Very unexpected report, claiming that the BP oil disaster has not had serious environmental consequences. This report stakes its claims on the reputation of a scientist whose unpopular analysis of the damage to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina turned out to be correct. He claims that the evidence does not suggest that the Deepwater Horizon leak has caused major ecological damage. The article reminds its readers that the area is still environmentally devastated by preexisting industrial forces, but this spill is, as one scientist says "a sunburn on a cancer patient." This story needs much more rigorous sourcing (and I'm talking links to papers, not just quotations), if it is to be interpreted properly by its audience.

Doesn't have the tone of an investigative or special report; it seems to take the word of those saying the oil spill is not that bad and doesn't go further to find others to balance them out and/or contradict what they're saying. If the oil isn't in the water, isn't on wildlife, and isn't on the shorelines, did the oil just disappear? Many more questions need to be answered.