|
well, at this point it's hard to know simply because i don't think anyone does know what the points of comparison and distinction are between the two. distance of course you're right. but balanced against that are, for example, the effects of the dispersants that were being used which, reports have it, has been causing quite significant plumes of oil to form at considerable depths (2-3 thousand feet down) which are not evaporating (obviously)...but it's not at all clear yet what's happening with that stuff. any more than it's clear yet what the eco-system effects are exactly---but the eco-systems that are being impacted are quite different. in terms of plant and animal life a far more considerable range is in danger in the gulf than was the case off alaska.
another difference is that alot of the coastal areas that are already being impacted are marshes. grass holds the mud in place in a salt marsh, not the other way around. you kill the grasses you also endanger the coastline itself. this is very very very bad. i am astonished that there is not more effort---any from some reports---to protect the marshlands from this immense wave of gunk.
so i dunno....quantity-wise this is worse. proximity-wise the valdez was much easier to deal with....damage-wise it's still speculative, but this is a whole lot worse in many ways from here, just looking, without the information to know much for sure.
at least so far the top kill effort seems to be holding.
apparently there are pressure tests happening now to see if the mud's been pushed far enough down the well to hold. it is looking ok, but we are not collectively out of the woods. and there's still an unbelievable amount of that shit floating about the gulf.
(btw are plumes of oil at 1-2 thousand feet aren't to turn up on overhead surveillance? )
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|