I found this piece pretty disappointing and idiotically anti-British. Despite raising some key points he devolves them into fairly pointless attacks.

I especially "love" the insinuation that BP's problems stem from being British and therefore "plodding" and bureaucratic. I won't for one moment dispute that they are; but this is a feature common to such large companies (the world over). And absolutely nothing to do with the nationality.

As to his Sherwood forest example; the US engineers approach is exactly the sort of attitude that appears to have caused this accident. In the world of deep water drilling, or so I am told, you don't (or shouldn't) go outside of rated usage no matter what the circumstances. So there is a place for all sorts of attitudes.

Once you get past the opening paragraphs he finishes this with an extremely important point:

Or is it? What about the safety wells and their drilling platforms? Are they in better shape than the platform that exploded and sank?

I'm a bit sad he had to dress that up with pretty anti-British rhetoric, I think it stands on it;s own merits!

Several developed nations have companies (etc) guilty of disasters similar to these. e.g. Union Carbide.

>(If you are a reporter, this paragraph contains the real news. Yes, I am telling you how to do your job.)

Classic!

The black swan strikes again and we all know how and why only after it happens.

Except of course this should not have been a black swan to BP and regulators.

I'm a little confused is he saying too much government intervention was the problem or not enough?

I think he's saying it's more complicated than that, and has to do with a certain organizational culture with roots going back many decades.

What 'government intervention' do you make (or remove) to change a culture?