"Other countries insist on safety devices which could have prevented this mess." by springfield

Actually, two other countries. If you can't assume that companies will do the right thing, it is only logical to make the assumtion: We can assume that companies will do the right thing. Of course it is in their best interest to do the right thing.

"U.S. regulators don't mandate use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn't have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated.

"The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. When wells do surge out of control, the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...417936798.html


Also: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/co...1466-26364577/

I'd just like to repeat my previous post that didn't get a response. I'd like to see another opinion to learn a little more.:

Why is there drilling so far off shore and at record breaking depth with new technology? The answer isn't anything new. Government regulations. Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson debated over states rights with ownership of of the Outer Continental Shelf along coastal states in the early 1950s. This was the "Tidelands Controversy."

Here is an interesting article, like me you may or may not agree with some of the editorial issues in it, but it helps explain the history of government involvement in offshore drilling and how politics has and does play a role.

http://hnn.us/articles/54465.html

Who has the greatest interest in safe drilling of oil? Is it the environment groups? Shareholders in the oil companies? The people who use the oil? Congress? No. It's the men working on the rigs whose lives are at stake. Unions can't protect people from doing something unsafe or careless no more than the government can.

If the system of courts and free enterprise works like it is suppose to, it is always in the best interest of a company to make money the safest way possible.

Does Murphy's law outplay the best intentioned regulations and safeguards. Absolutely. But the US Constitution has set up courts to oversee the course of action for any laws that are broken.

Just like advertiser for products are willing to pay millions to get their message out and sell their products; regardless of how useless or useful, they do it because they know it works. Just like rhetoric from political zombies works to brainwash the minds of Americans and blind us to the real issues. It makes for silly arguments that a President is to blame for a natural disaster or an explosion under the earth or even an oil rig accident. This only opens the door for special interests to propose more of their policies to their benefits.