iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Kevin Grandia

Kevin Grandia

Posted: June 9, 2010 01:15 PM

BP Didn't "Spill" Milk in the Gulf of Mexico

What's Your Reaction:

I've been writing and doing public relations for a long time and with that comes a great respect for the power of carefully chosen language as well as a very good BS detector.

I have heard it said more than once since the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster began over a month ago that "spill" is not the right word to describe what was happening.

Spill can mean a lot of things, but the correct definition goes something like, "To cause or allow (a substance) to run or fall out of a container."

That doesn't describe what is happening in the Gulf, as there is no container from which the oil is spilling. Unless the massive underground natural reservoir of oil sitting 20,000 feet below the ocean's surface is considered a container - which would also be incorrect as well because a container by definition is, "a receptacle, such as a carton, can, or jar, in which material is held or carried."

But my point isn't as much that we should all get a slap on the hand from our third-grade English teacher for using incorrect words (even though as writers we should always strive to use language correctly).

My point is that it is quite a coup for BP to have such a massive disaster on its hands to be described as a "spill" - a word that implies accidental and minor in scale. "Oops I spilled my milk" comes to most people's mind.

I doubt it was an intentional piece of spindoctoring by BP, but they sure as heck haven't pointed out that the term "spill" is not only a technically incorrect, and massively understates the grand scale of the situation the company is dealing with.

So from this point forward, in all my writing on the oil spill, which sadly looks like it will be a daily task for at least the entire summer, I will no longer describe the Gulf of Mexico disaster as a "spill."

At the least, I will sleep better knowing I am not making my English teachers unhappy and at best I will be properly communicating the level of devastation and the seriousness of the situation.

Problem is, what should it be described as? The Gulf of Mexico tragedy? The Gulf disaster? The oily nightmare in the Gulf? The BP Disaster? The giant blob from hell that wouldn't have happened if we had offshore wind farms instead of offshore oil rigs?

What do you think is the perfect phrase or word that describes the Gulf of Mexico disaster correctly?

 

Follow Kevin Grandia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kgrandia

 
 
  • Comments
  • 13
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:42 AM on 06/12/2010
When I first heard the rate that oil was flowing from the broken pipe (even the underestimated rate), I had issues with the word leak too. It's not a leak. Gusher is better. Underwater Geyser might be something to consider too. As for the whole disaster, I suggest BP Oil Flood. The broken pipe is shooting out oil faster than a firehose shoots out water. If the fire company shot water in my backyard for over a month, it'd be a flood.
Karl Burkart
Green blogger in L.A.
03:11 AM on 06/10/2010
I've been calling it "gusher." I tried geyser for a while but that sounded too natural. Gusher sounds like something that happens when you sever an artery so I'm funding it the best fit for now.
photo
Stacy Clark
Environmental Geologist, writer and teacher.
08:29 PM on 06/09/2010
I like all of the ones suggested and offer this as a possibilty:
BP Disaster

I think the name BP has to remain part of the term.

Stacy Clark
Dallas, TX
07:18 PM on 06/09/2010
Good column! I've refused to call it a "spill" for a while now, for the same reason. The word connotes something finite, whether large or small (although it certainly suggests small!). It frames the event inaccurately, to BP's benefit. Although it's a mouthful, "underwater oil gusher" is more descriptive. Or just "oil gusher" or "underwater gusher."
03:02 PM on 06/09/2010
While it's true that the word "spill" ordinarily connotes something pretty small, it's also true that the term is commonly used to refer to the leaking of vast amounts of oil into surrounding areas, such as on coastlines or into the ocean. The disaster caused by the grounding of the tanker Torrey Canyon in 1967 is routinely called a spill; so is the Amoco Cadiz disaster (1978), and the Ixtoc-1 offshore well disaster (1979) and the combination of spills in the Gulf War (1991). Unless you want to rewrite decades of historical usage, you've basically got no case here. An oil spill is an oil spill--get used to it.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Kevin Grandia
Writer, researcher, digital campaigner
03:10 PM on 06/09/2010
Grounded tankers are one thing, not to downplay the significance of those disasters, but they were spills - a finite amount of oil spilling out of a ship.

The Gulf of Mexico disaster is on a whole other level.
photo
Stacy Clark
Environmental Geologist, writer and teacher.
07:55 PM on 06/09/2010
Actually, JEB54, BP is the one who has rewritten history here and we're just making sure our collective language appropriately defines the devastation they have created. How 'bout you get used to the word Disaster, because that's what this is.
Stacy Clark, Dallas, TX
02:44 PM on 06/09/2010
How about "The Rape of the Gulf"
photo
Stacy Clark
Environmental Geologist, writer and teacher.
08:25 PM on 06/09/2010
I can just see the right-wing conservatives squirm in thier seats! It certainly is an appropriate use of language. After all, Pete Seeger (or PP&M) sang about the "raping of the land" in regard to coal mining, right?
Stacy Clark
Dallas, TX
02:16 PM on 06/09/2010
No word exists, so we need to make one up. I suggest:

oceancide, or oceanslaughter, depending upon how much forethought you think went into BP's actions.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Kevin Grandia
Writer, researcher, digital campaigner
02:41 PM on 06/09/2010
Good idea. Got my thinking cap on now.

Side question: Someone told me that there was more oil dumped into the ocean during the Gulf War and when I look at the wikipedia entry for world oil spills I see that is the case, but I don't know the details. I would like to write about this, because I have heard Sean Hannity and Limbaugh using it as a way of minimizing the size of the Gulf disaster.

Anyone?
photo
Stacy Clark
Environmental Geologist, writer and teacher.
08:22 PM on 06/09/2010
Mauice...I like the way you think!

You may already know of Polly Higgins, the UK lawyer who is urging the UN to acknowledge Ecocide as a crime against humanity, just like genocide. You can follow Polly on twitter and on any of her blogs. One is called The Lazy Environmentalist.

In the absense of legislative action on the pricing of carbon, some version of Higgins' Ecocide law here in the US may help protect our oceans, our land, and our our air and water quality. I think the ravaging of ancient forests for nothing more than the pulp required to manufacture magazines and junk mail is the same kind of kind of reckless corporate irresponsibilty that requires a severe responce. And so many other examples exist.

BP has slaughtered an entire ecosystem and has put at risk many others connected to it. It's undermined an already fragile economy, placed the health of coastal residents at risk, and now they are playing lawyer games, denying what they've done. They are plotting a defense before they've even admitted to the full extent of the problem. They are, as Mike Papantonio said on Hardball tonight, a "pathological corporation."

We need regulatory remedies to deal with hardened industrialists who care not at all for the resources they mine. But such laws are irrelevant until we have leaders who are willing to take action in swift and decisive ways.

Maybe the words Oceancide and Ecocide would get their attention!

Thanks, Maurice!

Stacy Clark