Massive Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That essentially means we're going to have a sharp spike in birth defects.

Or miscarriages/infertility.

Of course, that only applies when the contaminated food is actually eaten - avoid contaminated seafood you avoid the problem. (Admittedly, sometimes easier said than done)

That's exactly the problem--the corps will cover it up, the government will ignore it, and nobody will be able to find out where their seafood is sourced from unless it's local, until it's much too late.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Most pregnant women avoid seafood already due to mercury concerns, or if they do eat it they only eat fresh/local.

[J]

It's tragic that dutch and belgian companies have the technology to assist with closing the oil leak but aren't allowed due to an old protectionist law called the Jones Act. (or that's what I just read in my newspaper anyway, no link in english yet).

We now have an link in English

Houston Chronicle

Steffy: U.S. and BP slow to accept Dutch expertise
By LOREN STEFFY Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle
June 8, 2010, 10:13PM


Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered.

U.S. ships are being outfitted this week with four pairs of the skimming booms airlifted from the Netherlands and should be deployed within days. Each pair can process 5 million gallons of water a day, removing 20,000 tons of oil and sludge.

At that rate, how much more oil could have been removed from the Gulf during the past month?

The uncoordinated response to an offer of assistance has become characteristic of this disaster's response. Too often, BP and the government don't seem to know what the other is doing, and the response has seemed too slow and too confused.

Federal law has also hampered the assistance. The Jones Act, the maritime law that requires all goods be carried in U.S. waters by U.S.-flagged ships, has prevented Dutch ships with spill-fighting equipment from entering U.S. coastal areas.

“What's wrong with accepting outside help?” Visser asked. “If there's a country that's experienced with building dikes and managing water, it's the Netherlands.”

Even if, three days after the rig exploded, it seemed as if the Dutch equipment and expertise wasn't needed, wouldn't it have been better to accept it, to err on the side of having too many resources available rather than not enough?

BP has been inundated with well-intentioned cleanup suggestions, but the Dutch offer was different. It came through official channels, from a government offering to share its demonstrated expertise.

Many in the U.S., including the president, have expressed frustration with the handling of the cleanup. In the Netherlands, the response would have been different, Visser said.

There, the government owns the cleanup equipment, including the skimmers now being deployed in the Gulf.

“If there's a spill in the Netherlands, we give the oil companies 12 hours to react,” he said.

If the response is inadequate or the companies are unprepared, the government takes over and sends the companies the bill.

While the skimmers should soon be in use, the plan for building sand barriers remains more uncertain. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal supports the idea, and the Coast Guard has tentatively approved the pro-ject. One of the proposals being considered was developed by the Dutch marine contractor Van Oord and Deltares, a Dutch research institute that specializes in environmental issues in deltas, coastal areas and rivers. They have a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within three weeks.

That proposal, like the offer for skimmers, was rebuffed but later accepted by the government. BP has begun paying about $360 million to cover the costs. Once again, though, the Jones Act may be getting in the way. American dredging companies, which lack the dike-building expertise of the Dutch, want to do the work themselves, Visser said.

“We don't want to take over, but we have the equipment,” he said.

While he battles the bureaucracy, the people of Louisiana suffer, their livelihoods in jeopardy from the onslaught of oil.

“Let's forget about politics; let's get it done,” Visser said.

I'll come right out and say it. This disaster is being handled about as well as Katrina. Which is to say it isn't. As far as I'm concerned there's been more effort spent on covering up the disaster & media relations than there has on actual oil containment & cleanup efforts. BP has from the very beginning proved itself incapable of handling the situation, so why hasn't the government kicked them out of the area and brought in the experts who can actually fix this?

[Admiral Valdemar]

It seems that the US is, once again, giving a demonstration on how not to do something and do it very badly indeed. Why is it that seemingly basic and just common sense precautions like having such resources just in case aren't heeded in the richest, most advanced nation? Why is it always an ability to bureaucratise or PR to death an issue, something that the US excels at?

[Simon_Jester]

Who says the US is the most advanced nation? I would argue that the European countries may well have managed to move beyond us. They've actually bothered to change the way they do things since the '60s and '70s and have therefore made progress, especially on environmental and social issues.

