Now We have an oil well spewing oil in the Golf

As always you make a good point - however there's a factoid that businesses have proven over and over and over that they're willing to screw everyone. They're willing to cut corners, make shoddy poisonous products, etc, the list goes on and on, all in the name of squeezing out a few more pennies of profit. Part of the causation is the ideology that they serve the shareholders and the shareholders are demanding ever higher profit.

C'mon, that's a pretty wild generalisation! EVERY business is owned and operated by selfish, unethical persons?? Most business people are proud of their products and want to see the industries and enterprises they own or work in,develop and improve! Businesses which don't show sufficient respect to their customers,soon perish. Like every area of human activity, in business, there will be the ethically noble, the exceedingly ignoble, and those in between. It really doesn't matter, because no system will replace the free market economy, (well not in the foreseeable future) essentially, because it exactly mirrors human behaviour while fulfilling mankind's need for creativity and enterprise!

Yes I totally agree I was being overly broad. It's not true that EVERY business is operated by selfishness and that one can be proud of their business.

But that doesn't disprove my point in the slightest. History has proven over and over that SOME businesses are willing to screw everyone, cut corners, do shoddy things, etc. Enough of them do this to rile the anger of many people.

I have this impression that you're saying the "free market economy" is going to be this everlasting paradigm, that will guide our society for the next zillion years, that it's the perfect system of conduct...blah..blah..blah..

Right. Good luck with that.

For one thing I'm in disbelief that the free market economy truly exists. Another thing (some) businesses have proved over and over is they're willing to proactively skew the system through bribing governments, faux political movements, or various other schemes. Hence the businesses you claim are inhabiting the free market are trying their darnedest to ensure it's not a free market.

Another thing history has shown over and over is that prevailing paradigms have a habit of failing eventually. One key thing causing these failures is resource exhaustion.

The pattern which leads to extinction is the exponential nature of the demands for growth. This leads into unsustainable numbers. A part of the causation of how this is exponential is specifically because of the demand for ever more profit.

Not at all! This may lead to the extinction of some enterprises and industries, but these will be quickly replaced by exciting new technology, creating vast new profits! The old just die away, (telex-writers are bloody hard to sell these days!)That's the nature of capitalism!

Uh.. when the planet is no longer able to provide the resources required to fuel our society ...

Refer back to my point about resource exhaustion.

The game may seem like you're pushing numbers around inside computers, trading things which represent value (stocks, bonds, various notes or derivatives or credit whatevers). It's rather figmentary to a degree, or disconnected from the reality in the actual world that we occupy. Our actual planet that we live on is of fixed size and hence has a fixed sized ability to provide for us.

That puts a rather sharp limit on growth. But the prevailing economic model is this delusion there is no limits to growth.

However that was rather simplistic. Something which is screwball broken about the prevailing consensus opinion is this one way street in the consumption of stuff. You mine materials, wham them into shape as a product, sell the product, and the customer is responsible for disposal once its useless, and there's essentially zero attempt to reuse any of the materials in future products. Okay there are recycling programs and I recycle as much as I can but recycling seems to me more designed to make people like me feel good rather than a real solution.

If "recycling" (reuse of materials) were the prevailing consensus then there would be much less concern about limits to growth. It's this one way street of making a thing and tossing it in the trash never to be seen again, that's the problem.

Sigh, I am not defending US Bankers, but the root cause of the GFC was created by the US government idealistically creating, no demanding, that banks and similar finance institutions, follow unrealistic, non discriminatory lending practises to the low income sector.

No the root cause of the Global Financial Crisis was greed. At every level. Bankers, Governments, Mortgage Brokers, Insurance Companies, Individuals lying on loan applications. Greed is a simple fact of life. We will never "cure" greed. However, one needs to look at the impact of that greed on society as a whole. In this situation the greed of the Bankers caused the most damage. Hence they should get the biggest slap in the face.

Whether, you like it or not, you are a businessman! Do you think that Davids, highly generalised description of you as 'greedily producing low grade, poisons goods' is accurate? No of course not! Nor, in truth did David, he simply alluded to the lemming like behaviour that capital markets are subject to when speculation is the only criteria for success.

I love being a businessman - because I love creating things and solving problems. I don't worry about over generalized comments because I recognize them for what they are - an expression of frustration at a broken system.

The role of governments should be to provide beneficial regulation. It's when the US government stop governing and try to achieve political gain, based on ideology, that business responds by doing what business is good at, exploiting the opportunity created. The result is what the US government created.

And who gets to decide "beneficial"? At the moment it's the entity with the deepest pockets and most savvy lobbyists. You'll get no argument from me that US government is broken. However (a) I strongly disagree with blaming the Government not the bankers or the oilmen - that's like blaming the cops not the criminal & (b) Although I recognize government is broken I don't think knee jerk reactions for "less government" will fix things.

Wrong again! BP only leases the rig. Apparently, Oil rigs come in different models. The overwhelming majority of Oil rigs are fitted with the 'dead mans hand' blow out devise. Cost is not a factor.$500,000, may be a lot of money to you, but to a major oil company, its peanuts! The 'Dead mans hand' type was considered a Superior system! It was this device that failed, (despite having been inspected only !) days earlier.Perhaps the acoustic device will be more accepted after this catastrophe.

Now, are you telling me that if a nationalised Oil company was operating the rig, things would have been different?? If not, then there goes the whole "lets blame BP because capitalism is inherently wrong" Theory!

BP pays the bills, so they're responsible for the drilling operation, no matter how many layers of subcontractors might be employed. Otherwise, it's too easy to play the finger pointing game and nobody is ever responsible for anything.

I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but the oil industry stopped using acoustical triggers precisely because "they tend to be very costly":

The absence of an acoustical regulator — a remotely triggered dead man’s switch that might have closed off BP’s gushing pipe at its sea floor wellhead when the manual switch failed (the fire and explosion on the drilling platform may have prevented the dying workers from pushing the button) — was directly attributable to industry pandering by the Bush team. Acoustic switches are required by law for all offshore rigs off Brazil and in Norway’s North Sea operations. BP uses the devise voluntarily in Britain’s North Sea and elsewhere in the world as do other big players like Holland’s Shell and France’s Total. In 2000, the Minerals Management Service while weighing a comprehensive rulemaking for drilling safety, deemed the acoustic mechanism “essential” and proposed to mandate the mechanism on all gulf rigs.

