Well, we can only deal with whats reasonable. There is no such thing as a "hurricane proof" oil platform, or an "earthquake proof" home, or a "tsunami proof" boat, or a "hacker proof" operating system, or a "idiot proof" UI, or a "bullet proof" vest, etc, etc. The level of damage that nature can deliver far far far surpasses anything us puny humans can build :)

In any case, it would be interesting to see if the data shows that the level of fortification that was used was not sufficient compared to what other oil platforms in similar situations do.

It would be interesting. So interesting you might find reading the article worthwhile.

> Although the company called the event an “act of God” that was unprecedented, the study said a similar event happened during Hurricane Camille in 1969. Eleven years later, a report commissioned by the Interior Department identified areas in the gulf that were susceptible to mudslides. Mississippi Canyon 20, the site of Taylor Energy’s platform, was one of those areas.

Your comments here purporting legitimate uncertainty about whether this is an externality Taylor Energy is responsible for read very much like unnecessary FUD. This is as clear a case you can get of privatized gains and publicized losses.

>It would be interesting. So interesting you might find reading the article worthwhile.

I did not find a comparative analysis of the various oil rigs w.r.t engineering and safety. Link?

>Your comments here purporting legitimate uncertainty about whether this is an externality Taylor Energy is responsible for read very much like unnecessary FUD.

I have an open mind, unlike some. Also you can either hurl accusations, or have a dialogue and be respectful of others opinions. Pick one.

If its impossible then they shouldn't build it. Simple as that.

You can't just put a barbecue pit in an apartment living room, burn down the building, and then throw up your arms and proclaim it was impossible to do safely so you're absolved of responsibility.

And let me be clear. I really don't mean to say regulation is enough. My point is that no matter the regulation the responsibility is theirs. If that bankrupts the company, so be it.

You can have endless debates over what’s reasonable. However, there’s an easy way out: don’t even attempt to define it, and just make companies liable for their pollution. They will then do whatever hurricane-proofing is cost effective given that liability, which is also the most economically efficient amount.

If it can't be done safely and the cost of the cleanup exceeds the value of the operation, we shouldn't do it.

If the concern is cost of the outlier accident, then that seems exactly like the problem insurance companies solve.

Right. So there's a risk to building the platform. If the company solely had to foot the bill for any cleanup, it could make a calculation of risk factoring in potential profits, the risk of a bad event and the cost of protecting against such an event.

But they don't have to do that. They can take the rig profits, install the minimum protections under the law and know they won't have to carry the full cost of cleanup.