Why downplaying the oil spill by comparing it to much bigger ones is naive.

[howard112211]

Simply put: It's the location, stupid.

A quote that I caught somewhere on the intertubes was "Well, when Saddam spilled all that oil in Kuwait, it didn't do much damage either".

Well, yes, because it was "somewhere in Kuwait".

I'm not trying to underscore "American exceptionalism" here. That is not my point at all. My point is that the global economic impact depends very much on the global importance of the particular region. As cynical as it may sound, but at the end of the day there are not so many people who give a hoot, if tons of oil spill somewhere at the north pole. Sure, environmentally it is a disaster of the same scale, but in terms of damage done to "the system" it is no comparison. The same rock will do very different types of damage, depending on whether it strikes you on the head or on the shoulder.

We are talking about densely populated areas, of great economic importance to a major player on the world market here. This thing is going to ripple hard.

[Duer 157099]

1. I agree, but the Ixtoc was in the Gulf as well

Granted, it was much further south and close to Mexico and not nearly as deep, but it released between 3-4 million barrels during the nearly year-long gusher.

[howard112211]

3. We will see what happens when it hits the coasts.

I think that is the major issue.

[blogslut]

2. I'm no fan of comparisons when it comes to catastrophe

But the second largest oil spill in history happened in the Gulf of Mexico:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I

[northernlights]

4. Deepwater is sitting on top of 10s of millions of barrels

so it could top Ixtoc.

And it's in an environmentally very sensitive area. Marshes, unlike sand and rocky coasts, can't be washed off because the grasses soak up the oil.

[SargeUNN]

5. Spill?

After Katrina I had a break in my water pipe that caused water to constantly flow to the ground. I guess when I called it a water leak I should have called it a water spill. Isn't spill a term that tones down the fact it is a leak not just a spill?

[howard112211]

6. Yeah, your right. Just following the common terminology.

Should have used "gusher".

[chollybocker]

7. The difference is that this is not a "spill."

It's a gusher. A spouter. An uncorked, spewing hole in the floor of the Gulf of Mexico.

It's not a "spill."

Edit: Now I see your post above. ;)

[ConcernedCanuk]

8. Last time I looked

.
.
.

It "only" was 4,000 square miles

now.

BUT

they say it may take 90 days to install a "relief" well

will this "relief" well stop the leak 100% - 90% - - -

nawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

we got big trouble here when they say it's Possible to stop the leak in three months

THREE MONTHS OF MOMMA NATURE PUKING HER GUTS INTO THE GULF

I think we have a problem

btw

our price at the pumps went from 98 cents to$1.06 a litre since this happened

over 6% increase

Heaven forbid the companies and corporate wizards should take it out of their profits for being stupid

OH

btw

Has the superpower found that guy supposedly responsible for 911 yet?

or did we just piss off the whole World, waste 100's of thousands of lives, a few billion(trillion?) dollars for nothing??

:freak:

[FarCenter]

9. So you are claiming that the Mississippi Delta is more special than the Niger Delta?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta

The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation places the quantity of oil jettisoned into the environment yearly at 2,300 cubic meters with an average of 300 individual spills annually.<3> However, because this amount does not take into account "minor" spills, the World Bank argues that the true quantity of oil spilled into the environment could be as much as ten times the officially claimed amount.<7>. The largest individual spills include the blowout of a Texaco offshore station which in 1980 dumped an estimated 400,000 barrels (64,000 m3) of crude oil into the Gulf of Guinea and Shell's Forcados Terminal tank failure which produced a spillage estimated at 580,000 barrels (92,000 m3).<2> One source calculates that the total amount oil in barrels spilled between 1960 and 1997 is upwards of 100 million barrels (16,000,000 m3).<7>

[damntexdem]

10. But the big location issue is: 5000 FEET DOWN!

And about to reach the Gulf Stream, so pollute the North Atlantic -- and who knows how much more.

And unless it can be capped, it is a nearly-endless source of pollution.

[Igel]

11. So's the flip exercise.

Saying how horrible it is by comparing it to other oil disasters.

Both are done for the purpose of predictions: Either saying, breathlessly, that something must be done because it's the end of the world as we know it and the guilty, who we've already identified and tried, must be punished beyond the fullest extent of the law. Or for saying that it won't really be all that big a deal, and when it comes to guilt we don't need to rush to judgment.

Those on the scene need to act, in any event. The rest? No big hurry. What happens will happen with or without my input, my activity, and my opinion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. There's a lot of territory between "big deal" and "extinction event" n/t