As mentioned previously, dispersant acts like detergent to split up the oil into very tiny droplets, which should help speed up the natural detoxification of the oil and consumption by bacteria. Also, it hopefully minimizes big, thick surface slicks which then wash ashore and coat whole beaches with oil.

However, there are lot's of unknowns with the dispersant being used, Corexit. There aren't good studies on its environmental effects. Corexit's safety information from the manufacturer admits as much. The dispersants may cause genetic mutations and cancer in wildlife, so there is an argument that short-term damage may be minimized at the expense of long-term wildlife health.

I read one account which said BP has used a third of the world's total supply of dispersant, and this was fairly early in the disaster. Eventually, if BP continues at this pace, it's may have to switch to using even more toxic dispersants because the supply of less toxic ones are exhausted. Actually, who knows if that point hasn't been reached already?

BP is also using the dispersant in new, untested ways, like injecting it directly into the oil plume. No one really knows if that might have unintended consequences.

Another angle to the use of dispersants is public relations--since it breaks up the slick, it's harder to see the oil on TV. And besides that, there is continuing controversy over the control BP has over negative images--prohibition, arrest and fines for people taking pictures in public areas, threatening clean up workers who wear protective equipment like respirators, etc.

Here's my take on it.

Imagine a radio antenna like you would pull out of a portable radio - the telescoping kind that get thinner and thinner at the top.

Flip that antenna over. That's your well. At each joint as the "telescope" extends into the ground, you need to seal things tightly...more on why later.

Take your antenna, drill it it in the ground, until you hit a pocket of fluid highly compressed by some kind of gas, so the fluid begins to shoot up the concentric telescope from smallest (deep down in the hole) to largest (near the surface). Imagine a bottle of soda with a cork in it and a straw through the cork. Shake the bottle.

OK, now you have soda spraying all over the place. So you want to cap the pipe right? But you see, what we didn't tell you at the start is that it's super-cold and ice is forming on the part of the antenna sticking out of the ground, and as you put the cap on, ice forms, you can't get a good seal. Worse still, remember those joints at each telescoping section? Well if you just cap off the top of the pipe, the pressure could blast out of those joints, and that would mean all kinds of fluids blasting out under the surface into which your drill goes and THAT could collapse everything under the well - that would be bad.

Now in terms of the situation in the gulf, there's more complicating factors, including:

- It's 5,000 miles below the surface, so everything is done by remotely operated vehicles.
- The physics of very high pressure environments (tons per square inch) affect things dramatically - including how gasses like methane behave and form "hydrates" (basically Ice) that gum up the works.
- The force of the oil coming out is just tremendous - picture trying to stop the flow of a fire hose using only a pair of vice grips and some sheet metal and you have a sense of what they are up against.
- The well has some construction flaws that could make any capping activity a problem - as in the oil would come out from the joins in the well casing that is under the seabed and that could erode and collapse the entire seafloor and release some or all of the the oil in there. Not. Good.

As far as "outsider ideas" let's put this into perspective. It's not like a house has caught fire like 2 zillion other houses have caught fire and the ways to get the fire to stop range from Water to Foam to innovative dry chemicals. But it's a house, you know how they burn and you have a pretty good idea of how to stop the fire.

It's more like Apollo 13 - a situation that, in retrospect, was a result of an intrinsic flaw in the engineering, but nobody was better informed and prepared to solve the problem than the same engineers who basically were to blame for the problem.

No "outsider" to Apollo 13 could have given better solutions to the situation any more than someone without the engineering knowledge related to oil drilling and in particular deep-water oil rigs (of which there aren't many comparatively speaking).

Do I think BP is doing everything possible to stop this oil? Yes, I do, and I'm a vigorous opponent to off-shore oil drilling - yet I don't deny that they are obviously trying every possible solution that the best minds in their business can come up with. There's no economic rationale to NOT stopping the oil, there's no motivation to NOT cleaning it up where and how they can (including dispersants)and while they are fumbling the PR, realistically, how can any company in this situation manage the PR?

Well I've gone on a while, hope that helps.

BP's number one motivation is being profitable as a corporation. There are other lesser motivations, but they all must lead back to the number one motivation.

What happened when BP learned that BP will be responsible for every gallon of oil spilled? What do you think was the most effective way to address that threat to BP's number one motivation?

The answers are found in exactly what BP did. First, BP reported low leak numbers. Reporting higher leak numbers would cause BP to pay more money based on BP's own admission. BP became an instant compulsive liar about the amount oil spilling from the leak. The numbers were going up and down daily. It would have been comical if the implications weren't so dire. If you believe BP engineers know what they're doing, they you must also believe that BP knew the leak numbers were way higher than what BP was reporting. BP generally didn't fully cooperate with the U.S. government when the U.S. government wanted things like the best leak video and accurate stats about the spill. Second, and perhaps worse, BP spent millions upon millions of dollars on a public relations campaign, which included expensive television ads.

BP has not been doing everything possible to stop the oil. Doing everything possible would involve not partaking in the things mentioned in the last paragraph. Further, trust is earned via actions. BP's actions have proven BP to be untrustworthy. We have here a company that misdirected energy and resources that should have been used to fix the damn leak. For example, BP could pay more money to the best experts and/or pool the top engineering minds from around the world. BP may be doing some of these to an extent. However, when I see expensive damage control ads on television, the ads alone are proof that BP's resources are not focused on doing everything possible to fix the leak.

What would make anybody think BP is doing everything possible to fix the leak anyway? BP didn't do everything they could BEFORE the leak. For example, BP didn't develop leak fixing technology that was equally advanced as their drilling technology. BP should have. Also, BP ordered the use of sea water (cheaper) instead of drilling mud right before the explosions on the rig. BP shouldn't have. With such a prevalent culture of negligence, it's not possible for BP to be suddenly doing everything possible to fix the leak.