We're big, and we're rich, but that doesn't make us advanced.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's commonly accepted that the US is top dog in most everything. Whether it is factually accurate is another world away, since obviously this would mean the very existence of this thread wouldn't be needed.

[Phantasee]

I was interested in this Jones Act, and I found this:
http://beforeitsnews.com/news/75/195/Wh ... Spill.html

Why Did The U.S. Refuse International Help on The Gulf Oil Spill?

Despite the vow by President Obama to keep the Gulf oil spill a top priority until the damage is cleaned up, 50 days after the BP rig exploded, a definitive date and meaningful solution is yet to be determined for the worst oil spill in the U.S. history.

So, you would think if someone is willing to handle the clean-up with equipment and technology not available in the U.S., and finishes the job in shorter time than the current estimate, the U.S. should jump on the offer.

But it turned out to be quite the opposite.

U.S. Refused Help on Oil Spill

According to Foreign Policy, thirteen entities had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

The U.S. response - Thank you, but no thank you, we've got it.

"..While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future."

Blame It On The Jones Act?

Separately, Belgian newspaper De Standaard also reported Belgian and Dutch dredgers have technology in-house to fight the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but the Jones Act forbids them to work in the U.S.

A Belgian group--DEME-- contends it can clean up the oil in three to four months with specialty vessel and equipment, rather than an estimated nine months if done only by the U.S. The article noted there are no more than 5 or 6 of those ships in the world and the top specialist players are the two Belgian companies- DEME and De Nul - and their Dutch competitors.

The U.S. does not have the similar technology and vessel to accomplish the cleanup task because those ships would cost twice as much to build in the U.S. than in the Far East. The article further criticizes this "great technological delay" is a direct consequence of the Jones Act.

What Is The Jones Act?

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with coastal shipping; and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.

The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry. Critics said that the legislation results in increased costs moving cargoes between U.S. ports, and in essence, is protectionism, Supporters of the Act maintain that the legislation is of strategic economic and wartime interest to the United States.

European Service Sector - Offshore Subsea Specialist

As discussed in my analysis of the oil service sector, the European companies typically possess the knowhow in offshore and subsea; whereas their North American counterparts excel in onshore drilling and production technologies.

So, it is more than likely that European firms do have the expertise to clean up the spill quicker and more effectively as DEME asserts.

Since the Jones Act means the Belgian ship and personnel cannot work in the Gulf, it does seem the Act has inhibited technology and knowledge exchange & development, and possibly prevented a quicker response to the oil spill.

Jones Waiver Time

On the other hand, waivers of the Jones may be granted by the Administration in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. It would appear the U.S. government's initial refusal to foreign help most likely stemmed from a mis-calculation of the scale and deepwater technological barriers for this unprecedented disaster, and/or... pride.

Whatever the rationale, and if De Standarrd's claim that the Jones Act forbids the European companies to help fight the spill is true, it is high time the U.S. government grant the Jones waiver, and let this be an international collaborative effort.

It's alwasys better late than never.

[FSTargetDrone]

Meanwhile...

British Pensioners Unhappy With Obama:

Barack Obama's attacks on BP hurting British pensioners

Barack Obama has been accused of holding "his boot on the throat" of British pensioners after his attacks on BP were blamed for wiping billions off the company's value.

By Louise Armitstead and Myra Butterworth

Published: 10:12PM BST 09 Jun 2010

City investors said the president was jeopardising the pensions of millions with his "excessive" criticism of the energy company following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Before the accident on April 20, BP was Britain's biggest company, with a stock market value of £122 billion. Since then, £49 billion has been wiped off its value.

On Wednesday, BP's share price fell a further 17.35p to 391.55p – representing a 40 per cent drop on the 655p price of a share two months ago.

Experts have said that the clean-up costs of the oil spill will run to between £10 billion and £20 billion but the biggest cost to the company is from investors dumping stock for fear of BP being further punished by the US Government.

Those fears have been heightened by Mr Obama's increasingly aggressive rhetoric towards BP, which some investors see as an attempt to deflect criticism of his own handling of the crisis. Last month, a White House spokesman said the President's job was to keep his "boot on the throat" of the company.

In the past week, Mr Obama, who insists on referring to BP by its former name British Petroleum, has suggested that its chief executive, Tony Hayward, would have been sacked if he worked for him.