Then, between January and March of 2001, incoming Vice President Dick Cheney conducted secret meetings with over 100 oil industry officials allowing them to draft a wish list of industry demands to be implemented by the oil friendly administration. Cheney also used that time to re-staff the Minerals Management Service with oil industry toadies including a cabal of his Wyoming carbon cronies. In 2003, newly reconstituted Minerals Management Service genuflected to the oil cartel by recommending the removal of the proposed requirement for acoustic switches. The Minerals Management Service’s 2003 study concluded that “acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly.”

I'm not advocating nationalizing oil companies. I'm advocating not letting oil companies write their own regulations and submit them to the government for approval without consideration of the consequences. I'm advocating strong regulations are a mandatory part of a functioning capitalistic environment, especially when it comes to protecting lives and the environment. I'm also advocating a move away from dirty and risky fossil fuels entirely. Nobody has a billion dollar toxic cleanup after a wind farm malfunction, and workers in solar plants never have to wear radiation-proof clothing.

History has proven over and over that SOME businesses are willing to screw everyone, cut corners, do shoddy things, etc. Enough of them do this to rile the anger of many people.

Of course, SOME people in every human endeavour are willing to screw everyone else!

I have this impression that you're saying the "free market economy" is going to be this everlasting paradigm, that will guide our society for the next zillion years, that it's the perfect system of conduct.

That's essentially where we differ. You are looking for a perfect system. This can never be achieved! The free market economy (FRE), works, not because it's 'perfect', but because it's imperfect and flexible enough to adapt and absorb the foibles of human aspirations.

history is littered with failed Political/economic idealists, each with wonderful Utopian concepts, seeking to impose their moral beliefs on the economy, (and others), have wrought misery, oppression, and poverty to society. The FRE, while not perfect, at least quickly corrects itself, because it's exactly that, Free! It does not pretend to be moral, just, righteous, idealistic, only Free.

Uh.. when the planet is no longer able to provide the resources required to fuel our society

Interesting, because much recent business expansion consumes a diminishing proportion of traditional resources. Take entertainment, film TV etc..this industry contributes $A880 Billion dollars directly (and several trillion) indirectly, to the worlds economy, yet in proportion to traditional industries consumes very little in the way of resources. The Internet is a huge industry, yet uses a significantly reduced amount of resources.

Technology, is very adaptive. Human ability to discovery and utilise new resources is boundless. The Planet has plenty of resources, they are just squandered or badly managed! When a resource becomes expensive or scarce, we automatically develop substitutes or learn to husband the resource better. But only a FME can produce the sort of excess capital required.

No, the root cause of the Global Financial Crisis was greed. At every level. Bankers, Governments, Mortgage Brokers, Insurance Companies, Individuals lying on loan applications. Greed is a simple fact of life. We will never "cure" greed. However, one needs to look at the impact of that greed on society as a whole. In this situation the greed of the Bankers caused the most damage. Hence they should get the biggest slap in the face.

Goodness me! Why don't you burn down their barns while you're at it! Even if what you say is true,the situation was created by Government regulatory policy! This is not "right wing discredited theory" !Those laws and regulations exist!

Fix the regulations, you fix the problem! It's always a problem with the supporters of moralistic, idealistic, regulations, they will never admit that such regulations are just impractical. So, the supporter reason, it must be someone else to blame! Greedy bankers, Selfish rich, Jews, Freemasons, Oil companies, lobbyists, bootleggers/drug dealers, Hobgoblins etc..From Prohibition to economic "equality", idealists, invariably try to enforce unrealistic moral ideologies on society and economic activity. The same problem always occurs, the average man doesn't share the vision, but b'god the idealist will make him...For his own good of course!

And who gets to decide "beneficial"? At the moment it's the entity with the deepest pockets and most savvy lobbyists. You'll get no argument from me that US government is broken.

John, I have great faith in the US. Neither, the government, FME, or US society is really broken!! But, like all regulatory systems, governments from time to time make bad or impractical decisions. Fortunately the free world democracies are adaptive enough to cope with change and eventually the rectification of bad decisions. Governments will never be more perfect than those who elect them.

"However (a) I strongly disagree with blaming the Government not the bankers or the oilmen - that's like blaming the cops not the criminal & (b) Although I recognize government is broken I don't think knee jerk reactions for "less government" will fix things

"blaming the cops, not the criminal" This is a faulty analysis! Bad regulations attract bad results! Enforcing bad or impractical regulations is a very dangerous principle. That way lies the road to totalitarianism and fanaticism.

I am not advocating "less government" just more "competent government". Not perhaps idealistic, but practical.

BP pays the bills, so they're responsible for the drilling operation, no matter how many layers of subcontractors might be employed. Otherwise, it's too easy to play the finger pointing game and nobody is ever responsible for anything.

BP, has not shirked from responsibility! However, you have it the wrong way round. BP does not own the rig, it leased the facility from the owners. How much liability is the responsibility of the owners, as opposed to BP, is difficult to determine without being privy to the terms of the lease.

I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but the oil industry stopped using acoustical triggers precisely because "they tend to be very costly"

I'm not sure where you got your quote, since you didn't include your source, but $500,000 is not very costly in the terms of an oil rig! The Oil Industry forum, has many contributions arguing for and against the benefits of acoustic devices. However, they all seem to agree that retro-fitting such devices to ageing rigs is difficult, and maybe detrimental. I confess, I lack sufficient engineering knowledge to judge. However, I'm sure that most media commentators know even less!

I'm not advocating nationalising oil companies. I'm advocating not letting oil companies write their own regulations and submit them to the government for approval without consideration of the consequences. I'm advocating strong regulations are a mandatory part of a functioning capitalistic environment, especially when it comes to protecting lives and the environment. I'm also advocating a move away from dirty and risky fossil fuels entirely.

Here we are in furious agreement!! It is the duty of a government to provide wise and sensible regulations. Naturally, in any regulatory process the opinions and expertise of the industry members should be included as an important factor in the decision making process. It's not only an irresponsible abandonment of the government duty of care to the general community to allow self-regulation, but also a failure of responsibility to the Oil Industry!

Ironically, it was BP, during Lord Browne's tenure of office that also advocated a move away from oil to alternate safer fuels.

