Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (572699)	6/20/2010 1:58:55 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579791

Its the second worst spill in the world and could be the largest when all is said and done. It far exceeds the Valdez spill which occurred in a very different environment. On what basis is it the "second worst"? And isn't the correct metric the amount of actual damage done? And how much damage has been done thus far? I'm not trying to minimize it, just asking that you keep it in perspective. A small amount of oil in Prince William Sound may be far more damaging than a lot of [a different kind of] oil in the Gulf. You can't just conclude that because it is more oil than Valdez it is more damage. To date, actual damage hasn't been that great. If the well is in fact reduced to, e.g., 5k bbl/day as Obama has said it would be during the next week, the damage may end up being minimal. Also, the technology is better today than in 89 or 79, and it is likely the cleanup will be far more effective by the time the Obama administration gets its shit together. This could yet become a terrible, disaster. But as of right now, it is overblown IMO. Even as big as the spill is, it isn't much when you dump it in a large body of water like the Gulf.