BP's position at the top of the London Stock Exchange and its previous reliability have made it a bedrock
of almost every pension fund in the country, meaning its value is crucial to millions of workers. The firm's dividend payments, which amount to more than £7 billion a year, account for £1 in every £6 paid out in dividends to British pension pots.

BP is so concerned about Mr Obama's power to affect share value that it has urged David Cameron to appeal to the White House on its behalf. Downing Street, however, has refused to get involved. "We need to ensure that BP is not unfairly treated – it is not some bloodless corporation," said one of Britain's top fund managers. "Hit BP and a lot of people get hit. UK pension money becomes a donation to the US government and the lawyers at the expense of Mrs Jones and other pension funds."

Mark Dampier of the financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown said: "[Mr Obama] is playing to the gallery but is not bringing a solution any closer. Obama has his boot on the throat of British pensioners. There is no point in bashing BP all the time, it's not helpful. It is a terrible situation, but having the American president on your back is not going to get it all cleared up any quicker."

Neil Duncan-Jordan, of the National Pensioners Convention, said: "Most ordinary people would not have thought that BP would have an impact on their retirement but if BP's share price goes down then their pension pot goes down.

"Most of those pension funds are invested in the default option, which is stocks and shares, and so if BP goes down the pan then their pension pot goes down the pan."

Although fund managers accept that BP must pay compensation for the oil spill and the damage it is doing to parts of America's coastline, they argue that the cost to the company's market value from the president's criticism is far outweighing the clean-up costs.

One investment manager said: "Experts have said that the clean-up costs could reach a maximum of £20 billion which means the hit to BP is excessive on any scale."

There is particular anger at US interference in the company's dividend policy. Earlier this week, two senators suggested BP should be banned from paying out to shareholders until the full clean-up costs are known. One fund manager said: "Who is Obama to dictate whether UK pension funds are paid a dividend? Others in a similar position have been able to pay dividends."

Jason Kenney, a oil and gas analyst at ING, said: "When you compare how Britain reacted towards the US company Occidental after its Piper Alpha disaster where 167 people died, they are worlds apart.

“The US reaction is getting towards hysterical. Half of them seem to think the US is knee deep in oil. It’s difficult to underestimate the effect 24-hour TV dinner media coverage of the spill is having over there.”

Tom Watson, the former Labour minister, was planning to table a Commons motion today in support of BP and urging MPs to understand the importance of the company to pensioners in this country.

He said last night: “BP is perhaps the most strategically important company for Britain and for UK pensioners. I want to see the UK government defend the company while it is under this attack.”

He added: “Of course the company must clean up the spill but let’s be under no illusion – all oil companies could have been in this situation whether British, American or any other nationality.

“I am sure there are American oil companies that want BP to fail but it is British pensioners that will badly lose out if they do.”

Ken Salazar, the US interior secretary, said yesterday that the Obama administration would require BP to pay the salaries of any workers who were laid off as a result of the government’s moratorium on offshore drilling, imposed while safety reviews take place.

“BP is responsible for all the damages,” Mr Salazar told the Senate’s energy and natural resources committee, in one of five hearings taking place on Capitol Hill.

BP is due to announce its second quarter dividend and results on July 27.

There is a fear that unless the Government intervenes on BP’s behalf, the company will continue to be hit, particularly in the run-up to the midterm elections in America.

Last week Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, described America’s anti-British rhetoric as “extreme and unhelpful”.

On Monday, The Daily Telegraph disclosed that the Foreign Office was concerned that the criticism of BP was harming Anglo-US relations.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ah, yes. Not surprised. Instead of getting mad at BP for fucking up, they get mad at the government for, y'know, enforcing shit. Classic.

[Zed]

I'd be more sympathetic to anti-BP-sentiments if the name 'Halliburton' were to be mentioned more often alongsides those sentiments. But then, that's an American company.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Is there any evidence you can provide that this spill could be in any significant capacity successfully boomed, especially considering subsurface plumes?

There's surface oil in every saltwater marsh from New Orleans to the florida panhandle! Booms would be protecting the coastal ecology significantly. That's like saying 'We can't stop the cancer, might as well not cure the gangrene either.' Minimizing the surface spread of the oil would be HUGELY beneficial to the cleanup efforts.