I never even heard about it before! But you are correct, it exists:http://bev.com.au/about/specifications/ How long has it been available for? I think their advertising sucks! I'll have to search for some reports by those Kiwis who were volunteering as paying guinea-pigs...
I've just paid off the AU$16.000.- loan for the rotten Vectrix experience and am not likely to repeat it with a $48.000,- blind-faith experiment!

Sorry, that you had such a bad experience with Vectrix! This is the trouble with being a pioneer. As to the Blade Electron. It has been around for about 4 years! I was, to my discredit, a very vocal critic of the early electrons, and unjustly disparaged the credibility of the engineer founder, Ross Blade!

Boy, I wish I could retract my remarks!

As an Australian, you should be very proud of Ross and his vision. He has produced a first class, very professional, reliable, trouble free, practical EV. He has done so with very little support, and a great deal of government petty interference. I have examined, fleet tested, and driven the Blade Electron. I would recommend the vehicle as eminently suited for the market for which it's manufactured.

Having examined, over 26 production EV's (or prototypes) including the iMev and Leaf, I would rate the Electron as good as most, and better than a great many. Value for money as an EV? Definitely!

If Ross Blade had started his enterprise in the US he would be famous, but Australians never value their own sons, until they move overseas!

I believe that from time to time second hand, but upgraded, Blade Electrons, become available, with Factory warranty, at about $30,000.

I assure you that if you take the time to check out the BEV, you will not be disappointed!

No, the root cause of the Global Financial Crisis was greed. At every level. Bankers, Governments, Mortgage Brokers, Insurance Companies, Individuals lying on loan applications. Greed is a simple fact of life. We will never "cure" greed. However, one needs to look at the impact of that greed on society as a whole. In this situation the greed of the Bankers caused the most damage. Hence they should get the biggest slap in the face.

Goodness me! Why don't you burn down their barns while you're at it! Even if what you say is true,the situation was created by Government regulatory policy! This is not "right wing discredited theory" !Those laws and regulations exist!

Fix the regulations, you fix the problem! It's always a problem with the supporters of moralistic, idealistic, regulations, they will never admit that such regulations are just impractical. So, the supporter reason, it must be someone else to blame! Greedy bankers, Selfish rich, Jews, Freemasons, Oil companies, lobbyists, bootleggers/drug dealers, Hobgoblins etc..From Prohibition to economic "equality", idealists, invariably try to enforce unrealistic moral ideologies on society and economic activity. The same problem always occurs, the average man doesn't share the vision, but b'god the idealist will make him...For his own good of course!

No, it is greed. You just want to paint it in a different light as an idealistic vs. pragmatic argument. Note that I include "government" in the list of folks at issue. They're greedy to stay in power (and that takes money). I agree with you that the regulations are imperfect and need fixing. However they are one PART of the problem.

Where we seem to differ is that you seem to place no blame (or very little?) on those that exploit the situation and exploit it in such a way as to have very large, very real impact. You seem to take the naive view that "if we simply had better government and better regulation none of this would have happened". That's naivety in the extreme! Maybe we wouldn't have seen these particular manifestations of corporate malfeasance but we would have seen others. I *think* the point I'm trying to make is that neither side can really claim the "right answer" - but when things go wrong (as they will in any human endeavor) the blame needs to be partitioned fairly.

From my point of view it makes most sense for most of the blame to be given to those that took the biggest risk and the ones that caused the biggest issues. They took the risk and expected to reap the rewards. When the risk goes against them they should NOT be protected by folks excusing them because the "right regulations weren't in place".

BP knew they were taking a risk. The risk backfired. Don't apologize for them. Don't take to heart if some folks express their frustration and anger at those at the top. That's why they're at the top - because the buck stops with them. Let's see if the risk was worth the cost. If it wasn't then let's make sure that they and their counterparts aren't allowed to take that risk again.

If we allow folks to take risks without facing the true consequences of their actions then we're never going to reduce the problem.

p.s. I'm enjoying this debate - because I respect marcopolo and his views. But it's one of those "un-winnable arguments" - so none of us should expect any of the others to say "ah ha! now I see..."

No, it is greed. You just want to paint it in a different light as an idealistic vs. pragmatic argument.

But it's exactly that. Your entire analysis is based on Moral/idealistic principles. No there nothing really wrong with that, except that everyone morality is different. So, I say when fixing a problem, go to either the cause of the problem, or at least the bit you can control. Since it's not really practical to have everyone agree on every issue, we create government regulations. Effective government with effectively enforced practical, beneficial regulations, solves most problems to the best of societies ability.

We are talking human beings here! No area of society is morally pure! " The term "Greed" is highly and gratuitously emotive.

Business, is risky, capitalism is risky, each transaction is risky, Human existence is, and always has been, risky! We all benefit from those risks! Naive? the term is better reserved for those who accept the benefits but blame others for the downsides. (even more naive are those who image a system can be invented with no downsides).

BP knew they were taking a risk. The risk backfired. Don't apologize for them. Don't take to heart if some folks express their frustration and anger at those at the top. That's why they're at the top - because the buck stops with them. Let's see if the risk was worth the cost. If it wasn't then let's make sure that they and their counterparts aren't allowed to take that risk again.

Oil exploration is a risky business! Like motorised traffic, society has to accept a percentage of accidents. We pass and police regulations. But we don't apportion moral blame for every accident, only those with a high degree of reckless negligence. In this case, it's evident that the US government should not have issued the exploration licence.

Yes, after every disaster, there is always an ill-informed lynch mob, baying for blood. But are you arguing that society should encourage lynch mobs? Yes, certain politicians, and sections of the media, exploit the worse aspects of human nature, with shrill cry cries of "thats him, he's to blame!". This may sate the public's need for scapegoats, but detracts from civic responsibility and justice. The latest catch phrase of "Greed" is just a new justification for self-righteous, envious, sanctimonious, finger-waggers who feed of the consequences of highly complex public misfortunes.

So far it would appear that BP, has obeyed the law and fulfilled all regulatory obligations. Inventing things that may have, could have, would have, if they did, prevented the disaster, and blaming BP for not doing them, is pointless. The lessons to be learnt from this disaster are quite well enough enforced with a $20+ billion clean-up bill, share price fall, and a PR nightmare!

