Why should an oil company have a cap on liability?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OPTIONAL777, Jun 1, 2010.

  1. Really, why should an oil company like BP be exempt from liability?
  2. I would like to ask the 2 Republican presidents who started it and the current Republican congressmen trying to keep it

    What the oil companies don't pay,the government will.More corporate welfare but Republicans have no problems with that
  3. You Communists should like this. The public shares in the gains and loses of the oil wells.

    With unlimited liability they probably could not risk the investment.
  4. Gee whiz Optional, you're a smart guy and I'm sure you know the answer. Hopefully someone here can explai it better than I can but on the short side:

    Drilling where they are drilling wouldn't be worth the risk.

    BP might approach the gov't with a "can do" but caveats for the gov't to insure. The gov't is in essence a silent partner. I personally don't see anything wrong with this arrangement (limiting liability)

    Some projects can't or won't get done with private money or joint private venture, they are just too big or the unknowns are too great.

    Our gov't can be just as entrepreneurial as a lowly individual.

    Well now we have a mess on our hands, people who have done nothing in their life are bawling their eyes out, better start a support group.
  5. If they can't handle the liability, then don't drill the well...

    Such a hoot watching the capitalists begging for the government to pay for the risk...

    Let's call it what it is: a bailout for the oil companies if they screw up.

  6. Not very bright are you, everybody has an effective cap on liability.
  7. Lucrum


    What they should have a cap on is that well head.
  8. =================
    Good points;
    & i like the 75 million liability cap, a cap on greedy, selfish lawyers:D [Not that all lawyers are like that...
  9. So when the liability exceeds the 75 million, which it will in the case of the Deep Water Horizon spill...you have no problem at all with the taxpayer paying for the damage that could have been prevented, right?

  10. Same reason you gave in another thread - "because it's the law."
    #10     Jun 3, 2010