Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
I challenged your post, you challenged me. Not only is it insulting, but it is below what I would have expected from the men in red.
Excuse me, but this:
Haven't studied economics much, have you?
is certainly far from challenging the content of my post but is simply questioning my background without you knowing anything about it.

From the "men in red" perspective this remark of your has only been one in quite a number of similar remarks in the past weeks (and which derailed threads several times) and you should not be surprised that other members regularly get annoyed by your posting style. (happy to further discuss this via PM)

On topic:
AS TO YOUR (actual) POINT, yes I entirely made up the numbers. It was a mathematical example with no bearing on real life situations. I never claimed anything else, and I thought that was obvious from what I wrote.
The point in the example I made still holds true though. No?
The point does not hold true if the claim you originally made very much depends on the actual numbers

The point is that the cost for the safety measure in question (500k USD per rig as mentioned in on of the linked articles) in entirely neglectable compared to the profits of BP (~100 USD billions if you just add up the last 5 years) and to the damage that has been caused.
This is not an issue of cost savings, but (assuming that the equipment in question could have made a difference) an issue of poor risk assessment/management.