I might be a little cynical, but I personally believe that keeping the oil underwater is worse and is simply a BP PR move. If it is underwater you can't burn it

I might be a little cynical, but I personally believe that keeping the oil underwater is worse and is simply a BP PR move. If it is underwater you can't burn it, you can't skim it, you can't absorb it, and the sun won't break it down. Sure it might not get into marshes as quickly, but instead microbes eat it and create total deoxygenation of the water. I have dealt with the cleanup of minor sewage spill that caused total deoxygenation of a sound, I know how horrific that is. Basically all of the fish suffocate, die, and float to the surface to rot. Expect to see bumper to bumper fish carcases for miles. It was the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in my life. I think the goal with absorbing is that you will put out booms to protect sensative areas, and then when oil collects near them you can absorb it where it is more concentrated. The oil does not cover the surface completely, it is in patches, so collecting it into a solid slick makes the economics a little better (note: the idea that collecting it could be profitable is ridiculous, but you can optimize the dollar per barrel cleaned up ratio)