PG&E shunned use of automatic gas shutoff valves

Okay, fair enough point, we should spend the money to fix the problem regardless because it is a very fixable problem with a clear solution.

Sigh, if your argument is that it is American hate to be angry that Americans are being shafted by their oversight agencies, then okay I suppose that can be an argument.

The Deep Water Horizon incident is hardly your only problem. How about the oil spill by Canadian corporation Enbridge? They just didn't care about securing their pipelines properly and fouled up an entire lake. Then you had that giant garbage flood in that southern state.

Also, the American oversight agencies are notoriously inferior to every other western nation, don't try to pawn it off as "everyone has the same problem". When's the last time someone had an oil rig explode because there was not a single safety mechanism or fail-safe in place?

Take a look at, for instance, Canada, which had a ship run aground in the St. Lawrence river. Within seconds, the spill was contained by automated fail-safe systems located on the ship. Those were required by law. Rescue ships and toxic clean up crews were there within one hour. That was Environment Canada, a government department. Within half the day, the ship was being towed away safely and everything was cleaned.

So, don't tell me that the government can't force safety measures on corporations for the benefit of people.

edited 3rd Mar '11 11:53:17 AM by breadloaf

Sigh, if your argument is that it is American hate to be angry that Americans are being shafted by their oversight agencies, then okay I suppose that can be an argument.

Quit trying to paint me immature because of my position.

The Deep Water Horizon incident is hardly your only problem. How about the oil spill by Canadian corporation Enbridge? They just didn't care about securing their pipelines properly and fouled up an entire lake. Then you had that giant garbage flood in that southern state.

And don't put words into my mouth either, I never said America only had one problem. Remember me pointing out the deficit? Oh right, I do recognize there's more than a few problems in the states.

Also, the American oversight agencies are notoriously inferior to every other western nation, don't try to pawn it off as "everyone has the same problem". When's the last time someone had an oil rig explode because there was not a single safety mechanism or fail-safe in place?

Research Failure, there were several fail-safes in place. The problem was many of the first level fail-safes were damaged in the initial blast (now, we can track down who installed these or who made them, check their nationality and blame that nation but...) and the back up fail safes failed to activate due to several years of not being maintained. If you want to blame us somewhere, that'd be the place to do it.

Take a look at, for instance, Canada, which had a ship run aground in the St. Lawrence river. Within seconds, the spill was contained by automated fail-safe systems located on the ship. Those were required by law. Rescue ships and toxic clean up crews were there within one hour. That was Environment Canada, a government department. Within half the day, the ship was being towed away safely and everything was cleaned.

Ship != Oil Rig. Last I checked, that ship never had nearly as much oil as an oil rig, nor was it pumping out as insanely fast. This was the problem for the oil rig, which the ship can't compare to, thus why it was much easier to clean up. Also, toxic clean up crews and ships did arrive fast but there was too much oil to contain. Size difference here.

So, don't tell me that the government can't force safety measures on corporations for the benefit of people.

They did, BP got quite a beating from the US government as far as money was concerned. The problem here is who checking BP in the first place for this sort of stuff.

The funny thing I've seen is there seems to be no American equivalent of what I call the "Corporate Death Penalty".

Which is basically that if you're at the helm of a big company and you fuck up badly enough, in Australia you'll be banned from being a director of a corporation - sometimes permanently.

As far as I know, it's not invoked very often, but when some sort of corporate screwup becomes newsworthy, ASIC tends to start tempbanning people. It's understood that fines are largely pointless but a directorship ban can put the skids on someone's career in a big way.

In my business law subject it was made very clear to me that corporations are a legal construct that exists at the indulgence of the government because it benefits the public good. Being able to run a corporation is like driving a car - it's a privilege rather than a right and said privilege will be revoked if one uses it irresponsibly. At least that's the Australian attitude on the matter.

I like the sound of directorship bans. It has teeth.

That's an awesome idea, need to start campaigning for a law like that right now.

I must agree, sounds like a great idea and should be fully implementable seeing as we've already got anti-trust laws anyway.

Sounds fun. Provided it's for public companies.

I haven't seen too many private companies fall under ASIC's baleful gaze. You need to be pretty big and obnoxious to get their attention. The ACCC tends to handle the smaller stuff.

A directorship ban is pretty much ASIC's way of saying "We consider you a danger to the economy, so we're going to clip your wings for being a bad bird". Bear in mind that "doing stuff which undermines public confidence" is considered very bad for the economy hereabouts. Australians are very image conscious.

edited 3rd Mar '11 1:14:48 PM by TibetanFox

I've done research on BP, let's just say that the way they handled the oil spill (and what they didn't do to prevent it) was one of the bigger dick moves it has done, but by far not the only one. Just the one that was biggest on the news.