I didn't say fuck it. I said I wanted evidence that it was a credibly feasible engineering task. Right now they have a joke-fest of fake booming (in some case, washing ashore!) which is just there, like the dispersants, to make things look better for BP and the government.

Also, "City investors" crowing about poor pensioners? Yeah, I'll believe that bullshit is sincere on the 7th of never.

[Temujin]

This week the EPA, with no fanfare, posted on its website the chemical components of these two dispersants. Here's the list:

• 1,2-Propanediol
• Ethanol, 2-butoxy-

In high enough concentrations, these will shut down your nervous system, but you'd have to drink a gallon. The real concern is that they cause skin irritation in about 1 out of 10 people.

[*]Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)

Painful blisters, respiratory problems, and all kinds of other fun things.

[*]Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
[*]Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.
[*]Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs

Sorbitan compounds are oil/water emulsifiers and are reasonably safe.

[*]2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-
[*]Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light

Propanol is another one in the 'skin irritation/nerve damage' family, and isn't much fun. The distillates are a LITTLE better, but it's still petroleum.

I don't know how much of this stuff got dumped into the gulf, but I would definitely advise women not to eat any seafood caught in the gulf of mexico for the next ten years.

Yeah. That bad.

More importantly, what effects do we know that these chemicals will have on microbial life in the Gulf and the possible fucking up of the food chain?

That is of course in addition to the oil.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The microbes will eat that shit, literally, at least the bacteria will. How this affects plankton is another matter, but plenty of other micro-organisms will shrug off just about any contaminant known to man, or use it for sustenance.

You'll be seeing problems with the macroscale stuff long before you should worry about their primary producers.

[Sea Skimmer]

How likely is it that all those chemicals would also already be in gulf waters? Remember this oil spill is taking place about 50 miles from the mouth of the Mississippi river, which is the great storm drain/open sewer for half of America. That body of water is already choking with our waste, so I wouldn’t be too sure that even the half million gallons of dispersant used so far will make any real difference in how toxic the water is.

[Temujin]

How likely is it that all those chemicals would also already be in gulf waters? Remember this oil spill is taking place about 50 miles from the mouth of the Mississippi river, which is the great storm drain/open sewer for half of America. That body of water is already choking with our waste, so I wouldn’t be too sure that even the half million gallons of dispersant used so far will make any real difference in how toxic the water is.

That's a great point, we often forget about just how much crap is already pouring into the oceans. Though these sudden further elevated levels in relatively concentrated areas may be enough to push some species over the edge.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Littoral waters around any industrialised area will likely be chock full of interesting chemical cocktails, even in the supposedly ecofriendly first world (we can only imagine if Obama will consider complaining about the Big Oil fuck-ups in the Niger Delta...). These can often aid certain types of microbe in flourishing, though as the American south-east coast is also sunny and prone to storms, that would impact it too.

I still see the chemicals being more a problem for the dolphins, tuna and other fishing stock out there now and that issue being the most pressing. It's far easier to adapt when you're part of some amorphous floating colony. Not so much when you're a fish that needs a certain salinity, pH and lack of industrial waste in your food supply/water.

Also, anyone seen BP's FTSE shares trading up despite the news just now of the huge understating of the leak? Markets are fucking nuts.

[Sea Skimmer]

The markets are being realistic, like has been pointed out before BP is looking at a profit-dividen flow of around 15 billion dollars a year, and they have almost no debt so they are well placed to borrow money. As big as this disaster is its still no sign of bankrupting BP. Until that happens little reason exists why the company should only be worth half as much as it was less then two months ago. Paying even 25 billion over this should not knock 100 billion or more off the value of the company. Seems like simple math to me anyway. So far the actual paid cost to BP is more like several billion.

[Temujin]

BP plans to suspend shareholder dividend
Oil giant’s directors to meet Monday to make formal decision, BBC reports
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 4:42 p.m. ET, Fri., June 11, 2010

British energy giant BP plans to suspend its second-quarter dividend as it faces growing public anger over its handling of massive oil spill in the U.S. Gulf Coast, according to published reports.

According to the BBC, BP directors will meet Monday to make a formal decision. The announcement is expected to be made after negotiating with President Barack Obama on Wednesday.

According to an earlier report from the Times of London, BP is preparing to defer payment of its next dividend to shareholders by placing the money in an escrow account until the full scale of the company’s liabilities from the Gulf disaster can be determined. Further quarterly payments could be treated in the same way.

