisof30%ofthedirectlossescausedbytheaccident."Thisarticlerecognizesnoupperlimitofpenalty,andtheprorataadministrativepunishmentmethoditprovidesismoreflexible.

461

① AttorneyGeneralEricHolderAnnouncesCivilLawsuitRegardingDeepwaterHorizonOilSpill,athttp://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-101215.html,9February2012.

Ⅴ.Conclusion

Insum,theaccountabilitysystemofoffshoredrillingplatformoilpollu-tiondamageisarelativelynewareaoflaw,andrelevantChineselawsandregu-lationsshouldbeimprovedinseveralaspects,suchasmoreadequatelydefiningambiguouslegalterms,particularlythatof“responsibleparty",supplementingincompletelegalprovisions,addressingalackofspecificity,expandingthenar-rowscopeofcompensation,raisinglowadministrativepenalties,anddevisingaconsistentandfairmethodofcalculation,amongothers.ThePengLai19-3fieldoilspillsbroughtalloftheseweaknessestolight,andeachmeritsourcloseattention.WeshoulddrawonstrengthsoftheU.S.domesticlawstoes-tablishandimproverelatedChineselawsbyunequivocallyidentifyingresponsi-blepartiesfordifferentsourcesofpollution,expandingthescopeofclaimantsandthescopeofcompensation,andincreasingliabilitylimitsetc.,sothatthefrailtyofourcurrentlawswouldbedoneawaywithandanotherincidentlikethatofCOPCmightultimatelybeaverted.

(Editor:NIXiaolu;EnglishEditors:CHENXiaoshuang;JoshuaOwens;WilliamPrice)



The Accountability of the Offshore Drilling Platform’s Oil Pollution Damages in the COPC Incident:...

Documents

Transcript of The Accountability of the Offshore Drilling Platform’s Oil Pollution Damages in the COPC Incident:...