What will be interesting is watching the Obama administration, wriggle and twist out of all responsibility! Starting with blaming the previous administration, huffing and puffing about evil oil companies, and stern finger pointing about what will be done in the future. With the right spin, Obama and his administration can even emerge with credit for the excellent and dramatic way they shut the stable door!! (Stern faced TV announcements, Senate enquiries, Grim "man of action" summoning of oil company executives, and sympathetic "I share your pain" photo opportunities). Capped by the accusation of the hour " Greed" !

Yeah, I reckon he can sell that to the electorate.

Whether the risk is worth the cost? Well I agree with Mike B, the US government should never have reopened those oil fields.

Whether the risk is worth the cost? Well I agree with Mike B, the US government should never have reopened those oil fields.

Careful now, don't agree with me for something that I didn't say, and possibly didn't actually happen.

The government agency in charge of oversight of offshore oil drilling is the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and it's well known that it became horribly corrupt during the Bush/Cheney administration. Cheney staffed it with oil industry cronies (remember, Cheney was CEO of Haliburton), and they approved almost anything the oil industry asked for. The scandal back 3-4 years ago was that they weren't just approving oil company requests, they were actually having drunken orgies with oil company representatives. As I posted earlier, it was the decision of the corrupt MMS that an acoustic trigger wasn't needed, since they tend to be costly, but that decision is exactly the cost-saving one the industry wanted. There's no need for Obama to try to weasel out of anything here, other than failing to kill the corruption fast enough (and he's had bigger problems to deal with in his first year).

Second, nobody reopened these fields. There's been a long-standing executive order blocking certain areas from offshore drilling, and that executive order was mirrored by a law. Obama recently offered to withdraw the executive order in exchange for congressional support of a climate bill, which would presumably alter the law. No new drilling could happen until both executive order and the law were lifted, and that hasn't happened yet. So Obama's proposed change could not possibly apply to this particular well, probably because the well was too far offshore to be covered by this rule. More importantly, this type of drilling action takes years to approve and for operations to begin, so it was almost certainly started long before Obama took office. (The insanity of the 'drill here, drill now' chant is that no new oil production could possibly appear in less than 5-7years, even if the law was changed today.)

Third, BP may very well have been breaking the law. Their permit allowed them to drill up to 20,000 feet deep, but the rumor is that the well was actually at 22,000. There are other hints of permit violations, but they're still being investigated. And I should point out that BP's negligence was a major factor in the damage caused by the Exxon Valdez. They didn't own the Valdez, but they did own the cleanup crew that was required by law to be on 5 hour standby. However, all the trained first responders had been fired and the boat with the oil capture booms was in drydock. BP spends more money on greenwashing than on actual alternative energy sources.

All of this gets back to John's point: the big issue here is greed. There's so much money involved that both government and industry are strongly motivated to break the rules, to take risks that shouldn't be taken. We need to send a few of Cheney's buddies (both in government and in industry) to jail, and replace them with people unafraid to actually stick to the existing laws. And we need to stop electing congresscritters that are willing to pass laws that favor industry over the public interest.

I'm horrified too. The sooner we all use electric vehicles in our lives, the demand for oil will be less. I'm sold on getting an electric bike for local shopping and looking for an good affordable multigeared bike. Just $1500 is too much and the cheap $350 model on Amazon doesn't look reliable. If anyone knows of several online sources, let me know.

Careful now, don't agree with me for something that I didn't say, and possibly didn't actually happen.

Yes,sorry, my text wasn't clear that I was extrapolating. What I meant to express was my agreement and unqualified support, for your paragraph;

I'm not advocating nationalising oil companies. I'm advocating not letting oil companies write their own regulations and submit them to the government for approval without consideration of the consequences. I'm advocating strong regulations are a mandatory part of a functioning capitalistic environment, especially when it comes to protecting lives and the environment. I'm also advocating a move away from dirty and risky fossil fuels entirely.

The above are my own sentiments exactly!

The government agency in charge of oversight of offshore oil drilling is the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and it's well known that it became horribly corrupt during the Bush/Cheney administration. Cheney staffed it with oil industry cronies (remember, Cheney was CEO of Haliburton), and they approved almost anything the oil industry asked for. The scandal back 3-4 years ago was that they weren't just approving oil company requests, they were actually having drunken orgies with oil company representatives. As I posted earlier, it was the decision of the corrupt MMS that an acoustic trigger wasn't needed, since they tend to be costly, but that decision is exactly the cost-saving one the industry wanted. There's no need for Obama to try to weasel out of anything here, other than failing to kill the corruption fast enough (and he's had bigger problems to deal with in his first year)

Absolutly correct! The Bush administration was extremely lax in appointing weak, I would hesitate to say corrupt, but certainly appointed inappropriate candidates to official positions. In itself, there is nothing wrong with appointing ex-oil executives to such positions, per se.., their insight and experience may prove invaluable. However, the appointment would have to be very overt, and the individuals possess exceptional reputations for integrity and public duty. This was obviously not evident in the Bush appointments. The Bush administration was not noted for gifted decision making!

Hey really, drunken orgies? ole Dick? Damn! I wish I had been invited! Come to think on it though, it could get kinda dangerous for other guests, with a good ole boy like Dick, and his love of fire arms! With any luck he may have winged a few of his oil company cronies!

As for the Acoustic, vs Deadmans hand debate. As I say, I do not have sufficient oil-rig engineering knowledge to express a view. I formed my opinion by assessing the debate ranging among the actual professionals,also BP is only leasing an existing rig that is certified as fully compliant with the inspections. I also reason that to BP, an expenditure of $500,000 dollars is peanuts, when it comes to the enormous cost of a rig.

Third, BP may very well have been breaking the law. Their permit allowed them to drill up to 20,000 feet deep, but the rumour is that the well was actually at 22,000. There are other hints of permit violations, but they're still being investigated. And I should point out that BP's negligence was a major factor in the damage caused by the Exxon Valdez. They didn't own the Valdez, but they did own the cleanup crew that was required by law to be on 5 hour standby. However, all the trained first responders had been fired and the boat with the oil capture booms was in drydock. BP spends more money on greenwashing than on actual alternative energy sources.

Rumour, Hints,innuendo, gossip, scuttlebutt! Well B'God, bugger investigating! that's good enough for me!let's hang the greedy bastard's.

How on earth do you conclude that the Exxon Valdez disaster is BP's fault? BP didn't own the Exxon Valdez or the oil cargo. BP played absolutely no part in the drama whatsoever. Of the nine official reports, endless evidence, court battles, the US Coast Guard report,US Navy, EPA, Alaskan Governors Committee Report, all drew conclusions as to the causes of the disaster. Not one mentions BP! Even Greenpeace apportions no blame to BP.

