First off, BP, you fucked up, majorly. You failed to listen to the people that worked for you and warned that there were potential dangers. You failed to install a fail-safe device. Why would you do that? Cut corners? Cut costs? Or did you have a more legitimate reason? This legitimate reason may have been that the fail safe used on oil rigs to avoid this disaster wasn't completely proven to work at such deep levels and at times would fail itself cutting the pipes when not necessary.
One problem with the regulation is that there really isn't any. We'll hold off on whether this is a problem or a solution, more regulation that is. When it comes to oil rigs the certification that they have the proper safety requirements is done by the company itself, but not by the people at the top. The certification is done by the workers who will be working on the rig. We like to think that the worker knows more because he/she is on the ground than his "counterpart" in the air conditioned skyscraper. Why would the worker risk his life when it comes to making sure that such fail safe measures are in place? The answer to that probably isn't as simple as we would think. Those above them could easily influence their decision with threats of job or lures of pay. But this is merely a digression from the beginning of the paragraph. BP merely didn't submit proof of it's possession of fail safe requirements. Why? Lack of reformed and modern regulation. The law is still in the works. (I can hear you liberal conspiracy theorists yelling out oil lobbyists stalling it, and I will agree with you).
One of the main things we hear from the other side is that this wouldn't have happened if we had drilled closer to shore. One of my earlier posts commented on this. Drilling closer has several benefits: fixing a problem like this would be easier due to temperatures not being able to freeze machinery; the pressure would definitely not be as great; and most importantly allowing companies to drill closer to shore would also charge the environmental lobbyists (I did not say environmentalists because that is a positive word, but in truth, they are just the same as oil lobbyists) to pressure legislators for tighter regulation and control over the drilling due to the proximity of the coast line. If such a spill happened closer to shore, the current wouldn't be as likely to pull the oil further along the coast to the eastern seaboard.
The angry response to the spill is understandable but also disproportionate. Crushing a company is not the way to deal with this problem, but a slap on the hand is obviously not enough either. BP provides thousands of jobs and is not an OPEC member. BP most definitely (not based solely on any liberal environmentalist reasons) should be forced to pay for all the damage they have caused. This is based purely of judicial reasons, because it has obstructed lives, resources, and tourism. They must deal with the consequences of their failure.
I stand up for big companies because so many stand against them without realizing the benefits they have on the economy and the journey they had to take to get there. Every entrepreneur is the same whether it is a small business or a mega corporation. People are so influenced by the left that they fail to recognize this. The right's blind crusade to stand up for each and every large corporation though is just as lacking of reason as the left's continued attack upon corporations. Both sides throw themselves into two very divergent ideologies. I'm not saying there is a middle ground, but what I am saying is that every case is different. Each company has gained it's prominence through all different means, whether they are political means or just plain hard work and determination. The left and right defend only those that gained their power through political means, though they delude themselves into thinking otherwise and always blame the other side for doing the same.
BP was wrong and should pay. The pay should be determined by a third party and not by THE GOVERNMENT.
The government is wrong in thinking that it should control every move and regulate heavily. Heavy regulation forces companies to take short cuts, and the blame to me, is on both sides. Heavy taxation makes people put their money in off shore accounts. I would be one of those persons.
The people need to think for themselves for once and stop believing that the government should do everything for them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment