posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
Not necessarily. I feel that unless we are prepared to deal with the industry as a single entity, we can't punish others for the avaricious drive BP
succumbed to. My understanding, and please feel free to educate me if I am wrong, was that other countries exercise much more control over these
operations in their waters. And even BP would have been constrained to a higher standard were they drilling off the shores of, say, the UK.
Knowing there is a higher standard, and opting not to abide by it is a typical choice of those for whom revenue and commerce is more important than
the 'externality' of 'community' responsibility. BP made the choice and despite the cover our government gave them at every turn, most accept
that they were at fault. Therefor, I would think a focused restriction on their operations is just reward for their lack of social conscience.
Other companies (if you are of a mind to believe they are 'separate' at their roots) may "learn" not to risk this kind of thing EVER again - and
surely, the government SHOULD be totally committed to demanding PROOF that safety and emergency response is within the capability of the "bid
But then, we know this is not likely to happen since the government, and in particular its regulatory arm, is almost completely manned by former and
future employees of the people who take these risks in the first place.
Now if we DID consider the entire industry as one entity... and we can argue that in many ways, and in effect, they are, we could restrict them all.
But that connection will be denied forever more... it's not good business to officially acknowledge a "covert" monopoly (be it one of energy or
monetary policy, etc, etc.)