Why the oil spill isn't BP's fault

We've got no idea whether BP has been negligent with their drilling operations or not. But what we do know is, if BP was drilling in a privately owned Gulf of Mexico, the private owner would want to be darn sure that BP was behaving itself. The private owner would want to receive a fee from BP for the use of that particular sea area. Doubtless the owner would also want to make sure that BP had adequate insurance should anything happen.

The private owner may also provide addition services to those using its sea property - such as oil spill services. After all, an oil spill by one driller would have a major impact on other companies doing business in that area of private sea - other drillers, fishermen, shipping firms, etc.

And imagine the consequence of the oil drifting into adjacent sea areas. For the private sea owner, if one business causes other businesses to stop using that area of the sea then that's going to be bad news for the owner.

But as another aside, what about other issues, such as piracy on the high seas? If you own a section of the ocean and you're able to charge ships to use it, you'd be able to attract more traffic if you can demonstrate how secure your section of the ocean is: that ships can pass freely without the fear of ambush.

Anyway, getting back to the oil spill. While BP is being cast as the villain, the truth is that BP isn't as villainous as the mainstream media, politicians and special interest groups claim. I mean, does anyone seriously believe that BP intentionally caused the oil rig to explode, killing 11 men and releasing millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico?

Yet listen to the mainstream knuckleheads and you'd think BP couldn't give a stuff that up to USD$11.3 million worth of oil is leaking into the Gulf each day. Could it really be true that BP doesn't care that it's losing so much money in potential profits?

No, of course it isn't. BP would rather have the oil flow into a tanker rather than into the sea.

However, because of a lack of private property rights there's no private owner putting pressure on BP to clean the mess up. In addition, there's no private owner who could have invested in equipment or chemicals to ensure the problem didn't spread into adjacent privately owned areas.

Or, there was no private owner to stipulate that BP should have an emergency plan in place should the worst occur.

Instead you've got US President Barack Obama calling the oil spill "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced". And claiming that he's going to "kick ass" - we assume he means kicking bottoms not kicking donkeys.

But funnily enough, nearly two months after the rig exploded we're yet to see exactly what governments or government agencies have done.

The fact is that if oceans were privately owned BP may never have been able to afford to locate a rig where it did. After all, drilling thousands of metres under the sea bed is pretty expensive and risky.

But as is usually the case, when you've got a government manipulating a market to encourage offshore exploration in areas that otherwise would not be economical, it will always create distortions and lead to unintended consequences.

Especially when a government passes a law limiting the liability of offshore drillers to just USD$75 million. Which - if you'll pardon the pun - is a drop in the ocean compared to the billions the clean-up is forecast to cost.

So look, I won't deny that perhaps BP deserves to shoulder some of the blame. But the fact remains that the biggest contributor to the current oil spill, the Exxon Valdez, and all other so-called environmental disasters is actually the basic lack of private property rights over the seas.