You don't follow the news very often do you? I mean it when I say there really is no point, Tony Hayward has stepped down from day to day operations of the oil spill clean up, apparently he’s got his life back.



That made absolutely no sense whatsoever, so you're saying it's better to have an oil catastrophe here on our coasts then anywhere else because we might be able to control it? Is that really your reasoning?

Oh by the way, most developing nations, for example Mexico's state oil monopoly Pemex wisely don’t do deepwater drilling, because they have little exposure to the dangers of deep offshore drilling, lacking technology to explore untapped resources in the Gulf of Mexico. Brazil actually has tougher regulations then we do, their National Petroleum Agency requests that all companies operating in Brazilian waters send information on the control systems used in their wells and to re-evaluate their emergency plans.



I doubt it, haven't you heard? BP installing the cap to collect the oil could well have made it worse.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0609/Gulf-oil-spill-Why-BP-s-cap-success-is-turning-sour

This would be a comedy of errors if the results weren't so tragic.



The premise that he's not talking to people involved with the clean up is absurd. All the relevant agencies who are involved, are involved. The idea that just because he’s not calling Tony Hayward, a CEO who’s only achievement so far is “how-to-say-the-most-stupidest-thing-while-my-company-is-ruining-the-ocean” is not rational. And I seriously doubt a Nuke would even work, I think we can agree if there's anything worse than a oil leak, it's a radioactive oil leak.



You do realize there are legal reasons why the government doesn’t want to completely take over the operation from BP, or hire another private oil contractor to do it for them. For example, say that government took control of the plugging the well (nevermind that they don’t have experience or the know how to do that, but for example sake) and all clean up operations. If the Feds or another oil contractor takes over, BP may be legally and financially off the hook for any future damages that result from failures to stop the spillage. Quite frankly I believe BP would love it if the Federal Government took the matter off their hands

And let’s be fair, there’s plenty of blame involved, the Bush Administration deserves blame as well. There was a big debate under the Bush administration whether or not to require additional oil drilling safeguards (such as the remote system and the acoustic system)but decided not to require any additional mandatory safeguards, believing the industry would be motivated to do it themselves. If there’s anything we’ve learned from this, letting the industry regulate itself does not work. And it was during Bush’s tenure that in 2005 the MMS decided that oil companies, rather than the government, were in the best position to determining their operations’ environmental impacts. This meant that there was no longer any need for an environmental impact analysis for deepwater drilling.



It’s not about politics, it’s about common sense. BP is losing money every day this leak keeps on going, if there’s anything that motivates a private company it’s profit. The idea that BP would suddenly not care about stopping the leak because of possible criminal prosecution is rather amusing. I personally hope BP reacts that way, considering they’ll dig themselves into a bigger hole financially and legally. Besides the public wants it, Washington Post poll this week says 64 per cent believe BP should be criminally prosecuted. And I think it’s pretty good guarantee the relatives and family of those dead workers would like to see a criminal investigation. If anything the government could use the threat of criminal prosecution as leverage in the legal battle ahead.