[7] Fifty of these recommendations were worked into the Oil Pollution Act bill[9] that was introduced into legislation on March 16, 1989, by Walter B. Jones, Sr., a Democratic Party congressman from North Carolina's 1st congressional district.

Responsible parties are strictly, jointly, and severally liable for the cost of removing the oil in addition to any damages linked to the discharge.

[11] Under the Oil Pollution Act, federal, tribal, state, and any other person can recover removal costs from a responsible party so long as such entity has incurred costs from carrying out oil removal activities in accordance with the Clean Water Act National Contingency Plan.

In some instances, claims for removal cost reimbursement can be initially brought to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund thus sidestepping the responsible party.

Furthermore, the act proscribes limits to liability for damages based on the responsible party, the particular incident, and the type of vessel or facility from which the discharge occurred.

[13] President Bush acknowledged the changes the world would have to endure when signing the Oil Pollution Act and as a result, he pushed the Senate to quickly ratify the new international protocols.

Industry objected that the act would hinder the free flow in the trade of imported oil in the Waters of the United States.

As a result of the OPA enactment, certain insurance companies refused to issue certifications of financial liability under the act to avoid potential responsibility and compensation in the case of a disaster.

The OPA's liability increase for vessel owners raised fears and concerns from the vast majority of the shipping industry.

Though the majority of elicited reactions and criticism from the enactment of OPA has been negative, it has nevertheless led to founding and designing safer requirements for ships and global oil trade.

[14] The Oil Pollution act imposes long-term impacts due to the potential for unlimited liability and the statute's that hold insurers to serve as guarantors, which has ultimately resulted in the refusal of insurance companies to issue agreements of financial liability to vessel operators and owners.

Thus, the inability to acquire proof of financial liability results in vessels not being able to legally enter waters of the United States.

Since OPA does not exempt vessel creditors to enter U.S. waters, there is a disincentive for any lender to finance fleet modernization and or replacement.

Lastly, OPA has the ability to directly impact the domestic oil production industry due to the rigorous offshore facility provisions.

[4] Due to environmental pressures and the restrictive governmental regulations enforced by OPA, substantial proposals of exploration and production in the United States have been withdrawn.

As a result of major companies withdrawing their plans to drill, many smaller, independent producers had entered to make a profit.