TransCanada, owners of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, promised Nebraska state legislators this week to take additional steps to protect environmental safety if the project is approved by the federal government.

The Canadian pipeline company made several guarantees to Nebraska lawmakers, including a $100 million bond to ensure adequate funds to clean up after any oil spills, as the state’s legislature considered holding a special session to consider legislation to force the company to change Keystone’s route…

In a letter to the Speaker of the Nebraska legislature, Sen. Mike Flood, TransCanada also offered to build a concrete containment ditch around the pipeline where it cross the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills area, to locate a rapid spill-response team in the Sand Hills, to encase the pipeline with an additional protective coating in certain areas, to provide free water testing to nearby land owners and to pay for state regulators to hire a special public liaison officer to handle concerns about the pipeline.

In the event of a major spill, $100 million would likely only be a fraction of the cost of cleanup. Last year’s spill of nearly a million gallons of tar sands oil in Calhoun County is expected to cost at least $700 million to clean.

“God hasn’t shared that with me yet,” he said.

Kenneth Feinberg, administrator of the BP Oil Spill Victim Compensation Fund, testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

For Barisich and thousands of other victims of the spill, the inability to work has brought about substantial financial hardship. Now, with BP nearing the final stages of its three-month effort to stop thousands of gallons of oil from leaking into the Gulf of Mexico, the big question they’re all asking is how they’ll be compensated by BP for the economic damage they’ve suffered.

But as officials unveil details of the claims process, spill victims face a conundrum: Many of them will be required to predict the long-term damages they will face as a result of the oil spill years before the true damages are known.

Kenneth Feinberg is the man in charge of what is likely to be one of the largest claims processes in U.S. history. Feinberg was appointed by the White House last month to oversee a $20 billion escrow account being put aside by BP to pay claims from the spill.

He has been trekking across the Gulf Coast region over the last several weeks in an attempt to gain the trust of oil spill victims. For the most part, people seem to like him. They appreciate his candor. “This program I am running is absolutely voluntary — nobody has to do it,” Feinberg told Louisiana residents last week, according to The New York Times. “It’s my opinion you are crazy if you don’t participate.”

But first impressions don’t mean much in the Gulf, which has faced more than its share of tragedies and government recovery efforts. Observers say they are waiting to see just how Feinberg restructures the claims process.

While Feinberg has not outlined his plan in great detail, a major battle over the claims process is looming. BP has been offering interim payments to oil spill victims to hold them over until the leak can be capped. While there have been complaints about this process (including frustration over the disbursement of second payments), the White House says BP has not denied any claims. As of Tuesday, “119,012 claims have been opened, from which more than $220 million have been disbursed,” the White House says.

But these are just interim payments. Feinberg has outlined a process whereby, beginning three months after the well has been permanently capped, victims will need to file claims for the total damages they expect from the oil spill. They will then be offered a single payment. If they accept the payment, they must sign a waiver saying they cannot sue BP for more money. If they aren’t happy with the payment, they can sue BP, entering a legal process that could take years to resolve.

Observers and lawyers in the region say this scenario raises several questions, the main one being: How can you calculate the economic damages you’ll suffer before you know what the true consequences of the oil spill will be years and even decades down the road?

Barisich, who is the president of the United Commercial Fisherman’s Association, put it this way: “It’s a crap shoot. It really is. … Fishing may come back within two years and then you win. But if it doesn’t come back, if it takes four, five, six, or 20 years, then you lose.”

Barisich said there are no accurate estimates for when the fishing industry will fully recover. “Nobody can give you that answer,” he said. “If somebody tells you, it would be a best guess. [The spill is] so vast, it’s so huge, it’s so spread out. They tell you it’s going to come back in two years. Would you put your salary up on that estimate? Because you’re sure as hell putting my salary up on it.”

Richard Shore, a partner at the law firm Gilbert LLP, which has worked on litigation resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, echoed Barisich’s concerns. During the next six months to a year, as Gulf Coast residents become more desperate for a settlement, they are more likely to accept what BP has to offer, even before the full consequences of the spill are adequately understood, Shore said.

