On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:08:22 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


What's this "BP used substandard pipe". It was an American
organisation doing the drilling. The failed wellhead valve was made in
America too,(Haliburton)

Guess what? I don't believe in the big business game of "subcontracting
your liability away".


Isn't a big business game, it is a long established principal
dating back into English common law. You apportion liability according
to amount of liability. If Halliburton was said in a court to have been
responsible for 50% of the damage they should have 50% of the liability.
Otherwise, there is no reason for Halliburton to do anything to limit
problems, since BP is going to be stuck with it,.

Except when the courts find "joint and several" liability.

BP was in charge, hired the subs and took the profits. If they hired
morons, whose work they didn't check, well, whose fault it that? Exxon?
Obama? Marvin the Martian? If you're a captain in the Navy and your
helmsman puts you up on the sandbar, you lose *your* command; the helmsman
just gets a bad report.
Which, of course, is an internal Navy thing. Even in the Navy, that
has little or no impact on legal liability. BP could do the same thing,
too, and with the same amount of legal impact. Two completely different
worlds.


BP held the leases in their name and took the profit from the oil that came
out. The ultimate responsibility is theirs although I am sure a court will
attempt to apportion blame as well as possible.
As it should be.


It could easily end up that Federal leasing regulations change to forbid
subcontracting. It's the country's oil, and as such, the US has every right
to dictate how that oil is removed from the ground.
No way that is going to happen. No company is going to take on the
costs of the rigs. If it was profitable, then they would already being
doing it. The only that would accomplish is to drive ALL new exploration
somewhere else.

That's Obama's plan. Soros doesn't mind a bit.