The accusation that BP owned the company that was supposed to provide clean up services, is very disingenuous!
True, BP is a minority shareholder in the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC). APSC operates the Trans Alaskan Pipeline. In 2000, some 10 years after the Exxon Valquez disaster, BP increased it's shareholding in APSC by acquisition of ARCO. Even so, BP is still a minority shareholder.

The Alyeska Pipeline Service Company designs, constructs, operates, and maintains the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). TAPS is jointly owned by BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Phillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., Exxon-Mobil Pipeline Company, Amerada Hess Corporation, and Unocal Pipeline Company.

SPSC, is responsible for emergency services for oil spills caused by the pipeline, but is not responsible for the Exxon Valdez once she sailed.

Greenwashing! BP has spent billions of pounds on alternate fuel research. BP Solar is the world largest Solar company. Operating in more than 160 countries, with thousands of employees.BP is the only company in the world seriously researching replacement for a replacement for maritime bunker oil. Greed, all pure Greed!

All of this gets back to John's point: the big issue here is greed. There's so much money involved that both government and industry are strongly motivated to break the rules, to take risks that shouldn't be taken. We need to send a few of Cheney's buddies (both in government and in industry) to jail, and replace them with people unafraid to actually stick to the existing laws. And we need to stop electing congresscritters that are willing to pass laws that favor industry over the public interest.

First, you have to convict them of some breach of the law. Greed, might be a mortal sin, but not actually against the law! Find me a serious intentional breech of the law, or covert act of corruption?

I'm sure you agree, to pass good laws,(and regulations) you must elect competent, logical, rational people to office. This is difficult when the media and the electorate, don't allow such men to be elected. I feel deeply sorry for anyone fool enough to stand for office in the US, or most in western nations. As a reward for this extremely thankless civic duty, they receive little or no respect, attract deal of ignorant abuse,and ill-founded accusations, from both media and voters alike.

It's true the people get the government they deserve.

OK so now that we have hatched out WHO we want to blame, lets turn our energy to WHAT we think will happen in the next months!! My ideas are, The gov. will run around with their head cut off only to add sweeping restrictions on The Oil Company's, raise taxes, on all gas and oil sold to us! All the oil company's will raise their prices to recoup their loses , there will be mass migration North away from the plagued area! as the pressure below the gulf goes down the land will move and subside, these are possible, what do you think will be happening LaTeR PS. the next question I will ask is WERE should WE focus our energy to improve the situation!

IMO,

BP will work frantically to contain the oil flow and clean-up the disaster, as is scientifically possible.
The government will posture and seek scapegoats.
The media will indulge in wild and mostly unfounded hysterical speculation
Lawyers will grow rich on endless litigation and enquiries.
The entire community will suffer higher oil prices.
Marine birds and wildlife will suffer.
Local residents will spend most of their lives talking about how it affected them to increasingly bored reporters, most of whom will write the stories from a bar in 'Frisco or New York.
Environmental groups will demonstrate with such original and helpful signs as "clean it up".
Lawyers will grow rich on endless litigation and enquiries.
Politicians will posture.
BP will drill a second well to relieve the pressure and commence the heartbreaking problems of cleaning up.
Insurance consortium's will increase prices.
A local industry of clean up experts will bring in a lot of money to the local economy.
Lawyers will grow rich on endless litigation and enquiries.
Politicians will posture.
Eventually the clean up teams will depart and the local economy will slide into a forlorn, shabby, forgotten backwater, since one day even the oil will run out , possibly some fishing may restart, but when, and if anyone wants such produce is difficult to predict.
Lawyers will grow rich on endless litigation and enquiries.
Future governments will relax rules on oil drilling as oil becomes even more scarce and expensive to obtain.
BP will move it's major investments to non-gasoline products.
More marginal and less accountable Oil Companies will arise to fill the high risk drilling niche.
Lawyers will grow rich on endless litigation and enquiries.
Politicians will posture.

In the lyrics of Del Ametri "Nothing ever happens, nothing really happens at all, and we'll all go along like before..."

Hopefully, emerging technologies will lessen the demand for oil. The era of not only the EV, but other sustainable fuels will render such drilling uneconomic. Sadly, too late for those communities along the Gulf. Too late also for the 11 men who died.(and thier families).

BP will work frantically to contain the oil flow and clean-up the disaster, as is scientifically possible.

Apparently, this prediction is already proving to be false.
Fishgrease: DKos Booming School
(Warning: language is a bit course)

For those who don't care to follow the link, lets just say that a real industry expert is saying that the application of floating booms to contain the oil spread is being done entirely wrong. It's a cosmetic attempt more than an actual effort to prevent the oil from reaching the beaches. (At least in the photographed areas)

Also of interest, the attempt to cap the leak with a box has failed, and BP is going with a high-risk 'junk shot' next. My prediction is that it won't work, and only a relief well (3+ months from now) will be able to cut it off. BP is still claiming a leak rate of 5,000 barrels per day, but a 3rd party estimate based on satellite images remains at 25,000 barrels per day.

BP will work frantically to contain the oil flow and clean-up the disaster, as is scientifically possible.

Apparently, this prediction is already proving to be false.
Fishgrease: DKos Booming School
(Warning: language is a bit course)

For those who don't care to follow the link, lets just say that a real industry expert is saying that the application of floating booms to contain the oil spread is being done entirely wrong. It's a cosmetic attempt more than an actual effort to prevent the oil from reaching the beaches. (At least in the photographed areas)

Also of interest, the attempt to cap the leak with a box has failed, and BP is going with a high-risk 'junk shot' next. My prediction is that it won't work, and only a relief well (3+ months from now) will be able to cut it off. BP is still claiming a leak rate of 5,000 barrels per day, but a 3rd party estimate based on satellite images remains at 25,000 barrels per day.

Mike, c'mon, first 'rumour' and 'hints', then some guy called "fishgrease talking to some other good ole boy in a bar, (obviously having had a real good night, god bless 'em), telling his buddy "Boomer" all about it! You then claim that this utterly unsubstantiated opinion, qualifies 'fishgrease' as a real "industry expert"?