“People with claims against BP will need income, but they won’t know the full extent of their damages,” Shore said. “People shouldn’t be forced to choose between going for long periods without compensation and guessing prematurely what their full damages might be. In the longer term, what Mr. Feinberg is saying is that people will have to make an educated guess about what their full damage is.”

While any victim can choose to sue BP for more money, Shore warns that this process can be expensive and time consuming. “The litigation route has its downsides and may create pressure on people to accept an offer of compensation from BP,” he said. “That will result in a lot of scrutiny on the Feinberg process.”

Ed Sherman, a law professor at Tulane University, said the process Feinberg is implementing is very similar to the one he employed as the head of the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. But Sherman noted that the wide-ranging nature of the spill makes it different from the 9/11 attacks. The spill is “unlike 9/11, where a loved one was killed or there were injuries and you have a fixed condition on which to base a claim,” he said.

Still, Sherman said that outside of the BP claims process, courts are tasked with making these kinds of determinations all the time — for example, when determining compensation for long-term disability. Sherman said Feinberg will likely review the data in detail to form as accurate an estimate for long-term damages as possible to use as a basis for assessing the claims.

Feinberg did not respond to requests for comment, but a source in his law office confirmed his plan for long-term compensation for spill victims.

Regardless of the outcome of the claims process, it could be some time until Barisich and others are able to get back to work.

“We don’t know if the Gulf is going to be screwed up for years,” Barisich said. “It’s our mother basically. It gives us our product.”

“‘You broke it, you bought it’ isn’t extortion,” he said.

Watch it:

“I’m pro the taxpayers of our country,” she answered. “She’s pro-BP. I’m pro protescting our jobs, the environment and the taxpayers. She has come out several times saying she’s worried about BP being fleeced or being chumps. I don’t want taxpayers to be fleeced or chumps. This is BP’s oil spill, they need to clean it up.”

It wasn’t Clark’s only media exposure in recent days. Like Bachmann, who pens national columns for outlets like Townhall, Clark wrote a piece for The Hill this morning in which she called Bachmann’s sentiments about BP “indefensible” and wrote that Bachmann’s mired “in an oily hole.” Yesterday, at Huffington Post, she called Bachmann’s characterization of the $20 billion victims’ fund as “extortion” “shocking — and offensive.”

Watch the video (via Dump Bachmann):

Bachmann’s words have already appeared in a DNC web video and in the first campaign TV ad created by her challenger, DFL state Sen. Tarryl Clark, which began airing after the campaign raised more than $30,000 to purchase media time. Bachmann’s “extortion” charge also drew unexpected critiques from the usually friendly Fox News, where hosts Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly challenged her thinking.

The DNC’s Brad Woodhouse of the new ad said that what’s “surprising is that while Gulf residents, workers, and businesses seek relief from the worst environmental disaster this nation has ever faced, Republican leaders would have the gall to come out in support of big oil companies, stating that the Administration should ‘stop demonizing BP,’ and that holding them accountable is ‘un-American’ and the $20 billion escrow fund is ‘extortion’ and a ‘shakedown.’ ”

“If anything here is ‘un-American,’ it’s the Republicans’ choice to shamelessly pander to big oil while the President works day-in and day-out to get much needed relief to the Gulf region.“

The script:

REP. JOE BARTON: “But I apologize” [House Energy and Commerce Hearing, June 17, 2010]

CHYRON: “I Apologize”

VO: The Republican Party, standing up for big oil and apologizing to BP

CHYRON: The Republican Party, Standing Up For Big Oil

VO: What do they say about holding BP accountable?

CHYRON: What About Holding BP Accountable?

