Lets just hope they "invest" a little more in safety procedures and emergency planning than BP did in Macondo. Those "investments" generally don't lead to the same profits, and it's usually more cost-effective to cut corners, take chances, sub out the risk to contractors insure the hell out of the facility, hire good PR and hope it doesn't blow on your watch.

Big industrial projects like this floating WMD (and nuke power plants) have an inherent risk. It may be small, and proper planning can further minimize it, and the resulting risk may even be worth taking for the benefit we derive from it.

But we cannot depend on investors, particularly institutional ones, making the correct (and expensive) engineering decisions to minimize those risks to acceptable levels. The market, left to itself, will not work to safeguard anyone's interest but theirs. There is a built in conflict of interest here you systematically ignore for ideological reasons. Only an adversarial system of government regulation can strike the right balance.

It has nothing to do with ideology or politics. Regardless of the politico/economic systems that initiate them, big projects with big investments and profits have big constituencies, and they have every incentive to pursue their own agendas at the expense of everyone elses. As you have often correctly pointed out, Socialist enterprises (like Chernobyl)tend to be myopic when careers, reputations, money and power are involved. Have you been following the Three Gorges Dam?