Y'know, it seems like you are losing a bit of perspective here! Ole 'fishgrease' may or may not have a valid opinion! But gee, if the best evidence you can advance is two good old boys having a drunken bar room conversation, as authorititive opinion, you are really clasping at straws!

How exactly, would it be in BP's interests to stretch out the agony and incur vast, and according to you, unnecessary costs, by sabotaging the containment procedure?

Things are getting kinda' weird!

Y'know, it seems like you are losing a bit of perspective here! Ole 'fishgrease' may or may not have a valid opinion! But gee, if the best evidence you can advance is two good old boys having a drunken bar room conversation, as authorititive opinion, you are really clasping at straws!

There's no possible way for the booms shown below to possibly be effective, and any moron with 2 working neurons can see that:

If this is the 'best possible effort' from BP, then there's no question we're royally screwed. More likely, it's being done by a subcontractor who had the lowest bid, and the reason for the low bid is now clearly demonstrated.

Fishgrease clearly has some expertise in the field, based on his earlier writings. And if you can't figure out that 'Boomers' refers to all the students (readers) who are learning how to place and maintain booms, then you need to learn how to read. It's not a drunken conversation, it's a well-written diary with a particularly interesting style, taking the role of an instructor giving his students an overview of a particular task. His point about booms being used to direct oil flow, rather than block it, is also pretty blatantly obvious.

As for hints and rumors, you are the one who initially flat out stated that BP had broken no laws. Maybe you should listen to your own advice and wait for an investigation to complete before making such absurd statements. (And yes, the DOJ is beginning an investigation) BP isn't paying you to lie on their behalf (at least I hope they aren't), so you can stop building a closing argument for the jury that isn't present yet.

So Mr.polo what about the photos and news of oil balls ON Shore and oil behind those orange booms ??? and yet you see nothing serious?

I cannot assess what those photo's indicate, since I am not an oil spill containment expert.

Nor, I suspect, are you!

I have never stated that this vast oil spillage is not serious! The environmental impact of this spill is exceedingly serious. The lives of the affected communities and the consequences(which only I seem to acknowledge) of the 11 oil rig workers deaths, will be felt for decades to come.

The financial impact will also have adverse ramifications for thousands of lives and projects, completely unrelated to this area of the world.

Even more serious, this disaster is an indication of the level of risk,(and consequences) of marginal Oil extraction in sensitive areas becoming commonplace. The Exxon Valdez disaster was not a really big oil spin in terms of oil spills. But it consequences were catastrophic, in a relatively unpopulated area. Drilling for margial oil is now an exceedingly risky business and the sooner technology can render such activity economically untenable, the better!

Interestingly, tar balls have been appearing on that coastline for many years. possibly the result of other minor spills further out, or possibly even naturally occurring. It was the discovery of coastline tar balls that led to the discovery of African oil fields.

If this is the 'best possible effort' from BP, then there's no question we're royally screwed. More likely, it's being done by a subcontractor who had the lowest bid, and the reason for the low bid is now clearly demonstrated.

Rant, rant, snort, rant,.. you have absolutely no evidence to assume such a conjecture, except your own bias.

Fishgrease clearly has some expertise in the field, based on his earlier writings. And if you can't figure out that 'Boomers' refers to all the students (readers) who are learning how to place and maintain booms, then you need to learn how to read. It's not a drunken conversation, it's a well-written diary with a particularly interesting style, taking the role of an instructor giving his students an overview of a particular task. His point about booms being used to direct oil flow, rather than block it, is also pretty blatantly obvious.

Are you serious? Tell me what qualifications 'fishgreese' possesses? Does his 'well-written' dairy display a calm, authorities. dispassionate, scientific mind!!!??

You find his 'style' interesting? Well it's certainly entertaining in an undergrad sort of way. But as a reliable commentator communicating technical knowledge, it is little more than an example of the sort of bar room rave by a loud mouth, pig ignorant, guy, (possibly employed in some menial position), mouthing off.

The US Coastguard may have it's limitations, but I believe that there is a good chance they may be a bit better informed than ole 'fishgrease'!

As for hints and rumors, you are the one who initially flat out stated that BP had broken no laws. Maybe you should listen to your own advice and wait for an investigation to complete before making such absurd statements. (And yes, the DOJ is beginning an investigation)

You obviously love to quote out of context, what I said was there is no evidence that BP has broken any laws. Since BP, or anyone else has not been charged with any offence, that is a fair assumption. It is also correct to assume that until all investigations are complete BP has, like all citizens, the presumption of innocence.

I am surprised that you would find such a principle absurd!

Investigations, (even by the DOJ) don't automatically indicate culpability! (well not yet!)

BP isn't paying you to lie on their behalf (at least I hope they aren't), so you can stop building a closing argument for the jury that isn't present yet.

You are correct, BP isn't paying me! But the concept of fair play and accurate assessment in the 'court of public' opinion should be the duty of every commentator.

(And yes, the DOJ is beginning an investigation)

opr
The DOJ investigation has nothing to do with BP, or the current oil spill. The DOJ, investigation relates to improper actions and behaviour by government officials employed in a government owned, but operated like a private company, oil trading agency.

The DOJ, has accepted that although individual agancy employees may have attended parties given by oil lobbyists, got drunk at conferences etc..most of these reports were unsubstantiated, or the actions of individuals. The issue of whether these federal employees were bound by the rules of public servants, or were operating in a business environment was unclear, so the failure was really that of the structure of the agency.

Despite clear evidence of wrongdoing by public servants the DOJ, declined to bring any charges given the confused nature of the offences.

The laxity of US government supervision goes back over 15 years, and it has produced some amazingly poor policy decisions.

Meantime, BP has managed to effect some control over the spill, and has been lucky with the weather. The lesson of this disaster, is no matter how good the technology, or how diligent the inspection agencies, deep sea Oil Drilling remains a very high risk business. The environmental question for governments, not oil companies, is whether the risk is worth the gain?

There are allegations in INFOWARS that the accident was intentional. Listen to the talk show on ALEX JONES website.

If not, at least it proves Terry Taminen's book LIVES PER GALLON contention.

The lesson of this disaster, is no matter how good the technology, or how diligent the inspection agencies, deep sea Oil Drilling remains a very high risk business. The environmental question for governments, not oil companies, is whether the risk is worth the gain?

Egads! Marcopolo has written something that I wholeheartedly agree with.

This is why we need a good energy policy here in the US - and one that isn't derailed by lobbyists nor overhyped with doomsday scenarios in the "court of public opinion".