RAND PAUL: “I think that sounds really un-American” [ABC's Good Morning America, May 21, 2010]

VO: That we shouldn’t be so hard on BP

EDWARD LUCE, FINANCIAL TIMES: “President Obama stop demonizing BP…” [Financial Times "View from DC", June 11, 2010]

CHYRON: “President Obama stop demonizing BP”

REP. ERIC CANTOR: “Absolutely”

CHYRON: “Absolutely”

VO: And Republicans call BP’s escrow fund a

CHYRON: Republicans Call The BP Escrow Fund

REP. JOE BARTON: “…a shakedown” [House Energy and Commerce Hearing, June 17, 2010]

CHYRON: “A Shakedown”

VO: and…

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN: “… extortion.” [Heritage Foundation, June 15, 2010]

CHYRON: “Extortion”

REP. JOE BARTON: “So I apologize” [House Energy and Commerce Hearing, June 17, 2010]

CHYRON: “I Apologize”

VO: Apologizing to big oil: This is how Republicans would govern

CHYRON: Apologizing To Big Oil? This Is How Republicans Would Govern

[DNC Disclaimer]

MnIndy photo composite

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann — like Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) — has taken plenty of heat for language perceived as supportive of BP, the company behind the colossal oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Bachmann got a surprise grilling from Fox’s Bill O’Reilly for calling the Obama administration’s negotiation for a $20 billion victims fund “extortion.” Barton, who most prominently called the fund a “shakedown,” was shamed into retracting his public apology to BP. But Second District Rep. John Kline has largely dodged criticism for endorsing similar language. Kline and Bachmann are both members of the Republican Study Committee, a group that officially has stated the escrow fund is the result of Obama’s “brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics.”

The RSC statement of last Wednesday seems to have generated little attention in Minnesota, meriting a reference in a Bemidji Pioneer editorial Friday, but few other mentions. But that opinion packed a punch. Citing the RSC opinion on the escrow fund, the editorial board wrote:

There can be no other reason for the opposition than the fact that President Obama supports it.

It’s a sad case when politics colors all your decisions. BP caused the oil spill, and is responsible for stopping it and cleaning up its mess. It’s only fair that it pay for the lost business that accrues from the company’s error of misfortune.

Who’s the greedier? BP or congressional Republicans?

The statement, issued by RSC chair Rep. Tom Price, clearly states BP should be held accountable for the “tragedy” and cleanup, then says that “BP has already begun paying claims.” (On Friday, the House Judiciary Committee reported that BP had paid less than 12 percent of outstanding claims to victims of the spill; it notes that BP has “not paid a single dollar to the individuals or businesses harmed by the [April 20] explosion and the oil spill.”)

Price’s statement continued:

“BP’s reported willingness to go along with the White House’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics.  These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration’s drive for greater power and control.  It is the same mentality that believes an economic crisis or an environmental disaster is the best opportunity to pursue a failed liberal agenda.  The American people know much better.”

Bachmann and Kline are among 114 members of the RSC.

Over the weekend, Bachmann was grilled by Fox’s Bill O’Reilly for calling Obama’s securing of victim-relief funds “extortion” and a “shakedown.” “I’m not agreeing with that,” he said of the terminology before stating that “Obama did absolutely the right thing” in negotiating for the funds.

“I’d go in there with a machine gun if I were president and say, ‘Hey, you put that money in here or you’re not getting out of the room,” O’Reilly added. “I think this is the best thing Obama did in the entire mess, getting the $20 billion.”

Kline, as City Pages notes, is Minnesota’s top recipient of campaign contributions from BP, taking in nearly $130,000. Bachmann got the second-largest take from BP, at more than $70,000.

Bachmann will face off with DFL state Sen. Tarryl Clark this fall, while Kline will be challenged by Democrat Dan Powers.

Still from Entenza's new video

Acknowledging that we’ve “raged at BP” and “felt the pain of all that’s been lost,” Matt Entenza’s new video uses the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to promote his stance on green jobs. Voiced by runningmate Robyne Robinson, the ad says we need to “clean up our act” and promises “a clean energy plan to make us a leader in wind power and next generation bio-fuels.” In a press release, Entenza’s campaign says the DFLer has a “clean energy economic plan” that is the “most detailed and targeted of any of the candidates in the field. The plan will create 50,000 jobs through energy efficiency alone and will make Minnesota a leader in wind, solar, geo-thermal and next-generation bio-fuels.”

Entenza’s deputy communications director,  Jeremy Drucker, tells the Minnesota Independent that the spot begins airing later today in the Minneapolis-St. Paul and Duluth media markets and will continue for at least a week.

