Environmental cost? I'll grant you that accidents involving rigs and shipping are spectacular and locally devastating when they happen, but what about the pros of a cheap and relatively easy fuel, it has saved millions of lives.
To give some balance what about farming? Farming has devastated the environment on a global scale. It's subsidised to the teeth too...
"Profit generating mess" is hyperbole, but you can have it since I went for whataboutery.
I'm not saying that big (or small) oil is innocent by any means, personally I believe the problem lies with the political side of it, but certainly I don't think the basics of oil extraction and delivery deserve the rep they currently have.
And on farming, how much carbon do you think farmers released into the atmosphere burning the trees and scrubs that stood in the way of the farmland? Not to mention the damage done to the hydrosphere?
You might like this by the way, if you haven't already read it: http://harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915
Farming is most certainly a problem, and I fully understand and agree with the Harper's article -- but it is a straw man in this discussion. I merely pointed out that an article authored by an oil company neglected to include the true cost of their product vs. competitors. And, unless the true cost is realized (most likely in the form of taxes on carbon emissions), fossil fuels will remain the most viable source of energy. It doesn't mean I/we have to accept it, there is a better way.
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion), the Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion), and the Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion).
The first and third are deductions just about every global corporation gets. The second one appears to be subsidizing alternative fuels, not fossil fuels at all.
ETA: Point out an oil company's dishonesty, get downvoted. Only on HN.