Drill, baby, drill - Page 14 - Politics and Economics

also, how many jobs will the cleanup of this incident create?

I've noticed more than a few status updates on FB with info on immediate jobs for laborers paying ~$13/hr. Eligible candidates must be able to pass a drug screen, lift 85 lbs, move to the area (housing and meals paid for), along with a few other stipulations.

sweet... link?

05-12-2010 , 03:15 PM

#327

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolvoPelusa

is there any logical reason, even in the statist-loving society that we live in today, why BP and/or TransOcean shouldn't have to pick up the tab (regardless of the size) even if that means...god forbid...bankruptcy?

Is there any reason the SHOULD have to?

I'm only half-kidding here. Usually a company is only liable for damages if they were actually negligent, right? It seems everyone followed all the regulations here.

It seems that the monopoly regulator has, by virtue of intervening in this market, DEFINED what is and is not negligent behavior.

05-12-2010 , 04:26 PM

#328

PolvoPelusa

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 974

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

sweet... link?

This was the link from facebook, but I'm guessing they must have already received enough applicants cause I don't see chit
http://shamrockenviro.iapplicants.com/

Also...
http://jobsearch.money.cnn.com/a/all...cian/c-Aerotek

http://www.workforceescarosa.com/New...%20Contact.pdf

Queue: "Clean-up jobs in Gulf-Area creates thousands of jobs. Economy turning around. Greenshoots" sensationalist headlines.

Last edited by PolvoPelusa; 05-12-2010 at 04:36 PM.

05-12-2010 , 04:33 PM

#329

PolvoPelusa

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 974

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Is there any reason the SHOULD have to?

I'm only half-kidding here. Usually a company is only liable for damages if they were actually negligent, right? It seems everyone followed all the regulations here.

It seems that the monopoly regulator has, by virtue of intervening in this market, DEFINED what is and is not negligent behavior.

absolutely not...is there any reason the mess has to be cleaned up at all?

05-12-2010 , 04:36 PM

#330

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolvoPelusa

absolutely not...is there any reason the mess has to be cleaned up at all?

Good question.

05-12-2010 , 04:45 PM

#331

MyTurn2Raise

Drug Free MVP

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 40,622

ty for those links polvo, reminds me of something I saw linked via marginal revolution the other day
US metro area winners and losers for2000-2008 from Mike Mandel

Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA was the biggest winner (in terms of growth) of the decade already due to the oil industry. These jobs can only further help.

05-12-2010 , 04:52 PM

#332

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolvoPelusa

absolutely not...is there any reason the mess has to be cleaned up at all?

BTW, I'm not actually suggesting the mess should not be cleaned up. If someone wants to clean it up I'm certainly not going to try to stop them.

05-12-2010 , 04:57 PM

#333

PolvoPelusa

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 974

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

BTW, I'm not actually suggesting the mess should not be cleaned up. If someone wants to clean it up I'm certainly not going to try to stop them.

are you opposed to paying for it? (assuming you don't live in the gulf or work for BP/TransOcean/other oil related companies)

05-12-2010 , 05:09 PM

#334

ErikTheDread

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,124

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolvoPelusa

is there any reason the mess has to be cleaned up at all?

A brilliant level or one of the dumbest things posted in recent memory.

Either way,

05-12-2010 , 05:25 PM

#335

PolvoPelusa

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 974

the point I'm trying to make is that if we presume the mess has to be cleaned up, how much sense does it make to cap the fines on the responsible parties at any point less than 100% of the cost of the cleanup?

If the responsible parties can't cover, then liquidate them in BR, and I guess we'll just have to use tax payer monies to cover the rest.

does anyone disagree that BP and/or Transocean are the responsible parties? If they have insurance, awesome, if not tough ****. either way, **** you, pay me.

05-12-2010 , 06:08 PM

#336

checkm8

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,495

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Is there any reason the SHOULD have to?

