

In 1979, a Gulf of Mexico oil spill went on for 10 months at about the BP rate. - gruseom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill

======
tmsh
Makes me think that increasingly the problems in this world aren't information
investigation problems, but information management/digest/presentation
problems.

Obama, for instance, said today that we'd never had an oil spill of this kind
in the gulf before (but that 'it just takes one...'). I'm not blaming him. Nor
am I necessarily blaming reporters for connecting this earlier.

But pretty much all of our modern problems can be solved much faster if the
information is managed and presented to people more efficiently. I know, in
that sense, I may be preachin' to the choir.

It just makes me think that a lot of these problems go away with better
management, presentation (and ultimately understanding) of historical data.

~~~
sheldonwt
You're assuming that Wikipedia is entirely correct, perhaps a risky assumption
to second guess the president on.

~~~
InclinedPlane
How about this US Bureau of Land management report from 1982 which cites the
size of the Ixtoc I spill as 3-5 million barrels (linked as a reference on the
wiki entry): <http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3930.pdf>

Or a NOAA incident report which provides duration and flow rate estimates for
the spill which translate to the same total spill size estimates as other
sources (3+ million barrels): <http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250>

Or Fortune magazine:
[http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1005/gallery.exp...](http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1005/gallery.expensive_oil_spills.fortune/4.html)

Or a 1981 case study by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, by way of
JSTOR: <http://www.jstor.org/pss/4312725>

Good enough for you?

------
hristov
Well, one cannot be sure whether it was really at about the BP rate, mostly
because BP is being really cagey about what the rate of their spill is.

BP is not letting independent scientists send instruments to measure the spill
rate, although they did let scientists look at a live feed from one of their
underwater cameras. Estimates vary, but some scientists are saying the spill
can be several times larger than that of the Ixtoc I.

~~~
gruseom
I agree, but found it hard to make the title precise and less than 80
characters.

BP's figure of 5000 (which I think they've finally dropped) hasn't even been
in the _range_ of any independent estimate I've seen.

------
moultano
Note that the range for the "barrels per day" number is entirely contained
within the range for the BP spill, so it isn't really reasonable to say that
they released at the same rate. This spill was 10 - 30 thousand. The BP spill
is 5 - 100 thousand.
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill>)

------
cobralibre
We should perhaps be careful to maintain a distinction between the size of the
oil spill and its severity. Knowing that the Ixtoc I spill possibly involved a
greater volume of oil doesn't necessarily tell us that the spill's effects
were more serious. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than me can comment on
the comparative repercussions of each spill.

(I can say from personal experience that everyone who grew up on the Texas
coast during the 80s has memories of cleaning tar from his or her feet after
every visit to the beach.)

~~~
Kadin
I think it's probably too soon to say with certainty. But Ixtoc I was in
relatively shallow water and was closer to shore. Deepwater Horizon was in
(duh) deep water and much further from shore.

Ixtoc probably released more oil that ended up on coastlines as such; my
understanding is that due to the depth, a lot of the products coming out of
the Deepwater Horizon hole are getting "cracked" by the water pressure so
there is less crude making it to the surface. Whether that is better or worse,
I can't say -- it seems like probably better, but it could be worse for
fishing and deepwater marine life, perhaps.

The thing that's most disturbing to me about Ixtoc I is how Pemex asserted
sovereign immunity to avoid paying anything but the most minimal cleanup
costs. BP may be a corrupt bunch of motherfuckers, but at least they don't
have that to hide behind.

------
metamemetics
That was at just 160 feet below the water whereas the current oil spill is
5000 feet below water which means it is much harder to cap the current oil
leak or accurately predict the spill rate for comparison.

~~~
_delirium
It appears it might be heavier oil also, which breaks down more slowly and
sticks to more things. But nobody has very accurate models of effects of oil
spills, so it's hard to say if it'll actually be worse.

------
Bud
Even BP is no longer claiming 5,000/day, which was apparently farcical from
the start. The analysis by the Purdue scientist (cited on Wiki) says
95,000/day, latest figure.

