Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Mississippi River vs. the Oil Leak
Posted by Bruce VanWyngarden on Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:32 PM
The Mississippi River deposits more than 3.3 million gallons of water into the Gulf of Mexico — every second. Figuring out how much water that is in a day is a whole lot of math for my feeble brain, but let me give it a shot. According to my calculator, that's a little more than 285 billion gallons of water a day that are deposited into the Gulf of Mexico.
The BP Deep Horizon oil leak is depositing roughly 1 million gallons of oil into the Gulf every day. In simple terms, the Mississippi River is depositing three times as much water EVERY SECOND as the oil blowout is depositing in a day.
I know this is small comfort, but sometimes perspective is helpful. Nature will overcome — eventually. In the short term, however, the Gulf is screwed. Maybe even this screwed.
Comments (25)
Showing 1-25 of 25
Bruce, you might look into this further--a little birdie told me that Doctors at St. Jude were cancelling their vacations to the Gulf Coast, not for the reasons you'd assume, but because they are already seeing, and anticipate more, leukemia patients coming in from the cleanup.
like
dislike
Yaa nature will overcome...for sure. In 50-75 years it will be like it never happened. That amount of time is not even a pin-prick in Earth time. But us humans are screwed...
Sorry to add some bitterness to that water, but the water the Mississippi is dumping into the Gulf is carrying vast amounts of nitrates from fertilizers used in agriculture near the river. This run-off is causing a massive algae bloom in the Gulf waters near the mouth of the river. This bloom produces oxygen at a rate that causes the sea water to become unlivable for marine life.
There is a several hundred square mile "Dead Zone" in the Gulf because of the Mississippi's waters.
Well, specifically because of the crap we're putting in the Mississippi's waters.
The bloom doesn't PRODUCE oxygen; it DEPLETES it. You might have screwed up your meaning there...
BV: At the risk of incurring your wrath (not to mention the scorn of the lurkers on this board who like to pounce on my every word), I can't let your thesis go unchallenged. You've added this to your previous "Barbour-esque" comment on the BP spill, http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/letter…, only now you've included something disturbingly similar to what BP's CEO said about it, namely that "the spill is tiny compared to the very big ocean." I understand why Governor Barbour has been spinning the spill (he can't help himself), but I'm at a loss to understand why you feel the need to continually soft-pedal its effects. Please allow me to add some perspective to your perspective.
According to the NYT yesterday, the amount of the spill has been "adjusted" to its current estimate of 2.5 million gallons per day, 2 1/2 times what you indicated in your piece. That means that the BP spill is releasing the total amount the Exxon Valdez leaked, EVERY FOUR DAYS, and we are now in day 50-something (I'm not good at the math either). That may be a drop in the bucket you (or Tony Hayward) seem to think it is, but most of the experts seem to think it's still quite significant, and far more than enough to be catastrophic.
While you may be right that nature will "overcome" the effects of this disaster on the ecology of the area "eventually" (as you put it), and while the effluent from an oil spill certainly (and thankfully) has a shorter recovery time than, say, that from a nuclear accident, the question is, how long is "eventually," how will we know when nature has "overcome" the disaster, and what comfort will that be to the folks who are suffering (and have yet to suffer) its consequences. That can be partially answered by looking at the long-term effects of the Exxon Valdez spill.
The entity established following that spill, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, has published comprehensive data (available on its web site: www.evostc.state.ak.us--as is an excellent video that traces the history of the event and its effects) indicating that the impact of that spill is still being felt today, over 20 years later, with all kinds of continuing effects on the environment, habitats, wildlife and the economy of the area, and the prospect of some of those effects continuing for years to come, a conclusion confirmed by several other studies. And remember, the Exxon Valdez spill will end up being a small fraction of the BP spill.
In addition, the legal wrangling the Alaskan tragedy spawned has been epic, lasting, believe it or not, to the present day, with Exxon fighting, tooth and nail, an initially huge jury award that included punitive damages ($5 billion), and eventually being rewarded for its efforts by our corporatist Supreme Court, which threw out the punitive damage award, and sent the case back to a lower court. As a result, many of the injured stakeholders in that disaster have yet to be compensated for the damages they suffered from the incident. Something tells me they wouldn't be terribly receptive to being told that "eventually" nature will "overcome" their disaster. In spite of the President's professed renewed resolve in his dealings with BP, and unless he's prepared to nationalize it, we can expect the same kind of challenge from that company as Exxon mounted, especially given that the outcome may affect its survivability.
