[GA, passed] - Oil Spill Recovery

---

The World Assembly,

Lauding prior efforts to institute regulations regarding offshore oil drilling through GAR#95: "Responsible Offshore Drilling", which creates sensible provisions to minimise the environmental impact of offshore drilling while still permitting profit-driven activities related to this drilling,

Acknowledging that, while this previous World Assembly legislation does institute sensible guidelines, it falls short in the establishment of responsibility and the minimisation of environmental impacts in oil spills, instead giving vague instructions to reduce severity,

Believing that further legislation is needed to assist in the recovery from oil spills, which can result in international environmental consequences,

Enacts the following provisions:

1. An "offshore drill operator" shall, within this resolution, be defined as any entity which directly engages in offshore drilling or otherwise has private or public ownership over any offshore drilling operation.
2. An "oil spill" refers to the accidental or deliberate release of crude oil, refined petroleum products, or any other type of oil into an oceanic or marine environment. Some, although not all, potential causes of an oil spill include the failure or malfunction of oil drilling equipment, natural disasters causing the release of oil stored or being produced from an offshore drill, and the improper handling of oil during transport by relevant entities.
3. Offshore drill operators which are involved in an oil spill must take appropriate actions to minimise the environmental impact of such a spill, and bring the water quality and surrounding environmental conditions of the spill to a comparable level to before the spill. The characterisation of "comparable level" shall be at the discretion of the World Assembly Responsible Offshore Drilling Administration ("WARODA"), which shall review all conditions surrounding an oil spill and make appropriate recommendations and requirements. Appropriate action shall be characterised as the following actions, although member nations are permitted and encouraged to require further actions to ensure the environmental recovery of such an action:
   1. For offshore drill operators whose operations fall under World Assembly jurisdiction, or who operate an offshore oil drill within the territory of a member nation, the offshore drill operator must take on the full financial responsibility of bringing the environmental conditions to such a level as required by WARODA. If the offshore drill operator is unable to cover the full finances required without substantial financial burden, the member nation within their jurisdiction may provide financial support, and in extreme cases, WARODA in collaboration with the WA General Accounting Office ("GAO") may finance the recovery following the cleanup, given an appropriate assessment by both WARODA and the GAO, with the GAO creating a financing plan where the offshore drill operator shall pay the financed funds back to the World Assembly.
   2. For offshore drill operators whose operations do not fall under World Assembly jurisdiction, who are involved in an oil spill outside of the territory of a member nation, all member nations must ban the import of products of the offshore drill operators and financial collaboration with the perpetrating entities, until such a time that appropriate action is taken to bring the oil spill to a comparable level as before the oil spill.
   3. In the event of an oil spill, any responsible offshore drill operator whose operations fall under World Assembly jurisdiction, or who operate an offshore oil drill within the territory of a member nation, shall submit a report to WARODA detailing the cause, plan of action for recovery from the spill, and plan to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future for their offshore drilling operations. WARODA may request further documentation from these offshore drill operators involved in an oil spill, and the offshore drill operator must provide as quickly as they possibly can.
4. Offshore drill operators, member nations, and other entities may work to finance these cleanup measures by requesting or requiring other corporations or entities directly or indirectly involved in the spill to collaborate in the actions outlined by clause three. Additionally, in the event that an oil spill spans multiple nations, all member nations shall work to collaborate in the enforcement of these actions, and shall work with non-member nations in a good-faith effort to ensure that provisions as laid out by this resolution are enacted.
5. Additional regulations surrounding the funding of cleanup efforts of an oil spill may be enacted by this World Assembly. Additionally, specific regulations on offshore oil drills to promote safety and environmental prosperity may be further enacted by the World Assembly or its member nations.
6. No offshore drill operator, nor any other entity, shall be permitted to intentionally cause an oil spill for any reason.

Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

---

Overview
This resolution proposal is an attempt to re-re-codify into law spillage protocols in the oil industry. It is, by its own admission, limited in scope, due to the work done by GA#95 (Responsible Offshore Drilling), and in part, GA#658 (Borderzone Mining and Drilling).

Recommendation
As noted above, there is not really anything here that is altogether compelling. The WARODA is already empowered to clean up oil spills, as per Clauses 2 and 3 of GA#95. Additionally, there are some issues with the precise wording of clause 4: (what does “other entities” refer to? What is the scope?)

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a voteAgainst the GA proposal at vote, "Oil Spill Recovery".

(Note: personal note from Simone: I looked at this in quite detail in GA#658, and I really don't think the combination of water pollution laws plus GA95 make this resolution particularly necessary.)

Personally I need to think about it.

Edit:

Against.

There's already GA95 and GA658, there's not that much stuff on this topic that isn't already kinda covered. If someone wants to reform this area, repeal 95 and re-do the functions of WARODA etc. This is a wasted opportunity.

For

Against

Against.

Against - its basically redundant given the provisions of GA95. It doesn't even expand the power of the WARODA since it already has the power to minimize the effects of oil spills.
"2. To research methods and tactics for preventing the compromise of offshore drilling systems by fire, explosion, natural disaster, and other causes,
3. To research methods and tactics for containing and reducing the effects on the environment should such a compromise occur," - GA95

Abstain

For

Present. The proposal is limited in its effect, as it notes a lot of work in this area is already done by Resolution #95. That said, I don’t think that this proposal is entirely redundant. As I read Resolution #95, I do not think it strictly does empower WARODA to require (effectively) restoration to the prior state, in that it does not make provision about the extent of the clean up operations it provides for in its insurance clauses.

I am intrigued by clause 4 of the proposal, as to the extent of the power to “requir[e] other corporations or entities directly or indirectly involved in the spill to collaborate in the actions outlined by clause three”. This suggests a power to mandate other entities’ co-operation, particularly when contrasted with the use of “request”. If limited to member states that would seem to me to be non-problematic but the power is expressed as resting with the “Offshore drill operators, member nations, and other entities”. I don’t know that it ought to be within the operator’s power impose such mandates and the precise scope of “other entities” is elusive

Against

Voted Against.

Against

Against

For

Against

present (non-wa)

Against