Prevaricating isn’t going to get you anywhere. You said “Blowout disasters *can’t *happen. Period.” ie only zero risk is acceptable. Now that I’ve pointed out that this is foolish you are off on some other tangent making up shit about me comparing this to “preparing for a blowout” when .
Anyway, didn’t I lose this argument? Am I back in with a chance now? You’re the decider. Let me know. I’d hate to waste electrons on typing stuff out only to have you point out that I’ve lost already.
Well, there’s risk assessment and theres risk assessment. Like such an estimation performed by someone who stands to make a butt load of money if the assessment if favorable. History shows that this tends to skew perceptions.
Second, there is proportion, which is sadly lacking here. If something went very, very wrong, and it cost a few million bucks and a full day to shut down the well and the whole enterprise is lost and the profit vanishes…well, that’s a damned shame. Darn! White guys in suits lose money, ain’t that a bitch. In that case, the scale is proportionate, and the risk borne by those who expect to benefit.
This isn’t like that. This is because there was no viable plan If Things Go Wrong. There was no Plan A, there was no Plan B, there was no Plan 9 from Outer Space, they had no fucking clue what the hell they would do to stop this thing from fucking over hundreds of thousands of people who’s only benefit from this adventure was maybe a penny a gallon or two off their gas price. And that’s assuming the market for gas isn’t better somewhere else.
Its like there’s only one chance in a hundred that you will lose, but if you lose you die. And the prize is a toaster.
Exxon was not happy after the Valdez mess. They had huge law suits for damages .They got the courts to cut the damages over and over, but that was not enough. So they got the politicians to pass new regulations limiting the amount of damages they had to pay in the future. If any one thinks BP will gladly do the right thing they are nuts.
When I say ‘blowout disasters can’t happen’, I mean that a well needs to be treated as if there is the possibility of a runaway well. There needs to be equipment on-site to deal with such an event. BP is the one who treated a blowout as if it literally couldn’t happen, as an excuse to engage in faith-based drilling.
They ‘can’t happen’ because the effects are disastrous.
I believe it is current policy to be prepared for a blowout event. It appears BP lied about their abilities to cope.
I think you lose the argument, and I believe in the Pit I am free to claim victory. It may be debatable…
Maybe it should be a crime to destroy large chunks of the environment, destroy people’s hard earned homes and livelihoods, the land that makes their place special. At least if it’s done via malfeasance, negligence, etc. Don’t know whether such a statute exists, but I’d love to see some corporate officers buts in the slammer in such a case.
I see that Florida has this law (not sure how solid the site is, since it’s not the actual statute but something dumbed down for us common folk):
I’d say it’s a bit of a stretch, but the negligence part might apply.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/05/12/bloomberg1376-L2D6DZ07SXKX-4.DTL The oil companies have no intention of doing the right thing. They are already trying to cut their liability through the courts. In front of congress ,they all pointed the blame at other parties.
The right thing=paying for the damages they caused (not what their political power can help them get away)