Maybe we'll get one. It won't be all that it could be - but as long as it's a step in the right direction.

It's funny , how the well WAS only leaking 5-25000 gal per day

I think you are confusing barrels with gals.

AND STILL THEY DID NOT HEED GODS WORD LaTeR

I maybe wrong, but I can't find any reference to God expressing a veiwpoint on oil drilling?

There are allegations in INFOWARS that the accident was intentional. Listen to the talk show on ALEX JONES website.If not, at least it proves Terry Taminen's book LIVES PER GALLON contention.

Yeah, well, after every event in public life, the conspiracy theorists emerge. Alex Jones like many media commentators provides a highly profitable platform for these cranks. The truth is that BP and all the available real expert knowledge is working frantically, for obvious reasons, to contain the spill. The problem is, at these depths, there just are no precedents! Everything is largely theory and guesswork. It is easy to critisize, but when there are no better ideas, critisim is just unhelpful.

This is why we need a good energy policy here in the US - and one that isn't derailed by lobbyists nor overhyped with doomsday scenarios in the "court of public opinion". Maybe we'll get one. It won't be all that it could be - but as long as it's a step in the right direction.

Agreed, but not just in the USA! The gulf oil disaster is not the largest environmental oil disaster to date. The environmental havoc created in the old soviet states,Canada, Africa etc have been far more devastating to the environment, just because lees people are affected, doen't mean the environment isn't harmed! I really means, less will be done to clean up!

I believe it's time that resource exploitation with environment global impact, (like Nuclear Power Plants) be monitored and regulated at an international level,(possibly UN), Leaving the creation, monitoring and enforcement of environmental regulatory policies, to indiviual nation states, often corrupt, or lacking effective govermental integrity is a receipe for disaster.

The guidelines of the oil companies are those of commercial risk, while this is good motivation to encourage competition for high risk exploration, it's an unsuitable principle when it comes to exploitation. The environment, public, and the oil companies themselves, need effective regulatory agencies and assistance from those agencies, if the risk invoved in exploition is to effectively minimised.

This is why we need a good energy policy here in the US - and one that isn't derailed by lobbyists nor overhyped with doomsday scenarios in the "court of public opinion". Maybe we'll get one. It won't be all that it could be - but as long as it's a step in the right direction.

Agreed, but not just in the USA! The gulf oil disaster is not the largest environmental oil disaster to date. The environmental havoc created in the old soviet states,Canada, Africa etc have been far more devastating to the environment, just because lees people are affected, doen't mean the environment isn't harmed! It really means, less will be done to clean up!

If I seem a little introverted in my outlook it's not because I think the rest of the world doesn't exist. Rather it's because, over time, I've come to realize that it's get our own house in order first and then try and lead by example - instead of trying to get the whole world to agree to something (which is a tad more difficult).

As a naturalized US citizen (born and raised in the UK - came here in '95) I still get a chuckle when the US president is referred to as "the leader of the free world". Seems to me like I missed the election of that one... Same with "pre-emptive actions" or "police actions" or even "peace keeping forces" (because they seemed to be applied somewhat arbitrarily from either a historical or holistic point of view) - we've got enough stuff to fix at home first. I'm more than happy for us to play a part and to be a good neighbor / world citizen - but I just think we overdo it at times.

But what do I know? I just want to build electric motorcycles!

If I seem a little introverted in my outlook it's not because I think the rest of the world doesn't exist. Rather it's because, over time, I've come to realise that it's get our own house in order first and then try and lead by example - instead of trying to get the whole world to agree to something (which is a tad more difficult)

John, I wasn't meaning to accuse you of Xenophobia! Just raising the issue of international regulations for international environmental industries.

While I sympathise with your desire just to get on with your own life, that may not be so easy if events such as the Gulf oil spill become increasingly commonplace. BP will work hard, (along with the US authorities) and with some success to clean up this spill. My concern is about the massive environmental damage in less populated areas where citizens have little access to restitution. In the remote and often marginalised environments, Governments usually either too ignorant,corrupt, or just inadequate to deal with the problems. These resources are usually exploited by far less accountable companies than BP. Spills in Kazakhstan, PRC, Africa, Iran etc.. have little monitoring,no effective redress, often utilising primitive or poorly maintained technology.

The effects of such disasters may seem distant and remote, with little media attention, but they accumulate.

We all live on the one planet. We can't just shift to a better neighbourhood if we degrade this one!

Hay Marco I'm beginning to like you "blaa" now you are talking about the REALlosses our children"s children are getting! OH When I was young before the boomers , and oil was called petrol, and used in lamps in America , and Edison sold Ev trolleys, we were blind to the path we were taking, Now , changing it will be like stopping a fast train with rubber bands LaTeR

Yes, it's sad to see the demise of trolley buses and trams. As recently as 30 years ago the largest city in NZ, abandoned what was one of the largest trolley bus network in the world. Very sad!

I live 6 months of each year, in the city of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Melbourne is fortunate enough to have retained, and expanded, it's tramway system, until it is now the world largest! (St Petersburg having removed 38% of it's tram tracks as late as 2007). It's also sad that the current Victorian State government, having abandoned Tram manufacture, is actively discouraging Australia's only EV maker, the Victorian based, Hyundai joint venture, Blade EV. Blade (BEV) have been selling the a 4 Door, 4 passenger, 110 Kph, range 100klm, EV, based on the popular Hyundai Getz for more than 4 years. If the generous subsidies offered by California or Ontario were applied, the The Blade electron would sell for under $US20,000. Go figure!!

The history of oil is fascinating, and not without its hero's! The positive benefits of oil, until recently, have hugely enriched mankind's well being.

But the age of oil(all fossil fuels), is drawing to an end. I am not a doomsayer! It's my belief that new technology will replace oil with far Superior energy resources, and civilisation will progress without fossil fuel. But it needs new and better, international regulations during the changeover period.

While it may be easy to demonize BP, BP is at least an organisation with sufficient resources to be held accountable. My fear is that as oil becomes increasingly marginally profitable, it will attract more marginal players, who in turn will be even more corrupt, and very difficult to hold to account.

Take a seat in the front row to watch:

Live feeds from remotely operated vehicles (ROV):

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/homepage/STAGING/local_assets/bp_homepage/html/rov_stream....