~~~
hga
That's much more farcical, given that a normal "good" productive well produces
20-30,000/day and the _really_ good ones 50,000/day. The oil from this well
has get past various obstacles and the latest serious estimate I've heard is
between 12,000 and 19,000/day.

------
noelchurchill
_On 3 June 1979, the well suffered a blowout and is recognized as the second
largest oil spill and the largest accidental spill in history._

So was the _largest_ spill on purpose if it wasn't accidental?

~~~
jsyedidia
Yes. Saddam Hussein unleashed the world's largest ever oil spill during the
first Persian Gulf War in 1991.

~~~
InclinedPlane
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill#Largest_oil_spills>

Note that that spill was about 3x larger than even the Ixtoc I spill. The
scale is nearly incomprehensible.

~~~
jacquesm
It would have been a lot worse if not for some very creative thinking.

~~~
allenp
Sounds interesting, got a link?

~~~
boredguy8
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill>

"American airstrikes on January 26 destroyed pipelines to prevent further
spillage into the Persian Gulf"

In response to the "Citation needed", a little Lexis searching returned a
March 22 article from the Washington Times that lists the airstrike as January
27: "Jan. 27: U.S. aircraft fire at oil facilities in Kuwait to end the
pumping of crude into the Persian Gulf."

------
euroclydon
_At the time of the accident Sedco 135F was drilling at a depth of about 3,600
metres (11,800 ft) below the seafloor._

Every time I hear the depths from which oil is extracted it makes me think the
Russians might be right in with their abiogenic theory of oil formation.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin>

~~~
wcoenen
The reason that deep drilling is done is not because there is an abiogenic
origin for that oil. There has never been evidence of oil wells replenishing
themselves in human time scales. Instead, oil production from any given well
always follows a relatively predictable depletion profile.

The real reason for deep drilling is that the alternative easier sources are
either already mostly gone or more expensive/slower to extract.

There is still plenty of "difficult" oil left. Unfortunately there are signs
that most of it is not economic to extract at prices which the global economy
can support. I think this is what caused the current recession and volatile
oil prices, and it is only going to get worse.

See also <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6517>

~~~
wcoenen
By the way, Obama mentioned this in his recent speech on the spill. Quote:

"After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the
world's oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. And
that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the
surface of the ocean: because we're running out of places to drill on land and
in shallow water."

(see
[http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewnewspaged/articleid...](http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewnewspaged/articleid/4218032/pageid/1)
for full transcript.)

------
jpdbaugh
I have it from a pretty quality source, i.e. my girl friends father who is
high up in a rival oil company that none of the things they are doing right
now have any real shot at working. They are just stall tactics until they get
relief wells setup with new rigs which take about 6 months to setup. So,
expect this to go on for a while!

------
jacquesm
Interesting how BP hasn't pointed at this yet in their press releases, if
anybody has this sort of information it should be them.

From the talk page:

[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011931961...](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011931961_ixtoc23.html)

~~~
mseebach
I think it's probably a clever PR strategy to lie down flat until the leak is
plugged and the damage is assessed, before trying to smooth public opinion. If
they're caught spinning this, they'll never recover.

------
symptic
So that's why the Gulf has been so brown my whole life...

------
sheldonwt
I don't understand why everyone is up voting this? Is the fact that something
similar happened before supposed to alleviate our concerns about the fact that
it's happening now? There have been world wars, but if one was happening now I
wouldn't up vote the wikipedia entry for WWII.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Because having historical context allows us to judge attempts to over or under
play the current situation. Considering how many people have been freaking out
about this "unprecedented" event, I think this is highly useful information.

~~~
acqq
but it's wrong to believe BP estimates when comparing:

"the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico may be 20 times the size
of BP's earlier claims of 5000 barrels per day (2.4 million gallons spilled as
of May 24, 2010), according to an exclusive analysis conducted for NPR.[37]"

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1268095...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525)
Gulf Spill May Far Exceed Official Estimates by Richard Harris

If that is true the speed of leakage this time was immense compared to other
events, so prompt action is justified.

