Comment on the question about including separate sections for health, environmental, and economic damage.  I don't feel that it is appropriate for this article about BP to include these sections.  I believe that the editors that have argued for including these sections have presented their arguments very well, but it could also be argued that including such a brief summary (as must be) in one sense tends to minimize the issues.  But mainly, the information just seems out of place in this article, to me...