3 ms·
If the landowners didn't want to accept the risks related to resource exploitation, they could have: - Not allowed the development, and avoided the risks. - I
by nickff 6y ago
If the landowners didn't want to accept the risks related to resource exploitation, they could have:
- Not allowed the development, and avoided the risks.
- Insured against the risks.
- Sold the land, along with all the risks.
They did none of these, and effectively self-insured; now they expect pity, which they do not deserve.
- totalZero 6y agoYour argument totally neglects the fact that "liability," as a legal concept, means it is not necessarily the case that all parties share equal blame. Had the operator not filed for bankruptcy, it would likely have been responsible for its own failure to appropriately manage the wells. Had the state or federal government established adequate bonding practices to pay for the plugging of old and unproductive wells such as these, the burden of plugging these particular wells would have been lessened.
- nickff 6y agoHad some other counter-factual been the case, I might feel differently. The school officials were operating under current conditions, and have no real excuse that I know of.
- throwaway_jobs 6y ago> now they expect pity, which they do not deserve. So what you are saying essentially is the school board/county should file bankruptcy so taxpayers are stuck with the liability...then we can extend your argument to the taxpayers for their failure to avoid the risks of funding/operating schools and insuring against them. Do you feel that way about all the workers/businesses Trumps bankrupt businesses failed to pay by seeking bankruptcy protections?