"We are considering all options on the dividend. But no decision has been made," BP CEO Tony Hayward told the Wall Street Journal in an interview.

The move would affect the company's second-quarter dividend, which is scheduled to be announced July 27.

Presumably there would be no impact on the company's first-quarter dividend of $2.63 billion, which is payable June 21. That decision was announced April 27, just a week after the explosion that killed 11 rig workers and released a massive gusher into the Gulf of Mexico, the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Some U.S. lawmakers and the Obama administration have pressured Hayward to halt the payment, creating friction with Britain, where widely held BP accounts for about an eighth of dividend payments in London's blue-chip index, providing crucial income for retirees.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused BP of a "lack of integrity" and urged the company to suspend its dividend to ensure victims of the oil spill are fully compensated.

BP, which generated $16.6 billion in profits last year, has not cut its dividend in 18 years.

Shares of BP moved higher for a second straight day as investors apparently dismissed new estimates that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could be far worse than previously thought and the company may defer its second-quarter dividend.

BP shares rose $1.19, or 3.6 percent, to close at $33.97 in New York. The shares went as high as $34.46 during the session.

The stock jumped 12.3 percent on Thursday after a 15.8 percent slide to $29 on Wednesday, its worst drop since the spill began back in April. Prices hadn't been that low since 1996.

Even with the two-day rally, BP shares have lost $82 billion in value since the explosion on April 20.

Analyst Alex Morris of Raymond James said if BP cuts or suspends its dividend it could take some heat from Washington off the company.

"It's kind of counterintuitive, but the market hasn't exactly been reacting rationally to this whole saga," he said in an e-mail.

"We never thought (and still don't) that BP as a going-concern is threatened, but this week the market showed it's scared to death of a potential bankruptcy."

Analyst Michelle della Vigna of Goldman Sachs said BP shares can go up from here even under his worst-case scenario that has BP paying $70 billion in damages.

"This suggests that risk/reward is currently tilted to the upside, given there is still value in the shares, even at very conservative damage assumptions," the analyst said in a research note.

While final approval for the dividend plan would need to be given by BP’s board next month, a growing number of BP directors now recognize that the move may be essential to placate US public opinion, the Times said.

Hayward is scheduled to testify Thursday before a congressional panel examining the causes of the Gulf spill, and BP officials also have been invited to a White House meeting with President Barack Obama next week. It was not clear whether Obama will meet with Hayward.

Reuters contributed to this report.

I've been also hearing a lot of chatter regarding this dividend crap about how BP is another example of a company that has grown too big to fail.

[Bluewolf]

Meanwhile the British right wing press is screaming. For example, the front page of the Daily Mail:

STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY MR CAMERON: As BP shares plummet again under cynical attacks from Obama, PM ducks the chance to speak up for Britain’s flagship company: David Cameron was under mounting pressure last night to stand up for the British interests and stop BP being “thrown to the wolves”. The Prime Minister caused dismay by appearing to side with President Obama as another 5 billion was wiped off the value of BP shares in escalating row over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In his first response to the crisis, Mr Cameron failed to back demands from other senior Tories, including London Mayor Boris Johnson for an end to “anti British rhetoric, buck passing and name calling” by the USA. Since the accident on April 20th, BP-which accounts for £1 out of every £7 out in dividends to British pension pots-has lost £55 billion from its stock market value.

The continuing fall threatens the wider economy because most British insurance companies, building societies and pension funds have large holdings in the firm’s shares. Speaking in Kabul, where he is visiting British troops, the Prime Minister declared: “I completely understand the US government’s frustration because it’s catastrophic for the environment.” But he failed to express his explicit support for the crisis-torn British oil giant and-con page 6

They are also really taking the idea that Obama is anti British and running with it describing what Obama says as "Obama's Inflammatory Rhetoric" and such gems as:

" When Obama continually refers to BP as "British Petroleum" which is no longer it's formal name, he is to say something revealing about himself and his Anglophobic spite will come as no surprise to those who have followed his career and have red his memoir Dreams From my Father."

On top of that they are also scaremongering the prospect of other companies taking over BP.

