Friday, May 28, 2010


That's the story being trotted out by blogger Mac Slavo:








  1. What a lame, ad hominen response to a thought provoking idea.

    So, you're dismissing the potential for sabotage because the insurance companies already paid out and this blogger is "out there"?

    Oh, please! Either you're really naive or you are just doing a little damage control and dismissing this idea so people will chuckle and go back to watching their favorite tv show.

    It's a much bigger incentive then a little insurance payout. The incentive or motivation to intentionally cause the oil spill includes the following:

    -Gov't takeover of certain oil companies, this was just commented on by Robert Reich
    -Consolidate oil companies by make bp collapse as was just done in the banking industry
    -Halt or dramatically decrease domestic off-shore energy production to put US back dependent on foreign oil thus keeping dollar backed oil flows
    -Provide ample public outrage to bring in sweeping environmental reform laws such as cap n' trade, global ocean laws, etc.
    -Obviously to make money with insurance payouts, cleanup efforts, etc (this is merely an added bonus compared to the massive changes the above incentives provide).

    I'm sorry, but the incentive/motivation to intentionally cause the oil spill is a much bigger picture then you so naively presented it to us...

    Indeed, geopolitical chess moves are done all the time and if you can get something done faster by intentionally causing a crisis, then the motivation is certainly there. If the players involved can all make some money as well, that's even better!

    Plus, and this is the best part, it's such a ludicrous idea that a government or private/public alliance would intentionally cause an oil spill, that it almost guarantees that no one will ever suspect it and they'll get away with it free and clear.

    After all, the massive delay and foot dragging that has gone on in not capping the well, is certainly more evidence that this is an intentional move to cause big changes in energy/environmental laws and policies. The more we wait and hear about the mess, the more anger builds and the more political capital is created to make sweeping changes.

  2. Enraged Anonymous Psycho,

    The blogger whose blog post I was commenting on did not hint at any of these potential motives. He was concerned with the idea of Transocean itself sabotaging its own platform to collect insurance money. I was responding to that idea, and that idea alone.

    Sorry I couldn't get into addressing every single one of your conspiracy theories (don't mean to use that term sarcastically, just don't know what else to call them), I'll be sure to be much more thoughtful next time! I'd absolutely hate to write a blog post that let people go back to watching their TVs afterward. Luckily, thoughtful, concerned citizens like you are around to step forward and put me in line when I majorly screw up like I just did!

    Anyway, all the incentives you mentioned would be incentives for the government to sabotage. Transocean/BP wouldn't profit from any of the things you mentioned.

    Have a great, if not slightly crazy, day!