So US oil spent $100m on a risk analysis study for oil spills.

Examinator, What is your point? What other money have they spent on environmental issues? This little factoid you have excised is pointless without other information.

The abuse of BP and other oil companies especially by President Obama
is badly mistimed.
In an emergency situation you do not publically abuse and critise those
trying to fix the problem. You ask if there other techniques they
could use, or can you get more experts for them.

You run the risk of them saying; "Then you fix the bloody thing !"

A debrief after it is all over is the time to critise with a view to doing
better next time.

That US senate interrogation made me wonder about what sort of
transport did those senators use to arrive in Washington.

Impossible to make much of a comment, because I see the title as a contradiction in terms.

Ginx

ROFL.

You would remember me as Fractelle.

Your observation is absolutely spot on. Which is why we need regulations, but if Yabby overhears me he'll accuse me of being a commie, so we'll just keep that between ourselves.

Past 1
Policarp.
Perspective please. Not everything is about you.

Denialist - one who chooses to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.
One who refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.
In this instance it has nothing to do with AGW/ACC

Yabby,
Focus dear boy focus. I didn't say that the governments weren't culpable too.
More of your tendency to obfuscate by reference to irrelevancies and extremes rather than reasoned debate by dealing with the issues in proportion not combative extremes. The latter achieves nothing but polarisation and the worst in people.

Everyone inclined to *objectivity* and reason .

This topic demonstrates how the bollitical (cross between bollocks & politics)reasoning, that flourishes in OLO's superficially inclined conservative arguments, that Corporations don't need regulations, as 'the emperor's new clothes', illusionary.

I would argue that , with plenty of justification, that people as individuals are flawed, they are an amalgam of good and bad. Individuals have compassion as well as a drive for power (survival?)

Therefore, given societies are the product and comprise of (flawed) humans they too are further flawed. Additionally they too are often dominated by a number of different factors some know some presumed others deduced or best educated conclusions. One important factor is the tendency powerful individuals tend to dominate often creating unwarranted victims. To combat that and to level out the unreasonable power we have Democracy. Ingrained in this system we have rules, controls (checks and balances). The logical conclusion for this is to compensate for the lack of universal agreement in issues of behaviours, compassion and mutual responsibility (considered majority [ as opposed to
mob rule] prevails).

Given that Capitalism as a flawed human creation , focuses primarily on one side of the human equation and multi national Corporations are expressions of that one-sidedness, they need balance or at least controls i.e. regulation and policing.
If only because with out compassion Corporations become amoral, and seek to adversely influence HUMAN society in favour of PROFITS.

Part2
The 'conservative' (common usage) argument is that somehow that these biased, unbalanced flawed creations don't need or at most, minimal control and policing.
Like the GFC 'derivatives' this Oil crisis proves the laise faire concept to be ludicrous.

NB. This does not imply socialism or other such extremes.

What it clearly shows that we should NOT equate the interests of a NON human entity with HUMAN (balanced) intentions/ superior power/rights.
I don't believe corporations as NON Human entities should be able to use their financial power to influence/blackmail/bully Governments.
Governments are elected by the bulk of the people (democratically) corporations and their interests are dominated by a minority.

BTW We are unique, is right in that I focus on Humanity's ( OUR survival as a species) interests over that of created (fashionable) entities/constructs designed to facilitate not dominate.
Tip the “HUMAN- ist" attribution I claim, is a good clue.