I don't know whether the flow rate of the Mississippi River bodes well for the recovery of the Gulf (I'll leave it to scientists to determine that), as you seem to think it does, but I hope you're right. That may represent a significant difference between this incident and the Alaskan one (and I have no idea what the volume of Prince William Sound is, or the flow rate of the bodies of water that empty into it). I do know, though, that the "eventually" it's taken (and is still taking) for many businesses, the environment and wildlife to recover from the Alaskan spill has rendered that word meaningless to many up there, and that nature has yet to completely "overcome" that disaster's effects, over 20 years later. My suspicion is that the Gulf may face the same fate.
So, when you say "perspective is helpful," I agree. But let's make sure that perspective is informed by experience, and when it is, the picture that gets painted of the recovery from the BP spill is bleak, and supports the conclusion that the Gulf, and the many who rely on it, may not be screwed, as you seem to think, just in the short term.
Marty, it is indeed "awesome" that you've come out of the closet (not that the door was closed anyways).
I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt that BV is trying to downplay the enormity of the harm at hand. And it'll be decades before the reality of it sinks in with the public on any really deep level.
You are so not awesome. Was that a sufficient "pouncing?" Careful in your response, you know I can get you poofed.....
Merc: you may be right. I've read articles that say the same thing, and that point out how much more like Ixtoc the BP spill is (mostly in an effort to suggest that the speed with which the effects of Ixtoc were mitigated are what will likely happen with BP).
Then, of course, there are the articles that point out the many differences between Ixtoc and BP, including the toxicity of the oil being released, the vastly different depths, the difference in currents (along with the likely effect of hurricanes on BP), etc.. And, I've also seen articles in which the fishermen in the areas of Mexico contiguous to that spill still bemoan its continuing effect on their livelihoods. And, let's also not forget that the responsible party for Ixtoc, the state-owned Pemex, denied any liability, relying on its "sovereign immunity" from any claims. I'm not sure how that cuts, in comparison to what we hope will be BP's assumption of liabiity (voluntary or imposed), though I can see how that might cut either way.
Scott: yeah, that goofy getup (not to mention the alter ego that went with it) got pretty old. I think BV is, indeed, trying to downplay the harm. That's the only conclusion one can draw from the two comments I cited. Mabe he's right, but for the time being Haley Barbour and Tony Hayward are two of the last folks whose boat I would want to get into right now.
Pack: You're right, I'm not awesome. I can't even stand the word, actually. I suggested, in another post, that I liked it better when it was used, almost exclusively, by "valley girls" and surfers. It's just a good (even if not exact) homophone for part of my name. It's not even original. I copped it from my son who used to use it as part of his e-mail address (and he IS awesome).
You let me off uncharacteristically easily. How come? Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. There, did I avoid the dreaded poof?
Pack: I posted a response (benign, I thought), but it didn't show up. Did you poof me in advance?
M, I know you can't stand it; that's why I said it. I'm not poofing you today, I'm in an uncharacteristically benign mood....awesome, some might say.
I did not mean for this little blog-post to indicate that I am "downplaying" the effects of the spill. I was just interested in finding a "comparable" to reports of a million gallons or more of oil a day being spilled into the Gulf. I simply wondered, "How much IS that?"
Being the literal type, I decided to compare it to the largest contributor of WATER to the Gulf -- the Mississippi. I found the huge contrast in volumes surprising and interesting and worthy of sharing. If you read the link at the end of the story, you'll see I'm hardly trying to minimize the spill. On the contrary, it horrifies and sickens me.
Bruce: For what it's worth, I interpreted your blog post the same way Marty interpreted it. Probably just goes to show (yet again) the inherent shortcomings of brief blog posts, tweets and the like in failing to communicate subtle yet vitally important nuances that would usually be obvious in verbal communications and longer forms of written communications.
Pile on Bruce. We're also not considering the synergistic effects that may be possible between the petrochemical pesticide crap we flush down the river and the crude stuff coming up from BP's sphincter. And really guys, you have to ride big waves before you can say awesome, tubular or totally dude.
Scott: Excellent! (hey, if Bill and Ted could use it, why not me). But, did you mean "pile on Bruce," or "pile on, Bruce?"
BV: Point taken. I agree with Strait Shooter's assessment of non-verbal communication. Just one more reason I shun Twitter and Facebook (and maybe why my posts are so long).
"I came here to do two things. Comment on pictures of ladies, or comment on the editor. And we're almost out of ladies."
Is this the appropriate place to launch my "Save The Gulf Walruses" campaign?
BV: Too late for clarification, my old pal. Sadly you've exposed yourself as a soulless Animatronic Disney creation. ;)
This is priceless and sums up our problems with corporate ownership of congress...
Rep Joe Barton of Texas to BP CEO Tony Hayward at the congressional hearing...
"I'm not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives but myself," Barton explained, "but I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown. In this case a $20 billion shakedown."
— Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News (from Yahoo news)
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
