Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

why voluntary regulation of corporations is such a bad idea

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by unionguy, May 24, 2010.

  1. unionguy

    unionguy Portland Active Member

    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    58
    At BP the hits just keep on coming...from Enron to the banking fiascos to Massey mining to BP...letting these guys 'voluntarily regulate' themselves and.or cutting the regulations has proven to be a failure. i hope we can get off the dogma/ideologcial train and start figuring out what works..how much gov is needed and where...not useless arguments of "more" vs. "less"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/earth/25spill.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw
     
  2. ZachS

    ZachS Eugene/PDX Active Member

    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    11
    You're crazy! The market can clearly regulate itself. There's no way a corporation would do anything that would risk the hundreds of billions in lawsuits and fines, not to mention the horrible public relations blow, that would come with causing the greatest environmental catastrophe in 25 years... :bluelaugh:
     
  3. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,200
    Likes Received:
    4,406
    Especially since, if the LAW didn't prevent them from drilling in shallower water closer to shore, it would have been capped/fixed weeks ago.
     
  4. Sawdust

    Sawdust Bull Mountain(Tigard), OR Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    96
    Now don't bring logic into this............:D
     
  5. unionguy

    unionguy Portland Active Member

    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    58
    well, you do know their liability is capped at $75 million? at least they are looking at changing that sweetheart deal.
     
  6. unionguy

    unionguy Portland Active Member

    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    58
    can't have it both ways. the deep water well was/is profitable so it would have been tapped under market law...regardless of the ability to drill closer to shore.

    they are pumping all oil possible due to high prices, so that would have just meant more wells closer to land, not shutting down deepwater wells.

    finally...even if what you say is true...does that excuse their behavior?
     
  7. Sawdust

    Sawdust Bull Mountain(Tigard), OR Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    96
    "..Mr. Salazar backed off, conceding to the reality that BP and the oil companies have access to the best technology to attack the well, a mile below the surface, even though that technology has proved so far to have fallen short of its one purpose. The governmentÂ’s role, he acknowledged, is largely supervisory and the primary responsibility for the spill, for legal and practical reasons, remains with the company."


    So what exactly is the Federal Government supposed to do?

    As far as profitability goes, you can bet that if they ("Big Oil") had access to oil closer in and in shallower water they would go there first. Less work, less cost, more profit, more jobs, better economy...........

    BTW...
    Who sold BP the blowout preventer? Seems to me that they have to answer questions about their product. If it had worked as it should we would not be discussing this now.
     
  8. bugeye

    bugeye Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    12
    Yeah, BP and the other parties involved really are crazy. But in the long run you and I will be paying for this fiasco anyway.
     
  9. bugeye

    bugeye Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    12
    As I understand the cap, BP and the other players are not subject to the limits of the cap because they were negligent. The cap was put in for accidents, and the gov started collecting oil taxes as insurance to build up an emergency fund for these. This restriction was put on the cap so as not to encourage oil companies to take more risks. In this case the errors of these players are amazing from the bad cementing job, to the failure to notice dangerous sensor readings, to the defective blow out protector.

    The chairman of BP admitted publically that they would not seek protection under the cap, of course I remember EXXON saying they would cover all cost of the Valdez spill, and then they tied it up in the courts for decades.
     
  10. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    Did you guys watch the 60 minutes videos of the guy that worked there and survived.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/bp-smoking-gun-oil-giant_n_583590.html

    He sounds like he really knows what happened. It sounds like the mistakes were made because they were behind schedule and someone from BP wanted to show whose boss.

    If thats true I think BP should be liable for it all and no cap.
     
  11. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    Voluntary regulation of corporations?

    When dealing with something of this magnitude they should never be able self regulated. I don't know if I would trust the Government either. I bet alot of the people in Government have and do receive large contributions from BP and other corporations involved. That would definitely sway tough decisions.
     
  12. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    Interesting...

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bp-deepwater-horizon-well-permitted-18000

    Larry King talked to Robert Kennedy Jr. who is representing the fishermen in Louisiana in a class action law suit against British Petroleum and James Carville about the incident at the Deepwater Horizon rig. Besides the problems with Halliburton and their faulty work with the cementing process and the lack of and the lack of an acoustic switch, Kennedy said they were also violating their permit by drilling too deeply. Although they were only permitted to drill down 18,000 ft., Kennedy said they now have evidence that they were drilling as deeply as 25,000 ft.

    As Kennedy noted and Susie already wrote about here, it seems all they're worried about now is limiting their liability although the company is now trying to walk that back after the bad publicity.

    The Democrats are introducing a bill to raise the liability cap that Kennedy also cited as a problem with their litigation. I think we're going to be lucky to ever get a penny back from BP or any of the companies involved but if BP violated their drilling permit as Kennedy claims here, it's going to make it harder for them to avoid responsibility for the disaster instead of pawning it off on the subcontractors.
     
