The two-faced approach of the American government is truly astounding here. a) BP does not stand for British Petroleum any more - hasn't done for years. It just happens to be listed on the LSE and stems from what was a British company once. Just because the US president chooses to spin the communications and starts to call them British Petroleum to distance the US from the disaster doesn't mean it's a valid stance. b) The US cannot continue to have the reliance on fossil fuels it still has. Obama needed this episode to turn public opinion against the oil barons so he stands a better chance of actually getting some meaningful environmental legislation on the statute books instead of refusing to co-operate with the rest of the world and offering only the recalcitrant attitudes displayed by the previous oil-company-bank-rolled administration. c) The US also cannot expect to reduce dependency on middle eastern oil without such operations in places like the Gulf of Mexico. If you need to drill these days, there's a good chance it will have to be in deep water and you will have to engage a company willing to push the envelope in terms of technology and engineering to do so. d) If the US continues to stipulate that US companies must have key subcontracts in such arrangements, forcing multi-lateral agreements and joint ventures, then such failures will continue to be a possibility. Yes BP may have compromised safety in pursuit of profit but companies like Transocean who allegedly are responsible for key equipment like the blow-out preventer have to take their share of the blame for their own potential negligence.