It's only the front page and parts of the main article. but it gives you an idea of the panic there is among some and why some really are saying it is too bit to fall. Of course I don't think BP should fall but it should not just away with this lightly either. We don't need more economic trouble and job losses on top of the ones caused by Deepwater.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Markets are rarely rational. We've seen larger drops in their worth over less interesting news. Then it goes up when something that would spook them more arises in the news. It's the same with the banking firms and the financial crises. What makes sense today, may not be so tomorrow. They're going to talk about these dividends issues on Monday. If you look at the trend though, BP are getting whipped lately, and gave just managed to stabilise with this news now. If the leak gets worse and Obama rattles the sabre again, you can easily see more fall off, even if right now the market is erring on the side of hope given BP's well capitalised status.

[FSTargetDrone]

BP is doing little to help itself and all the PR stuff it IS doing seems to be backfiring:

BP’s failures made worse by PR mistakes

Oil giant struggles to contain undersea gusher ... and its own messaging

By Erin McClam and Harry R. Weber
The Associated Press
updated 6:55 p.m. ET, Fri., June 11, 2010

HOUSTON - BP is already fighting an oil gusher it can't contain and watching its mighty market value wither away. Its own bumbling public-relations efforts are making a big mess worse.

Not only has it made a series of gaffes — none greater than the CEO's complaint that "I'd like my life back" — the company hasn't even followed its own internal guidelines for damage control after a spill.

Executives have quibbled about the existence of undersea plumes of oil, downplayed the potential damage early in the crisis and made far-too-optimistic predictions for when the spill could be stopped. BP's steadiest public presence has been the ever-present live TV shot of the untamed gusher.

What BP has lacked, crisis management experts say, has been much of a show of human compassion.

"All crises are personal," said Richard Levick, who runs a public relations firm, Levick Strategic Communications, that advises companies. "Action and sacrifice is absolutely critical."

The best move for BP's image, of course, would be to stop the leak. That has proved difficult enough, with one fix after another failing and estimates of the severity of the spill growing by the week.

Failing a solution, Daniel Keeney, president of a Dallas-based PR firm, suggested putting CEO Tony Hayward in a hard hat and life vest, helping crews contain and clean up the spill.

"You want to get him right in the thick of things, even if he looks somewhat uncomfortable doing it," Keeney said.

Levick suggested BP could have cut gas prices at its stations along the Gulf Coast — a show of financial solidarity.

BP has taken a stab at soothing angry Americans, airing a slick, multimillion-dollar national TV spot this week in which Hayward pledges: "We will make this right." Hayward also promised BP would clean up every drop of oil and "restore the shoreline to its original state." President Barack Obama said the money spent on the ads should have gone to cleanup and compensating devastated fisherman and small business owners.

And even those efforts violate the company's own prescription for damage control. Its own spill plan, filed last year with the federal government, says of public relations: "No statement shall be made containing any of the following: promises that property, ecology or anything else will be restored to normal."

On top of everything else, BP can't figure out what to say about its dividend. Lawmakers in the U.S. insist the company must look after the devastated people of the Gulf before paying its shareholders. But in Britain, legions of retirees count on the steady payouts.

And earlier this week when Wall Street freaked out over the prospect of billions of dollars in BP liabilities and sent its stock to its lowest point since the mid-1990s, the company response was positively tone-deaf.

"The company is not aware of any reason which justifies this share price movement," the company said early Thursday, after its stock was hammered on New York and European exchanges.

Almost from the beginning, BP has been as unable to control its public message as it has the spill itself.

Hayward was ridiculed for telling reporters "I'd like my life back" earlier in the crisis, remarks the families of some of the 11 men killed in the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig felt were insensitive. He also suggested that the environmental impact of the spill would be "very, very modest."

Former Shell chairman John Hofmeister said it might have been more appropriate for senior U.S. executives of the company to take the heat. Hayward is an Englishman, and BP is based in Britain.

"I think it was a mistake for Tony Hayward to come and put his physical presence in the U.S.," Hofmeister said. "The U.S. has its own culture and traditions. Foreign companies can come and do business there, but they are not necessarily welcomed."

BP's chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, an American, was rolled out for interviews, but his aides grumbled Hayward was stealing the spotlight. Hayward's decision to present a video explaining BP's "top kill" attempt took the company's Louisiana command by surprise.