  13. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    :laugh::bluelaugh::bluelaugh::laugh:

    Nooo...they wouldn't! :paranoid:
     
  14. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    Another interesting read...http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/52352


    BP's Nuke-Powered Liability Cap
    Submitted by Chip on Tue, 2010-05-18 08:15

    * Energy
    * Environment
    * Nuclear


    BP's nuke-powered liability cap
    By Harvey Wasserman | Solartopia | May 17, 2010

    As BP destroys our priceless planet, its lawyers gear up to save the company from paying for the damage. The same will happen---only worse---with the next atomic reactor disaster.

    By law, BP may be liable for only $75 million of the harm done by the Deepwater Horizon.

    Ask yourself why the federal government would adopt legislation that limits the liability of an oil driller for the damage it does to us all.

    Ask the same question---on another order of magnitude---about nuclear power plants.

    Some lawmakers have tried to raise this cap so BP could be made to pay for the wounds they have not yet stopped inflicting.

    By any calculation, BP did more than $75 million in harm during the first hour of this undersea gusher. That sum won't begin to cover even the legal fees, let alone the tangible damage to our only home.

    But "free market" Republicans have resisted raising the limit. So BP will walk away virtually scot free. All this will be tax deductible. So will the millions they'll spend changing the name of the company, and dumping all those pathetic "Beyond Petroleum" pamphlets.

    Now imagine a melt-down alongside the blow-out. See the Deepwater Horizon as a nuclear power plant. Think of the rickety Grand Gulf, a bit to the north, or the two decaying reactors at South Texas, a ways to the west.

    Imagine that apocalyptic plume of oil ravaging our seas as an airborne radioactive cloud.

    Feel it pouring like Chernobyl over the south coast, enveloping all of Florida, blowing with the shifts of the winds up over the southeast, irradiating Atlanta, then Nashville, then New Orleans, then Houston, all through Mexico and the north coast of South America, the Caribbean, then around again across Florida, through the Atlantic and all over Europe, then around the globe two or three times more.

    The instigators of such a nightmare are currently on the hook for a maximum of $11 billion. Ask yourself why the federal government would limit the liability of a reactor owner for the damage it imposes on the public.

    There's a clear historic answer: In the 1950s, when the bomb-making Atomic Energy Commission wanted a civilian PR front, it asked the private utility industry to build commercial reactors. The electric companies refused, fearing that a melt-down could cost them everything.

    So Congress passed the 1957 Price-Anderson Act, limiting a reactor owner's liability to a paltry $560 million. They promised that private insurers would soon take up the risk.

    A half-century later, taxpayers---and victims---are still on the hook. The feds have raised the liability limit to an utterly inadequate $11 billion.

    A melted reactor today would do that much harm in the first hour. By any sane calculation, the non-radioactive Deepwater Horizon has long since done more.

    According to the comprehensive study just published by the New York Academy of Sciences, the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl has killed some 985,000 people. The governments of Belarus and Ukraine estimate more than $500 billion in damages just to their countries alone.

    Reactor advocates say with a corporate sneer that no such accident is possible in the United States. That's exactly what those Bumbling Petro-criminals said before they erupted this gusher.

    The current "Climate Bill" would use billions of your taxpayer dollars to fund new nukes all rigged up with all those ancient liability caps. Like Deepwater Horizon, the owners of these "advanced" reactors not yet built will be liable for virtually nothing.

    Before tomorrow's radioactive cloud follows today's oil-soaked plume...before the next melt-down follows this blow-out...we need a green-powered Earth.

    We have no choice. Our economy, our planet, our bodies cannot handle more public-funded corporate-imposed suicide.

    --
    Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! is at www.harveywasserman.com, as is HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US. He is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and senior editor of www.freepress.org, where this first appeared.

    I think some of the above statements are bull but there are Some information there. Self regulation...BAD IDEA!!
     
  15. ZachS

    ZachS Eugene/PDX Active Member

    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    11
    That was a big part of the problem - if not the problem here. The government department responsible for regulating and inspecting oil platforms (the Minerals Management Service) developed very close ties with the industries it was supposed to police. These practices were more-or-less encouraged by the previous administration (whose close ties to the oil industry are no secret), and were not ended by the current administration which has been too busy "dealing" with economic and political disasters to actually run the government.
     
  16. bugeye

    bugeye Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    12
  17. CEF1959

    CEF1959 Willamette Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    14
    Just remember: The next time you call out for "smaller government", you are advocating for letting companies like BP do their free market thing. Drill baby drill.
     
  18. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,266
    Obama has found his Katrina. His incompetence in dealing with this spill has caused alot of grief. Maybe if he hadn't taken huge contributions from the oil companies then things would be different.

    jj
     
  19. Sawdust

    Sawdust Bull Mountain(Tigard), OR Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    96
    No......I want the over-regulation to stop. We have become too much of a nanny State. Too many government handouts and such. What I don't want is "Big Brother" looking over my shoulder and telling me how to live my life. We all need to be responsible for our actions.
     
  20. bugeye

    bugeye Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    12
    What incompetence did Obama do in relation to this spill?

    BP and its partners are the incompetents, the record is perfectly clear on this point!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.