Short and sweet folks.

What, or maybe I should say how, can we believe anything that is said by either BP or the government when it's in the interest of both to mitigate or minimize the severity and extent of the problem Macondo well 1 mile below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico?

It is clearly in the best interest of BP and the government to downplay the amount of the oil released as well as the severity of the problem. BP assured the government, and the government through the MMS accepted the assurances, that BP could handle a blowout of their well. They clearly could not. Either the assurances were a farce to begin with or the assurances were realistic but BP didn't intend to actually set aside the resources needed to deal with the potential of a blowout.

If BP admits anything, including the so-called "obvious", they're taking on legal responsibility their lawyers are desperate to avoid. Is it any wonder that BP would want the government not only to call the shots and make the big decisions but also to manage the information flow?

I can't think of a greater conflict of interest for all the parties involved than what is playing out in the Gulf of Mexico. And I suspect there are plenty of people on both sides of this fence. So have at it guys and gals.

And please keep the eye scratching and hair pulling to a minimum.

Cognitive Dissonance      7-14-2010