As for Suttles himself, he insisted this week that there were no massive underwater oil plumes in "large concentrations" from the spill. To NBC, he offered that it "may be down to how you define what a plume is here."

The government had said three tests confirmed oil at levels less than 0.5 parts per million as far as three-fifths of a mile below the surface of the Gulf, at least 40 miles away from the site of the gushing well.

Suttles also predicted the spill would be reduced to a "relative trickle" by early next week. BP later sought to walk the comments back, saying the company was optimistic but that getting the spill to a trickle would take more time.

By late this week, the government had reported that the spill was spewing the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez disaster into the Gulf every two weeks or less, with the catastrophe nearing the end of its second month.

Since the April 20 explosion, BP has parachuted its own staff, plus staff from at least two independent public-relations firms, to deal with the deluge of round-the-clock media inquiries.

Early on in the crisis, BP and government officials held daily in-person briefings with media, allowing questions. In recent days and weeks, officials have increasingly resorted to teleconferences with reporters and have limited the ability to ask questions and the number of questions that could be asked.

In Houston, where BP has set up a U.S. command center, company PR officials have grown weary of reporters going directly to engineers and other higher-ups for information, at times trying to insist media go through them first.

Spokesman Robert Wine said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that media visits to the Houston center are "very carefully controlled and sparingly arranged" by design.

"The rooms that are shown are full of the teams who WILL make a difference on the result of this crisis," Wine wrote. "Every second they are not helping with media visits is time they are not doing the 'day job.'"

In the meantime, BP has been buying ads that pop up when people search for information about the oil spill on Google and Yahoo. The ads, which link to BP's own oil-response sites, typically appear above or to the right of other search results. BP says the idea is to help people on the Gulf find the right forms and people quickly and effectively.

Others suggest it's a move to steer searchers away from bad press for BP.

"It is clearly trying to protect its brand image," said Matthew Whiteway, director of campaign management at London consulting firm Greenlight, which says 95 percent of BP's search listings are rated very negative.

Crisis management experts say the only reliable way to repair BP's badly tarnished image is the obvious one — to plug the hole.

"Crisis management is about fixing the problem. It's not about looking good," said Tony Jaques, a crisis management consultant in Melbourne, Australia. "BP has done some things that have not been smart, but really, what would they have done to look good in this kind of situation anyway?"

[Broomstick]

Yeah, I'd like to see all the big BP execs taking turns dong actual, honest-to-god workshifts cleaning up oil from beaches and marshes, deploying/pulling in boom, and the various other forms of grunt labor in exactly the same protective gear (however much much or little) issued to the other workers in hot, afternoon conditions in the Gulf. Let's say... one shift a week each, out of concession to the fact they aren't spring chickens and probably aren't accustomed to actual manual labor (we don't want to kill them after all). A full shift each, treated just like any other worker on the crew, except they aren't paid for it. In addition to whatever else they're doing to fix this fiasco. Might give 'em a little more empathy, might not, but it would surely be a better PR move than almost anything else they could do at this point.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It's commonly accepted that the US is top dog in most everything. Whether it is factually accurate is another world away, since obviously this would mean the very existence of this thread wouldn't be needed.

You obviously aren't following technological trends too well then.

[FSTargetDrone]

Yeah, I'd like to see all the big BP execs taking turns dong actual, honest-to-god workshifts cleaning up oil from beaches and marshes, deploying/pulling in boom, and the various other forms of grunt labor in exactly the same protective gear (however much much or little) issued to the other workers in hot, afternoon conditions in the Gulf. Let's say... one shift a week each, out of concession to the fact they aren't spring chickens and probably aren't accustomed to actual manual labor (we don't want to kill them after all). A full shift each, treated just like any other worker on the crew, except they aren't paid for it. In addition to whatever else they're doing to fix this fiasco. Might give 'em a little more empathy, might not, but it would surely be a better PR move than almost anything else they could do at this point.

This is exactly the sort of thing I'd prefer happen to the people in charge when these sort of things occur. It's tempting to say, "throw 'em in jail and take all of their money" but that doesn't help the situation. Put them to work.

[Temujin]

This is exactly the sort of thing I'd prefer happen to the people in charge when these sort of things occur. It's tempting to say, "throw 'em in jail and take all of their money" but that doesn't help the situation. Put them to work and take all of their money.

Fixed that for you!