I'm a bit starved for cash right now so here's an answer to the exit poll as a token of my appreciation:

BP can't be nationalised. Perhaps it could be internationalised. If you're going to pretend for the sake of the argument that the US government would be up for such a thing, why not pretend that other governments such as those of the UK, Nigeria and so on would cooperate? All the same, if the creditors were made whole (as is typical in nationalisations) then I would say hell no! But a bankruptcy combined with internationalisation has a certain appeal.
Billy Wharton's article makes a slightly more realistic proposal: seizure of BP's assets in the US. But this would make a huge mess. Without knowning the particulars, I suspect most of these assets would only function satisfactorily as part of the transnational. And if assets were seized, the government would have spent the main threat it can use to coerce the industry (focusing on BP alone is pointless). I don't know the legal terms but I believe it would be preferable to fine BP into oblivion and to put its US assets and revenue under some kind of administration which would prevent the transnational from selling them or transferring them abroad for the purpose of avoiding the fine (am I describing "receivership"?). The point would be to force BP as well as its creditors, suppliers and clients (who would be harmed by a bankruptcy) to negociate a comprehensive settlement without creating too much disruption. I don't think that it would make much sense for the government to try to operate these assets as Billy Wharton proposes. Perhaps some of these assets could be advantageously operated by the government, turned into some kind of co-op or mothballed. The transfer of these assets could be included in a comprehensive settlement. But seizing everything outright would constitute irrational grandstanding, not a step towards eco-socialism.
The national energy policy the US desperately needs is demand management, not nationalisation of energy suppliers. The US obviously consumes too much non-renewable and polluting resources. Contrary to populist assertions, corporations who accomodate this demand are not to blame for the US over-consumption (many of the same corporations supply better-managed countries in Europe and elsewhere) and seizing BP's assets wouldn't accomplish much anyway unless its competitors were seized as well. But wait until the US goes back to being an oil-exporting nation to talk about nationalisation of the whole fossil fuel industry! Right now, the US depends on these corporations to bring in oil extracted from other countries.

Corporations only exist because we, as a society, allow them to for some greater good. When they continually act in a criminal manner, as BP has, they no longer are providing that greater good for society, and forfeit their right to exist.

Given the extent of damage that BP has caused, we need to do more than dissolve the corporation. We need to take their assets and use them solely for the purpose of cleaning up the mess they made.

Honestly, I tend to lean more towards agreeing with the second half of the last option (only 'collapse' can save us), but i don't think that that will just magically happen, it's something that needs to be worked for with many different strategies and techniques (which could conceivably include cannibalizing BP's capital and equipment for other uses). But how you understand 'collapse' is really important to that. Also, simply saying that both private and public ownership are 'just as bad' really doesn't get us anywhere, because we really do need to reinvigorate the question of 'what is property', what does 'private' or 'public' really refer to, and how can we use these concepts to interact with the world in a much less destructive and much more inclusive (esp. of nature) way. not that i think you were sweeping any of this under the rug intentionally, you were just writing up a slightly provocative and interesting poll. good job! i enjoyed it