Can't say that I said it first, but BP's ad campaign was "Beyond Preposterous."

My favorite ones were when average people pretended to have the answers to all the country's energy needs.

Does the blame really lie with BP or US regulators? And what about the role of transoceania in all this? Instead of complaining that BP has not lived up to its brand values (fool's you if you really believed it in this day and age), it would be better to focus your ire on the weakness of US regulators. Why did they allow the remote control switch to be mandatory? Why do they not require oil companies to have a worst-case scenario disaster plan in place? BP may have lobbied against these things (I imagine it wasn't the only oil company to do so) but, ultimately, it was still the regulator's decision,so why did it give in. This question is particularly pertinent when you consider that regulations in the EU mandate oil companies to have both these things in place. First banking, now energy - it is hard not to draw the broader conclusion that the pervasive 'light touch' regulation scheme that has been pervasive in the US for the past 3 decades puts corporate interests first and citizens' interests second. And corporation's interest is primarily profit-driven; hence, the need for well-designed regulation to ensure that the balance between profit and social justice is correctly maintained. Of course, now that there has been a disaster (which was waiting to happen) there will be much talk about the need to never let. I guess that was the case after Exxon Valdez too. Senators harrumphing about the "American people" not standing for this (it's interesting that BP's old identity, British Petroleum, has been given much prominence in this disaster) and, yet, when the media has moved on to focus on the next disaster/celebrity scandal, the lobbyists will move in and persuade the legislature to water down the next set of proposals. And then another disaster will happen and the cycle will start all over again.

Nobody doubts that this is one hell of mess and that the people responsible have to pay. But I think 1) You didnt even mention that it was in fact TRANSOCEAN who OWNED and OPERATED the rig. So if you want to chop some heads off dont just go after the juicest piece of steak, because then again you know that if this article was about some unknown contractor it would mean... 2) You have to take understand what it is like to work in the sort of environment that the oil industry does. They are literally playing with fire every day, its actually a miracle more accidents like these dont happen. And why do they do it well im sure i dont have to explain the insatiable demand for energy that our world has.

This doesnt mean that its acceptable that such accidents occur, thats what regulations and the sort exist but if you think there are better and "greener"companies than BP out there in what is in fact the most important industry in the world then youre wrong. They hire the best people and have the best technology and provide a service without which we would be in the stone age. OH but they stand to make a profit out of this, well move to cuba or north korea if you dont like it

There are countless BP stations in the US. How many sell any fuel other than gasoline and petroleum diesel? More than seven million "flex fuel" vehicles, capable of running on ethanol, ply the roads in the US, but are bedeviled by a relative dearth of stations selling ethanol and thus have to fill up on gasoline, their alternate fuel compatibility going unused.

BP can't use the excuse of fearing that it would be trying to sell a fuel that only a limited market can use. Over 3% of cars are flex fuel, but less than 1% of gas stations sell E85 (85% ethanol). So there's tremendous room for expansion.

And if BP really wanted to take a leadership role in moving us beyond petroleum, it could set aside one pump at every BP station for ethanol, and perhaps even also methanol and other alcohol fuels. It would take a few years for automakers to catch up by producing a high enough proportion of alcohol cars, but at last the chicken-and-egg dilemma would have been smashed, and the automakers would no longer have the excuse for their extremely leisurely pace of flex fuel adoption of there not being enough stations to justify it.

Instead of leading a key breakthrough to move us beyond petroleum, BP chose a few low cost token delaying-tactic "research" projects to trumpet in its PR, a mere blip compared to its massive oil operations.

The Onion brilliantly satirized this greenwashing here:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/were-investing-so-much-in-alternative-fuels-someti,11396/

Everybody who drives a gasoline powered car is a hypocrite and should blame themselves just as much as BP. BP is only the latest face of the environmental disasters that are a fundamental part of oil exploration. As long as there is demand, there will be supply. As consumers, we need to accelerate our shift to electric and hybrid vehicles and stop paying the Arabs and the petroleum companies such massive amounts of money to ruin the world.

Here I was ready to blast BP for their shoddy safety handling, and it seems that you were correct in some past issues. However, upon reading the comments, I noticed that something was left out. The whole BP doesn't own/run the rig, but some other company called Transocean.

Huh... So this whole article about the mistakes that BP made on the rig weren't actually BP run but third-party? Am I missing something then?

Or is this actually just a "quick, write the article fast so I can be the first to blast the big company and get some ratings" thing?

And ya, as Rbolling said, the whole magical off-switch saving the day... unlikely. More sensationalism to twist the article.

Bad reporting indeed.

Also, the whole BP lobbying against certain safety measures. You make it sound like they were the only ones doing it. I can gaurantee you that every big oil company was probably doing the same. Anything to cut costs. They are all publicly traded companies requiring profits to appease the shareholders. Any way to make more is a must, even if it hedges against problems like a massive blowout of oil.

I wonder which company will come out with the ad "We are installing these state-of-the-art, brand new, magical remote-control off-switches at apalling costs in all our rigs so that we won't be as stupid as BP" first?

This news is a perfect reason to explore the nature of branding by oil companies overall. I've written about it at some length at DIM BULB: http://www.dimbulb.net/my_weblog/2010/05/for-want-of-a-switch.html

As others have pointed out:

"But the Deepwater rig lacked a remote-control shut-off switch, a backup system that would close the underwater well even if the rig above were destroyed, as happened two weeks ago. "

Is just bad reporting. For one, there were "backup systems" just not the acoustic system required by some other nations. There are 4 way redundancy in the system, 2 electric, 2 hydraulic, and a manual "hot stab" the ROV can plug into. The backups were tripped but the valve failed. Another button isn't gonna magically make the valve work. These systems are tested every 14 days, and the last test showed they were working fine. So why the valve failed is the big question. Another button wouldn't have changed anything.

Plus the acoustic switch has never been tested in 1 mile of water, and probably wouldn't have even worked if the valve was operational. Its used in shallow drilling, a few hundred feet.

And yes, BP doesn't own or operate the rig. Its the same situation as if you hired a contractor to do landscaping in your yard, and he hit a gas line caused an explosion and killed someone. Its your property, so your liable, but its not your fault, the contractor is then liable to you for the damage he caused.

There is also the question of why the well blew out to start with, Haliburton was setting a temporary concrete plug, and it very well could be they were faulty in something they did that caused the blow out, then the faulty BOP (operated by transocean) didn't stop it.

BP actually has one of the best safety records in the industry in the last decade, and do invest more in green energy than anyone else. They were actually in the top three for a federal safety award, that's since been canceled.

Its an adversarial relationship between regulators and business, and I think that's a good thing. Regulators push for the most stringent regulation, business pushes for the least stringent, and in the end you have regulation that works, while allowing business to conduct.

The federal government had their own disaster plan for a massive spill like this, but it wasn't followed, and the proper equipment wasn't available.

Also, its not a lie that spills like this are RARE, tell me, when is the last rig you heard about sinking and releasing this much oil? Do you know how many wells are drilling offshore? The Gulf of Mexico alone produces 25% of US produced oil.

Yea, we need to be moving away from oil, and natural gas is the best bridge to true renewable energy. But this incident is gonna damage the reputation of energy companies and natural gas will get hit with them.

Also, about BP investing less in solar and green energy last year... well its a recession, and they invested less in everything green and conventional. Plus, look at Germany, last year their solar projects were hailed as the future, now their cutting contracts and the whole idea has collapsed.