So were the figures and guidelines I quoted you, look, this does 'raise the eyebrow of suspicion' for me too, I'm just saying, their website listed those violations by thing violated and I posted what those were. They did not give specifics. Nor did they quantify by level of endangerment or anywhere indicate that the events were detached, and with virtually all of them coming from 2 distinct violations out of dozens, maybe hundreds, this to me implies strong chance of correlation, screws might seem and be a silly example but I would think 'likely the same thing, but repeated' is strongly implied. And "willful violations... safety and health' could be something like 'Security guard required to check ID on incoming workers' and that guard didn't check the 411 people who walked in the door for the shift or they all have to have the X-99 CO2 detector clipped to their lapel but had the old X-98 or have taken to keeping it in a pocket. Also, these violations are still very broad, same as the word 'felony', I don't think I want to just default and say the guy charged with five felonies is automatically five times worse then the guy with one, when for all I know it might be five car thefts versus first-degree murder.

Main point being, without actually knowing what those violations specifically were, and having some qualified independent engineer say 'Oh yeah, that's seriously mega-negligent and atrocious, and never happens anywhere else' I'm inclined to be skeptical when I hear that some large company is somehow managing to account for thirty times the number of 'badness' as all it's other similiar-behaving competitors combined. I think - and these seems common sense to me - that there is likely to be a rationale reason for this, it might be really bad, like "Yeah, the CEO appointed his nephew as the guy in charge of safety ops for the refineries and he's like a total drunk with no background in this who never shows up' but that still 'makes sense', currently, it does not 'make sense' so I'm inclined to be skeptical when there is, to put it bluntly, a long list of allegations which are not really explained. Heck, maybe they forgot to pay off the inspector that month. I just want details of what the violations were before send for headsmen, like "We came by for an unannounced inspection and found the monitoring room staffed with only one person instead of two, and he was asleep, I've never seen anything like that, so we pulled video of the room, video his supervisors are supposed to review, and this is normal." Stuff like that, yeah, I'm all on board, but again, it just seems so unlikely the failures were this high comparably I want details, if it's true, if it is as implied, then we need to be dumping people in jail and seizing company assets, and it seems like this should already have been underway.

I get what you're saying about law of averages but I think without knowing the specifics we can say 'law of averages', when that average might be 829 incidents, 828 from the citation on Bob Johnson for failing to evacuate the 828 workers when a engineer informed him pump 9 was leaking.