Didn't someone just link an article which states they were permitted to drill as deep as 18,000ft but it seems as they were drilling as deep as 25,000? I'm no engineer but there is probably a reason it was permitted to drill to a maximum depth of 18,000.. They were drilling nearly 40% deeper than they were permitted and now we have an environmental catastrophe on our hands without a solid idea of how to stop it.

05-12-2010 , 06:09 PM

#337

USC Cheats

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 2,494

austrians itt with epic broken window fallacy fail, awesome

05-12-2010 , 06:14 PM

#338

checkm8

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,495

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolvoPelusa

I agree 100%. An interesting and relevant read would be the litigation that followed the Exxon Valdez spill. Hopefully the court system won't pander to the corporation.. again.. but I won't be holding my breath.

05-12-2010 , 07:54 PM

#339

qdmcg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 4,870

Quote:

Originally Posted by USC Cheats

austrians itt with epic broken window fallacy fail, awesome

i think the job creation is sarcasm, if thats what you're referring to

05-12-2010 , 09:19 PM

#340

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by PolvoPelusa

Well, as I already mentioned, if we go by standard tort precedent, you're begging the question here. Under common tort practices, BP/transocean is only "responsible" if they were negligent.

05-12-2010 , 09:24 PM

#341

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by USC Cheats

austrians itt with epic broken window fallacy fail, awesome

lol

05-12-2010 , 09:25 PM

#342

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by checkm8

ok, if true that would change things. Link?

05-12-2010 , 10:47 PM

#343

checkm8

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,495

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

ok, if true that would change things. Link?

http://counterecon.com/2010/05/08/th...-deregulation/

http://ricksblog.biz/?p=9552

edit: this link is what one poster provided a few pages, gotta give credit.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...ermitted-18000

Google "BP Deepwater Horizon Well Permitted for 18,000 ft. but Drilling as Deep as 25,000 ft." and you should get a whole slew of results.

Last edited by checkm8; 05-12-2010 at 10:55 PM.

05-13-2010 , 12:07 AM

#344

J.R.

Econ Forum Czar

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 8,292

FYI

Quote:

The law requires BP and the other leaseholders to pay an unlimited amount in direct cleanup costs. Their liability for other damage, such as ruined fisheries and lost tourist revenue, is legally capped at $75 million, although the company says it is willing to pay claims beyond that. Above the cap, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, financed by a tax on oil companies, is supposed to pick up the tab, up to a total of $1 billion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/us/13q-n-a.html

05-13-2010 , 12:49 AM

#345

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by checkm8

Yeah, it provides a lot of results. So does "9/11 was an inside job".

Can you provide something more credible than "ricksblog.biz"?

05-13-2010 , 12:54 AM

#346

Brian J

TOTP Master

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 10,650

such a stickler

05-13-2010 , 04:31 AM

#347

Janice7776

adept

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 973

And the oil is still gushing......

05-13-2010 , 08:49 AM

#348

qdmcg

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 4,870

i'm fairly impressed that at this point BP doesn't really seem to have any idea how to fix this, just lots of possible solutions

05-13-2010 , 09:42 AM

#349

PolvoPelusa

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 974

Quote:

Originally Posted by USC Cheats

austrians itt with epic broken window fallacy fail, awesome

non-austrians itt with epic level-radar fail, awesome

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Well, as I already mentioned, if we go by standard tort precedent, you're begging the question here. Under common tort practices, BP/transocean is only "responsible" if they were negligent.

just poking fun at "standard tort precedent"

I, too, missed the prior remark regarding the depth of drilling being exceeded. It had no baring on my comments.

05-13-2010 , 12:08 PM

#350

JiggsCasey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 7,275

Quote:

Originally Posted by savman

We produce approximately 27 percent of domestic oil production offshore.

According to the latest data that makes domestic offshore oil production something on the order of 10.5 percent of our total oil consumption. Fairly significant imo.

The blogger's argument was that reducing some of that "10%" would create lots more tankers, thus more tanker spill risk. .... It's a stupid argument, and tankers are going to keep flowing until the stuff runs dry. Period.

Page 14 of 43

First

4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 34

Last

...

Page 14 of 43

First

4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 34

Last