http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100609/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2499

Yep, the taxpayers will end up paying for it.

Brian O'Neill, an attorney with the enormous law firm Faegre & Benson who represented numerous Alaskans after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, spoke to the Huffington Post's Sam Stein about the prospects for Gulf Coast fisherman and other would-be plaintiffs harmed by the colossal BP oil spill in the region. He didn't exactly mince words.

"If you were affected in Louisiana, to use a legal term, you are just f*cked," he said.

As Stein reports, O'Neill is eminently qualified to speak on the subject, having spent so long pursuing claims against Exxon in the Valdez case.

"These big oil companies, they have a different view of time and politics than we do," he said. "Exxon sure weathered it really well. The market went up the next day for Exxon stock [after the settlement]. They just thrived despite treating an entire state poorly. And there is a lesson there for BP, and that is: it really doesn't matter whether you treat these people nicely or not. The only difference is if you extract oil."

O'Neill predicted that the number of legal claims against BP will far surpass the 32,000 processed in the wake of the Valdez spill. What's more, he notes, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 — which Congress passed in reaction to the Valdez disaster — may actually put an artificial limit on legal damages in cases related to the BP spill.

Under the act, federal courts cannot impose damages in excess of $75 million on any oil firm responsible for a spill. Some states have their own liability caps that can supersede the federal cap. But Louisiana — which has always granted generous legal and financial benefits to the oil and gas industry — has none. There's been much debate in Washington about raising the cap substantially, but, as Stein notes, many legal scholars suggest that a higher cap probably can't be retroactively applied in the BP case.