On May 4, 11:37*am, hk wrote:
On 5/4/10 11:26 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
* When one considers the far greater number

or organisms to degrade the oil, we can conclude that it will degrade
far more rapidly in the Gulf of Mexico than in Prince William Sound.

The oil spill in the gulf of valdez is still degrading. The spill was
more than 20 years ago. While the spill in the gulf may degrade more
rapidly, it still has the potential to do billions of dollars in damage.

Your right-wing slant isn't going to mitigate the damage or the
responsibility of BP and its partners. Hopefully, they will pay for
every dollar of damage their spill causes.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

Reality and real data are two things lefties cannot deal with.
I once spent a month in Santa Barbara, CA and did some walking on the
beach. My hotel had towels for removing tar stains from your feet and
I remarked to the hotel owner that the effects of the oil spill in the
60s was still being felt. He had lived there since the 50s and told
me that there were tar balls on the beach before the spill and he
thought they were from tankers torpedoed in WW2. There were no
tankers torpedoed off CA in WW2 and we have since learned the tar is
most likely from natural seeps. A month ago, asphalt volcanoes were
found off the coast there that are hundreds of feet high and natural
oil seeps are novel bio-communities (just as in the deep Gulf of
Mexico).
Yes, a spill will look nasty for awhile but it will go away whereas
the ravages of tourism are forever.
One comment I have to make on the NOAA data shown on that web site is
that the organisms in the sediment increased by a factor of 4 over
just 4 years after the spill and their growth tracks the growth of the
control. If one extrapolates the trend line, it looks as if it will
totally recover to pre-spill levels after 50 years.