I have also read where,, at this point, there still has not been as much spilled as off of the Exxon Valdez in 1989,, so if we guess on its impact at this point,, its probably going to mostly be a pain in the butt to clean,, but the rest of the world will continue to turn.

What happened to the "problem solvers vs finger pointers" thing?

I wonder how many tankers that could be filled from a pipe that's been flowing at max capacity for 42 days.

I think it just might be a bit more than what the Valdez had on it.

BTW, it hasn't stopped yet.

I wonder if all the politicians who had a role in all this will be minimized also?

its easy enough to check

http://akaction.org/fact_sheets/Exxon_Valdez_Oil_Spill_Volume_Fact_Sheet.pdf


Exxon's estimate was 11 million gallons (which I suspect is low)

estimates on the gulf coast are anywhere from 21 mill to 45 million gallons


so I stand corrected comparing Exxon to the Gulf,, but there are still at least a half a dozen larger spills that dont seem to have had any detrimental affect upon the world,,,,so we shall see,,

What is special about this oil spill is that it happened adjacent to where the shrimp, fish, oysters, and crabs breed. This spill, even if it was capped tomorrow, is going to dramatically reduce the seafood produced for years to come. There are, obviously, other impacts also.

If a hurricane happens to hit, it could carry oil far inland in a storm surge. Hopefully that won't happen.

Honestly it is what it is.

Louisiana's estuarine system and other waters produce 40% of all the seafood in the United States ... get ready to pony up if y' want that redfish or shrimp ...

Don't be surprised when you start hearing reports of contaminated seafood popping up being sold.

Something just doesn't seem right about this oil spill.It seems like there is a bigger picture here that we are not seeing.I have never worked in the oil field but I have been a welder and fabricator most of my working life and I would have thought by now they could have welded a new 5000 foot long pipe or salvaged the old pipe and bolted it back to the well.The obviously had a way to get a pipe to the well to begin with when the first drilled a well.Why can't they do that now?

They knew how many barrels this well was producing when the oil rig was up and running.Can't someone find that information?

From what I have heard the pipe is two feet wide.A pipe two feet wide is about twice as wide as a fire hydrant pipe.I think a good estimate of flow from a two foot wide pipe is at least 500 gallons a minute.

It's a 21 inch pipe. You calculate the velocity of the output by the video frames and multiply the area times the velocity.

From the congressional hearings:

But when Purdue’s Wereley was asked to hazard a reasonable estimate of the damaged well's oil-release rate, he concluded that BP's quantity was a pipedream. A far more likely figure, he offered, was 95,000 barrels a day, plus or minus 20 percent. At least four other independent engineers have pegged the figure at between 25,000 and 100,000 barrels a day, he reported. So all of these estimates from outside the industry “are considerably higher than BP’s,” he pointed out, “and there’s a good overlap between the outsider estimates.”

This would suggest BP’s number is an outlier, said subcommittee chairman Ed Markey (Dem.-Mass.). It is, Wereley assured him.

Is there any chance BP got the number right, Markey asked?

“I don’t see any possibility – any scenario – under which their number is accurate,” Wereley said. He could envision his own estimate dropping, if longer streams of video were made available and they showed large quantities of gas were being emitted, temporally edging out the oil. The big variable, he said is the gas-to-oil ratio emanating from the well. BP has those numbers but hasn’t shared them yet. And the oil giant also has not been sharing much video.

An example of the math would be 50,000 barrels x 42 gallons per barrel x 45 days = 95 million gallons of oil in 45 days. Only BP knows how much of the original flow was natural gas.

The Exxon Valdiz was a ship and unable to cause the underwater plumes the gusher seems to be causing.....please do not nod your head at me like I am a petulant child........

If it can enter the underwater canyon ways, then it remains completely capable of entering the the natural aquifers........and it has not stopped entering the and gushing its oil......cap the damn thing off somehow.....close it permanently

I admire your passion.

It's easy for those who have never been near the coast or in the swamps to minimize what BP and every politician involved with them is doing to that delicate balance.

They could really give a rats a$$ if the Gulf lives or dies. They think it won't affect them.

They only cry foul if Hussein is implicated in it.

The solution that BP is trying today ('Top Hat' or 'Top Cap', depending on the cut) is the one they wanted to try FIRST - but 'The ONE' and his minions wouldn't let them try it. THEY wanted 'em to try EVERYTHING ELSE first ... like Li'l Rahm sez: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." ... Well, boiz 'n grrls, they've exploited the hell outa this one - and now Robert Reich is talking about TAKING OVER BP ... a foreign company ... how's DAT for ballz ... ?

hmm,, please tell me how an INDIVIDUAL (president) sitting in the White house could have PREVENTED the explosion

isn't this the pot calling the kettle black

Actually the only way the oil can enter the aquifers is from above the surface of the ground miles from the gulf (which has happened on occasion). The positive hydraulic gradient would keep any oil from entering from the seabed. A storm surge from a hurricane could carry it some distance inland, far enough in fact to destroy the breeding grounds of much sealife, but it still would not enter the aquifers. The same process prevents the oil from traveling up the Mississippi River. The water only flows in one direction with the minor exception of tidal flow at the exit delta.

If seawater was able to travel backwards in an aquifer then our drinking water from wells would be contaminated with salt from the ocean.

I heard some interesting insights yesterday about comparing the scale of the current gulf spill to some other ongoing spills in other areas of the world. Not to be-little or make light of what's happening down there because it's absolutely f**king tragic, but there's a whole nother world of hurt going on in Nigeria that has been occurring for some time. The spills that have been occurring there since 2009 completely dwarf what has been spilled up to this point in the gulf of mexico. The blame again lies with these giant US international oil companies. It's just staggeringly amazing to me that because disasters in Africa don't affect the global and US economies, that we don't even hear about these other casualties

some reading materials for your consideration:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6511HJ20100604?type=marketsNews

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05iht-edejikeme.html