Reply With Quote
I would agree except for the fact that it assumes there are no changes from learning by our mistakes.
The way I see it, is that we can either choose to lose jobs to oil production and spills, or to lost jobs in the oil industry from raising taxes.
We can either gain jobs from having mildly cheaper oil energy, or gain jobs from a ramp-up in renewable energy sources.
Given that we will still have to massively import oil, even in the best case scenarios, wouldn't it be better for our economy to keep jobs/money in our economy?
If you are concerned about debt, remember that oil imports contribute a good hundred billion or so every year to our trade deficit.
Both options have costs/benefits. We might quibble over the scales of those costs/benefits, but that is the essential, basic choice/opportunity costs we face.
Lastly, if we can wean ourselves off oil to any good degree, we will have a distinct compe ive advantage over economies that don't.
It will be interesting to see how that plays out in reality as oil gets more expensive. Europe has made the choice to push for renewables, so we actually have a real experiment being run right now.
I would agree except for the fact that it assumes there are no changes from learning by our mistakes.
2 years ago:
"US Oil Import Bill to Top $400 billion this Year, Says Petroleum Intelligence Weekly"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n24380607/
When profits outweigh the fines and the cost of litigation for screwing up, where's the incentive not to screw up?
Quite true. I am glad you pointed that out, as I meant to get that important assumption in there, but forgot to do so. Thank you.
By the same token, it also assumes that the risk doesn't go up when a company decides to skimp on risk mitigation and safety for the sake of profits when there is profit pressure, which is essentially what happened at BP. They skimped, just a bit, for a few years, and created a shift in corporate culture that has played out in RL rather spectacularly.
Companies make that collective calculation all the time, albeit usually not at a conscious level, with some notorious exceptions.
Given the proven lack of ethics measured by several studies of graduating MBA's, that should be something of a concern for us.
It raises a good question though.
What is the libertarian, free-market answer, WC?
Do we, as a society, accept that BP makes enough profit to shrug off even something like this every few years, and tolerate widespread destruction and ecosystem collapses on a regular basis?
I am sure BigPharma's financial/risk managers calculate $Bs lost to settling suits for maiming and killing their drug customers as acceptable as simply the cost of making many more $Bs in profits by rushing their to the market without truly independent, long-term testing.
Anybody think BP's shareholders pocketing record dividends now give flying about blowouts?
Even with that sure fire calculation, BigPharma and BigMedicalDevic have been agitating for a shield law that would protect them from ligigation for any deaths or maiming from their products as long as the products are FDA-approved. It was astonishing that the Repug-packed SCOTUS ed up and denied them a shield a law a couple years ago.
Why even mention ethics on the same page with corporation? A public corporation's fiduciary responsiblity is to make profits for their shareholders, while enriching their top mgmt, neither of which have any legal basis or requirement for ethical parameters. Private companies don't even have the requirement to make money for shareholders.
If the information I have grown to believe is correct, then I would agree BP is at fault for skipping some safety procedures. I do hope they learned.
An irony... I heard there were more people on board the platform than normal because they were celebrating something like a 7 years anniversary for no safety problems. I wonder how many on the platform may have been drunk? I also wonder how credible the material I just wrote is.
I'm just glad the oil spill isn't that large compared to some other ones. Like others said in the thread, nothing to worry about.
Thank goodness the government would have no reason to fudge the numbers on this!
I'm sure it was a drunked partygoer who set off a string of M80 firecrackers, causing the explosion.
I wonder how many on the platform may have been drunk?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/10...searchers-say/New figures for the blown-out well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico show the amount of oil spewing may have been up to twice as much as previously thought, according to scientists consulting with the federal government.
That could mean 42 million gallons to more than 100 million gallons of oil have already fouled the Gulf's fragile waters, affecting people who live, work and play along the coast from Louisiana to Florida -- and perhaps beyond.
Transocean settles criminal and civil claims with DOJ for $1.4 billion:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3374648.story
sameThe $1-billion civil penalty is the largest civil environmental penalty to date, according to David Uhlmann, a former chief of the Justice Department's environmental crimes section and a law professor at the University of Michigan. Some of the money will go to coastal habitat restoration efforts and to research into oil spill prevention by the National Academy of Sciences, Transocean said.
Uhlmann commended the Justice Department for the $1-billion civil penalty but questioned aspects of the criminal settlement, including the much smaller criminal fine of $400 million.
"The Justice Department typically tries to get at least the same amount for a criminal violation as a civil one because the thinking is that criminal behavior cons utes more serious misconduct," Uhlmann said. "It's also surprising that the Justice Department decided not to charge Transocean with manslaughter, since the same negligence that caused the oil spill caused the death of 11 Transocean employees."
no Transocean people convicted, fined, just the Transocean "person" gets tiny hand slap. ouch!
Obama justice in action.
no, armies of corporate lawyers in action.
So far, no coke-and- parties in Barrys' MMS
Both actually. And their interests are usually aligned.
there's a legit gripe the punishment isn't proportionate to the violation(s), but it is the largest environmental fine levied to date. BP's will probably be bigger.
BP will "settle" and live to pollute and kill for more decades.
your "biggest" means when
"The company posted earnings of $5.4 billion for the three months ending on Sept. 30."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/bu...dend.html?_r=0
Businesses and individuals who claim BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico cost them money have been paid more than $1 billion through the company's class-action settlement with a team of private plaintiffs' attorneys, court-supervised claims administrator Patrick Juneau said.
Juneau said the payments reached the $1 billion mark before the end of 2012. He also said 95 percent of claimants who were offered payments decided to accept them.
"I feel this high rate of acceptance reflects the fairness of the settlement amounts as well as the fairness of the claims process," Juneau said in a statement.
The court-supervised claims process was established in June 2012. It replaced the Gulf Coast Claims Facility led by Kenneth Feinberg. Juneau said an additional $404 million in claims were paid during the transition from the GCCF to his program.
BP estimates it will pay roughly $7.8 billion to resolve more than 100,000 claims through the settlement, which received U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's final approval last month. But the settlement isn't capped.
"95 percent of claimants who were offered payments decided to accept them."
probably wanted a lesser sum now rather than delay going for a bigger sum. The orps ALWAYS win.
http://america.aljazeera.com/article...illeviden.htmlHalliburton pleaded guilty Thursday to federal charges of destroying evidence relating to BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010, as prosecutors announced that a former Halliburton manager had now been charged on a related count.
Anthony Badalamenti, who had been the cementing technology director for Halliburton Energy Services Inc., was charged in federal court with instructing two other employees to delete data during a post-spill review of the cement job on BP's blown-out well.
Halliburton was BP PLC's cement contractor on the drilling rig that exploded in the Gulf in April 2010, killing 11 workers and triggering the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
Badalamenti, 61, of Katy, Texas, is charged in a bill of information, which typically signals that a defendant is cooperating with prosecutors. His attorney, Tai H. Park, declined to comment.
Also on Thursday, a federal judge accepted a plea agreement that calls for Halliburton to pay a $200,000 fine for a misdemeanor stemming from Badalamenti's alleged conduct.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