Watch it:

O’Reilly began his interview with Bachmann with apparent chagrin.

“Whoa. Extortion? Shakedown? Look, if the executive branch, the presidency, isn’t going to force BP to pony up the money, who would?

Bachmann instead changed the subject. “The question is who will run the fund… will this fund be politicized?”

“That’s not how it came across,” O’Reilly countered, to a seemingly flustered Bachmann. He later said:

“You and Congressman Barton in Texas, using words like ‘shakedown’ and ‘extortion’ and all of that, I’m not agreeing with that. I think Obama did absolutely the right thing by putting the maximum amount of pressure on these weasels. You saw [BP CEO Tony] Hayward yesterday. Is this the biggest weasel in the world, this guy? Is there a bigger weasel on the planet than him? And you’re trusting him to do anything? … I’d go in there with a machine gun if I were president and say, ‘Hey, you put that money in here or you’re not getting out of the room…’ I think this is the best thing Obama did in the entire mess, getting the $20 billion.”

“You’re dodging my question about extortion and a shakedown,” O’Reilly said in the uncharacteristically heated exchange.

“I think they’re putting pressure on them,” she replied.

Rivera began his panel of three congressional Republicans by addressing Bachmann.

“We are fans of yours on this program,” he said. “You are scrappy, you are independent. But clearly, by comparing the White House negotiation for a $20 billion escrow account to ‘extortion’ you have overstepped the bounds of even rhetoric, don’t you agree?”

She didn’t.

In fact, she didn’t answer the question, prompting Rivera to break in, “Congresswoman, you are changing the subject. Do you withdraw the word ‘extortion’ or do you not withdraw ‘extortion’… You have characterized the White House as an extortionist and withheld, it seems to me, the strongest criticism for the oil company.”

Watch Bachmann on The O’Reilly Factor:

Watch Bachmann on Rivera’s show (fast-forward to 03:37):

Clark’s new ad, which begins airing on Sunday, uses Bachmann’s recent words about the $20 billion BP-funded escrow account the Obama administration pushed for. The script:

Killing thousands of jobs.

Costing billions.

It’s BP’s fault.  And they should pay.

But Michele Bachmann calls making BP pay for the clean up “extortion.”

And said “If I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there – ‘We’re not going to be chumps.”

If Bachmann lets BP off the hook, guess who’s paying?

Us.

Michele Bachmann: standing up for BP. Not us.

“The claims made about my statements are false,” Bachmann writes in response. “In each of the interviews I have given, I have stated that BP is liable to fully compensate victims for the damage they have inflicted on the Gulf Coast with this tragic accident. It’s important to make the victims whole, and the American taxpayer should not pay one dime for the mess created by this spill. My opponents are demonstrating with this first ad they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with distorting my views on this tragedy that’s been foisted upon so many innocent Americans, marine life and wildlife in the Gulf Coast region. Making false claims and distortions about my statements is indicative of a negative campaign style, and Minnesotans deserve better.”

Clark’s campaign provides citations for each Bachmann quote related to the spot:

“But if I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there — ‘We’re not going to be chumps, and we’re not going to be fleeced.’ And they shouldn’t be. They shouldn’t have to be fleeced and make chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest — they’ve got to be legitimate claims.” (Washington Post, June 15)

“The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders, which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund.” (Bachmann speech to Heritage Foundation, June 15)

“(The President) continues to focus on blaming, and on extorting money out of a company instead of letting the courts make people whole.” (Minnesota Public Radio interview, June 16)

“It looks like again the president is taking this opportunity to have the federal government go in with a federal government response, take money out of private industries for yet-to-be-determined ideas that the federal government will come out with. It’s not just me saying it, there’s a number of people here in Washington saying that this is the federal government forcing a financial redistribution. ... It sounds like the federal government essentially wants to nationalize BP and this could be pushing this company into bankruptcy.” (MPR interview, June 16)

Clark’s campaign is currently fundraising to get the ad on the air. So far, the effort has yielded $6,600 out of the target goal of $50,000.