I was reading some of the public comments from today’s report in the New York Times about the oil spill, “Dispersal of Oil Means Cleanup to Take Years,” and I couldn’t believe how many people are upset with so many different parts of the issue. Many regret who they voted for in 2008, others are still upset with BP’s inconstintency, others outraged at how many years the clean up will take, how much it will cost, and so on. Like many others, I continue worrying about the future of our coastlines.
The latest information about the spill shouldn’t come as a surprise, of course so much oil has spilled - certainly its enough to keep us busy for years. However, the saddest part of the article, at least to me, was how Admiral Allen described that “we’re not dealing with a monolithic spill,” but how the hundreds of thousands of oil patches are now referred to as an enemy. Specifically, “an enemy that changes.”
Meanwhile, isn’t it interesting how the drill was initially going to be an answer to our alternative sources of energy? The answer now floats in the hunders of thousands patches of oil on the water, “oil that has broken into so many patches across the surface of the sea and spreading out in so many different directions.”
Let us put that into perspective.
Tags: bp pr nightmare, crisis in the gulf, florida wildlife, new york times oil spill, oil and water, oil spill gulf, pr crisis management