Fascinating post on Daily Kos about BP oil spill. You all need to read this.

From the Daily Kos:

I would argue that at this point in the disaster the die is cast, and it makes little if no difference to BP's ability to operate as a going concern whether the gushing volcano is stopped now or months from now. The sheer magnitude of the lawsuits is going to be staggering--think of the hundreds of billions of dollars in permanently despoiled property alone. All of these claims will ultimately find their way to BP's door, or the door of their excess insurance carriers.

Which is why it makes sense, from the standpoint of defending itself, for BP not to stop the gushing, and in fact to take half-measures which by their very nature will not succeed, yet prolong the appearance of BP "making an effort." The nature of this type of liability litigation practically demands that BP do this to survive.

If BP were able to stop the flow of oil through either its "top hat," "junk shot," or any of the other creative methods being bandied about, the line of attack at trial would be "Why weren't you able to do this sooner?" That's an argument that BP, with all of its hired experts, can never win. The sole question the plaintiff's lawyers will rely on (in addition to their case on causation of the explosion itself) will be "Was the technology available to stop this a month earlier?" The answer is obvious--yes, it was. Of course it was.

"Then, BP, why didn't you employ that method sooner?"

When automotive manufacturers introduced airbags, they were sued for failing to put airbags in earlier model cars. When construction equipment manufacturers introduced roll bars on their tractors, they were sued for failing to install them on earlier models. When doctors' patients get sick and die, the doctors are sued for failing to make an earlier diagnosis. That is the way product liability and negligence cases work. If BP stops the bleeding now, a key tenet of their litigation defense is lost.
Far better for BP to defend on the grounds that "nothing we tried worked," than to have something actually work, and then be called on the timing. That's why they're drilling that relief well. As we've been admonished ad nauseum by the media, the relief well is the only sure way to stop the flow of oil. In the end, BP will complete the relief well, and point to that as its defense: "See, nothing (else) could be done! How can you hold us liable?" And (and as an aside) you can bet that Chevron, Mobil, and Exxon are all watching how BP handles this very closely, because they know this could happen to them. This type of cataclysmic event presents a common threat to all oil companies--it's their worst fear.

For this strategy to work, however, the corporation must make a show of taking a series of plausible "measures" in order to bolster its defense that "we tried everything, nothing worked." But, understand, these measures must fail. That's why the "siphon tube" method was so useful to them--they can argue that their efforts brought fruit in reducing (not eliminating) the oil flow. See, we're good guys! And no, we can't quantify for you how much oil we saved there, but dammit, we saved some, give us credit!

BP already has armies of lawyers and experts prepared to point the finger as to the actual cause of the explosion, who bears responsibility, and most importantly, who should pay. They are prepared to fight that battle, which will degenerate into a "he said, she said" contest. But BP's goal now is to contain their exposure. The only way to do that is to keep failing until that relief well is drilled.

You know I hate to a cynic or a conspiracy theorist, but THIS explanation for what BP is doing rings truer than anything else I have read. 

And one has to wonder if these are the same reasons that BP refuses to use a less toxic dispersant to deal with the oil gushing from from the hole in the ocean floor.  Are they afraid that any other dispersant that they use to replace the one currently in use will fail to keep the oil away from the surface and hidden form view? Or is simply because they can pay themselves for using the dispersant Corexit 9500, since they also manufacture it, and do not have the same cost control over OTHER dispersants?

Or am I being too cynical?