Interesting to watch the posturing of officials and dramatists. BP, warned that the small boat fleet setting useless booms were not helpful and actually hindering clean-up proceedings. This advice was officiously over ruled and BP criticised for laxity. After two day the boats have been recalled by panicked officials as the workers have become ill from the clean-up chemicals, and the booms have created blockage that have solidified and now defy all efforts to disperse.

The Secretary of the Interior, speak on behalf of a very, very, very, serious Pres.Obama, threatened BP to take over the oil clean-up if BP didn't stop the oil flow within "a few days".

Great at last strong decisive action from a strong decisive Government!

Or, is it? When pressed on the issue, The Pres's "man of the hour" admitted he had no idea how to stop the oil and further sulkily admitted that BP had already employed all the experienced experts available. In conclusion he brightly announced that" y'never know there might be someone out there with some good idea!"

Yep, that's really helpful!

An interesting article on unforeseen and seemingly unrelated consequences of this disaster:

May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Oil-soaked pelicans and sick sea- turtles may accomplish what earthquakes and hurricanes failed to do in the past to municipal bond prices: make them go down.

It is almost axiomatic in the municipal market that bond prices don’t react to news. Default is often the only thing that leads to discount. Investors so far haven’t dumped the bonds of those Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana cities and towns at most risk from the Deep-water Horizon disaster on April 20, according to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board records.

Just wait. Prices will drop as the modern municipal market’s first slow-motion environmental calamity plays out over weeks and months. A buying opportunity will follow as investors see the spill won’t play much havoc with muni finances.

Blame the bloggers. Blame television prognosticators. Blame the 24-hour news cycle. The barrage of pictures, headlines and dire forecasts is going to make it very hard for individual bondholders to keep cool.

The heart-rending pictures of oil-sodden wildlife and befouled beaches will be bad enough. When the bloggers start running out headlines like, “The 20 Gulf Cities That Will NEVER Recover,” then bond prices will falter.

Individual investors buy municipal bonds for preservation of capital and tax-free income. They are the investment of choice for the risk-averse.

I can understand why millions of gallons of oil may cause bondholders to sell their Gulf Coast bonds as soon as they can.

Vulture Strategy

The vulture strategy here is to buy such debt at prices in the 70 cent range and do what most bond buyers do: hold them until maturity or resell them when their prices rebound.

This takes a certain taste for adventure, and credit research. It also makes the most sense in the current situation.

The only things we know right now about the disaster in the Gulf are that 1: The oil leak will be turned off and the well will be capped. And 2: The cleanup will begin.

Those are the two things we know. Companies shut down wells all the time. The Deepwater Horizon wreck presents special challenges because it is 5,000 feet underwater. It may take two more months, but the well will be shut down.

Then the cleanup will begin. How thorough it will be is unknown. Almost everything about this event falls into the “unknown” category. Keep that in mind as you watch various talking heads on television make their provocative and unfounded comments in the days ahead. There is always a bull market in hysterical pronouncements.

Environmental Mess

The important thing to remember about the Deepwater Horizon disaster is that it is environmental, not economic.

“While the oil spill will undoubtedly have a significant and lasting impact on fishing, tourism and the environment in the affected areas of the state, we believe that the effect on the state’s overall economy will be relatively modest,” Standard & Poor’s said in a May 17 piece titled, “Louisiana’s ‘AA-’ Rating Is Unaffected by Gulf Oil Spill.”

“It appears that the long-term economic and financial impact on the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama will be manageable,” Moody’s Investors Service said in a report published this month.

“The short-term economic boom related to clean-up efforts will likely give way over the longer term to deteriorating revenue for coastal communities,” in the form of declining property taxes, said Moody’s.

What buyers of distressed Gulf Coast debt are betting on is the future viability of the region.

They are betting that the Gulf of Mexico isn’t going to turn into a cauldron of death, and that people will still want to live along the coast there or visit.

They are betting that not everyone in places such as Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, and Gulfport, Mississippi, is going to move away.

They are betting that tourists will continue to visit Gulf Shores, Alabama, and that the lifestyle in Okaloosa County, Florida, will attract new residents.

There is life after oil spills. Investors should know that.

The consequences just keep on piling up!

Interesting to watch the posturing of officials and dramatists. BP, warned that the small boat fleet setting useless booms were not helpful and actually hindering clean-up proceedings. This advice was officiously over ruled and BP criticised for laxity. After two day the boats have been recalled by panicked officials as the workers have become ill from the clean-up chemicals, and the booms have created blockage that have solidified and now defy all efforts to disperse.

The Secretary of the Interior, speak on behalf of a very, very, very, serious Pres.Obama, threatened BP to take over the oil clean-up if BP didn't stop the oil flow within "a few days".

Great at last strong decisive action from a strong decisive Government!

Or, is it? When pressed on the issue, The Pres's "man of the hour" admitted he had no idea how to stop the oil and further sulkily admitted that BP had already employed all the experienced experts available. In conclusion he brightly announced that" y'never know there might be someone out there with some good idea!"

Yep, that's really helpful!

Yes, the government are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

1) The opposition folks are trying to paint this as "Obama's Katrina" - talking about how the administration are trying to do too little too late and how they would have done X, Y & Z without any basis for whatever claims they choose to make.
2) When the government tries to step in then they're accused of getting in the way of the real experts - BP. Yet BP has hardly instilled confidence up to this point (low estimates, dispersion techniques that are harmful, initially restricting access to data until forced to do so). BP are clearly in "economic and image damage limitation" mode - they're spinning things as much as the administration and as much as the opposition.

Both (1) & (2) have elements of truth to their underlying arguments - but both are also not helpful and designed mostly for political point scoring by opponents of the administration.

From my perspective:
1) The administration needs to let the experts take charge but the chosen experts should not be "in the pocket of BP". This is not their "Katrina".
2) No amount of posturing or spin is going to put the toothpaste back in the tube. The spill has happened - let's separate the dealing with the spill (economic and environmental) from the need to lessen the chances of repeat (technological and legislative).
3) Let's get the best and brightest working on the clean up and let's get the best ideas on the table and debated on their merits - not on opinions and grandstand-ers...

Of course - none of this will happen and the circus will continue. Mind you, the lawyers will get rich, the media will sell more advertising and the politicians will get soundbites aplenty. So, it's all good. Right?

We can't control any of this. But we can choose to use less oil (and in fact to use any resource efficiently).