Gulf Oil Spill -- Where is the Disaster?

   polifrog



Update 1 Below: 

Update 2:  Obama Agrees!

 
First off, this is a developing story.
But, secondly, where is, at least, some of the predicted devastation?

Nearly two weeks ago one of BP's oil drilling platform suffered an accident. BP’s estimate is that the well produces some 5,000 barrels of crude oil per day and currently covers around 7500 sq/miles.

Images of the Valdez spill in 89 (250,000 barrels spilled over 11,000 sq/miles) immediately spring to mind. But is it accurate to compare the current spill to Valdez?

I don't think so. There is too much that is different.

For instance,

Viscosity. The oil being spilled in the Gulf is less viscous than the oil spilled by the Valdez. Not only is it less viscous due to its nature, but also due to the higher temperatures in the gulf. This is why we will not likely see the same type of sludge we saw associated with Valdez.

Latitude and resulting albeto. The interaction between sunlight and water changes based on latitude. In lower latitudes the sun hits the surface of the water at a very steep angle which means that the light penetrates the water more than it does at higher latitudes.

These two above combine to thin the oil and help aid its evaporation to a greater degree in the gulf than in Prince William Sound Bay.

Environment. The Gulf is known to naturally leak oil due to natural underground seepage. The natural leakage is of similar volume to the BP tragedy currently unfolding. Of course, doubling the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf and dumping it all in one place is not a good thing, but it is also obvious that the Gulf is capable of absorbing oil to a large degree. Oil is incorporated in the Gulf's ecosystem whereas it is a foreign substance in Price William Sound.

What if it turns out that the Gulf is a uniquely resilient ecosystem to oil spills?

We can only hope that this will be a disaster that never was.



Update

Via Fabius Maximus:


Sometimes a simple chart can enlighten one to the vast unenlightened creature we call media.

For instance, the Valdez spill was 10.8 million gallons while the largest spill was 284 million gallons. That is 26.25 times more than the Valdez spill!

Why is it not common knowledge that the largest spill recorded occurred in the Gulf, the very same place that is so much in the news today? And that the Ixtoc spill was a deep water spill while Valdez was a surface.

How's that for not fitting the narrative?

The better comparison is the Ixtoc spill, yet all we hear are the comparisons to Valdez.  This is counterproductive.

It would seem that looking into the ecological effects of the largest spill in history (IXTOC 1) rather than the most publicised spill (Valdez) would be far more productive considering that it also occurred in the Gulf.






out