I agree that it makes sense to do those things, and things like be realistic about the scale of the problem to plan the response accordingly.

I saw something somewhere that said that BP's lawyers were running the communications. They're ultimately worried about the legal judgments against them, so doing things like using millions of gallons of detergents to keep the oil from coming on shore (even if there are very bad consequences) is a way to limit their liability. Downplaying the size helps to keep the ambulance chasers away, too, the thinking goes.

Maybe that's it.

But that's stupid because it's clear the problem is huge and isn't being adequately addressed. Happy talk isn't going to keep the oil off shore. It's much cheaper and better to keep the oil off shore than to scoop up and wash beaches and marshes...

Maybe it's the usual problem of poor communications in large organizations.

I agree that more needs to be known. Whatever the reason, the US needs to be more active.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.