I thought that this was a good article because it has a big affect on our society. The oil spill ruined the gulf and has killed many species of animals, plants, and wildlife. This is an important article for people to read because although it was a terrible tragic event, many believe that it was just one huge accident. This article proves that that is not the case. There were multiple different times and people that could have said something or done something to prevent this catastrophe.
This article had both strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths were that it gave detailed information on who could have made a difference to stop this, but didn’t and also how the different companies are trying to respond. The only weakness I could think of was in the beginning it did not really explain what they were talking about, incase the reader was unfamiliar with this tragic world known event.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/earth/06spill.html?
Border, John M. "Blunders Abounded Before Gulf Spill, Panel Says." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 5 Jan. 2011.
5 comments:
This review was clear, informative, and interesting. All of the details were well explained and utilized, while there was little overall “fluff”, or useless information. All of the statements were clearly stated and supported with plenty of evidence, creating a more convincing review. Finally I was interested to learn that several money saving short cuts taken by BP lead up to the oil spill. This proves that rather than one irreparable mistake causing the tragedy, several small mistakes that could have easily been avoided were to blame for the spill. This in turn proves that there are few industries that do not depend on greed working and even running today’s economy.
To improve the review I would’ve included some more specific examples and perhaps some more scientific explanation. The review neglected to include the fact that several contractors had warned against cutting corners for fear of what could happen. The review also neglected to explain what kinds of specific effects oil has on the environment, and what can be done to improve the situation. The review also neglected to include whether or not BP’s other wells are expected to leak, and whether or not there are new plans for stopping leaks early, before they cause much harm.
Finally, I was impressed to learn that the government’s own regulators have come to recognize their own employers, (the government) as a party partially responsible for the spill. The government’s negligence in regulating and enforcing drilling policies was part of the cause of the spill. Had the government been more strict, the oil spill may have never happened. Though it is very unlikely that the effects of the spill will not be felt for years to come, hopefully humans will be able to learn from this experience, and proceed with great caution before putting our natural resources at such risk.
The reason why I chose to comment on Austin’s article was for one main reason. I’ve been looking forward to a spring break Bahamas trip (YEAH BABY) ever since the school year began. At first I just wanted to find out the status of the gulf but I really enjoyed this article because it enlightened me. I was glad that Austin found an article that brought to light the issues and mistakes that were a part of the oil spill. Even though the disaster was put on the back-burners it’s important that the people, especially the affected families, to know the entire truth about the incident. I also liked that Austin didn’t spare any pity for the companies as they deserve the ridicule that is coming to them especially in light of what has been uncovered. The two points that I didn’t like about Austin’s article was that he didn’t name anything specific that the oil companies overlooked and he didn’t talk too much about the article itself, probably because everyone is so familiar with the topic. Other than that I thought this was a well done review. I really enjoyed this article/review because I felt, after reading this, that the public was cheated in not knowing the full truth but I am happy that now we are being told the full story.
I felt that Austin’s review on the article was pretty well-written. I like how he both explained the article thoroughly and gave his personal take on the article, which made it much easier to comprehend. Also, I felt that the mentioning of the panel helped explain the article well.
Austin didn’t give any specific information about how far the spill has spread which would have been useful. Also, he never fully explained why the well erupted which impeded my understanding of this article.
I found it very interesting how he mentioned that 5 million barrels of oil were spilled into the gulf because that seems like such an enormous number.
The review of the article on the Gulf Stream disaster was very clear and easy to understand. The explanation of what happened in Florida was helpful, and helped explain, in detail, what actually occurred. It is also important to know that had there been more safeguards in place, the spill could have been averted. The article demonstrates that BP was lazy and is fully responsible for this accident.
Certain sections of this article could have been improved. I felt that the review was rather short, and making it longer could have helped improve one’s understanding of the disaster. More questions could have been answered, such as whether BP has made any other mistakes regarding other wells worldwide.
This article is important because the BP oil spill affects all of us. The Gulf’s waters could and probably will be polluted for years, and this could affect the economy and many people’s lives if nothing is done. It also shows that BP’s poor decision making may lead us into trouble in the future. I hope to hear more about this event in the future and how this accident can be avoided again.
1. The review was articulate in explaining who was at fault.
2. It explained well that the gulf spill was indeed not an accident and a few individuals’ negligence caused a catastrophe.
3. Austin effectively portrayed the main, vital points of the article excluding unnecessary details.
1. The review could have expanded on the specific problems the oil companies ignored.
2. I was also unsure of if the government was supposed to be regulating this oil well among others or if it was solely the companies’ faults.
1. I was surprised to learn that such a massive incident could come from such negligence and it further emphasized the need for companies to take responsibilities.
Post a Comment