I hope you mean the images are pretty tame in comparison, and not the spill itself. Not only has the BP leak massively surpassed Valdez in volume (2-10x), it took place a mile underwater, which multiplies it's danger.
Exxon Valdez was a surface spill, so most of the oil that was spilled stayed on the surface of the water and began to have dramatic effects on the coastal environment. This disaster is leaking millions of gallons per day (Valdez was 10 million gallons) from the sea floor, much of which is rising slowly to the top through a mile of water, dispersing on its way up, and some percentage of the oil is clumping at the bottom, or simply not rising [1]. The polluted area should thus be measured in cubic feet, and not simply in visibly affected surface area.
The implications of this event are quite staggering, and BP will get away with paying a slim fraction of the true cost to society.
[1] unless I am misinformed and 100% of crude oil rises to the surface
Ah, but the more dilute the spill the better things are.
Bacteria do a wonderful job to biodegrading oil - but only if they have enough oxygen, which is in limited supply. By spreading things out they have enough oxygen to work with.
And yes, 100% of the oil should rise to the surface, but some will rise slowly.
I think the reason we are not seeing a lot of oil is simply that the bacteria ate it.
Note that not all of the oil that gets to the top, stays there.
They have been pouring dispersants on the oil. That makes the oil bind to water and go back into the water column. The oil industry likes it because it hides the oil. Fish in the water column don't like it so much.
The fisheries hit by the Valdez spill have still not recovered.
Yes, of course that's what I meant. The images from the Valdez spill truly document the tragedy. I don't feel like the same thing is happening with the gulf spill.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/oil_reaches_louisia...