How Bad Is the Oil Spill?

As bad as it is, BP's Gulf oil spill dwindles compared with gushers of the past. David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The

oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico worsens literally by the minute, with the addition of an estimated 3.5 barrels of crude. That's more than 200,000 gallons of oil a day adding to a slick that now covers an area roughly the size of Delaware. And some experts estimate the spill could actually be as much as 10 times worse.  

That would make BP's Gulf spill already worse than the


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


infamous 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, which discharged roughly 11 million gallons of oil off Alaska. But it would take two more years of spillage to catch up to another deep-water catastrophe: a blowout in an exploratory well off the coast of Mexico in 1979.  

That spill took more than a year to stop, spewing an estimated

140 million gallons of oil into the Gulf. And that is dwarfed by the willful spill of oil by Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who dumped roughly one billion gallons of oil during the 1991 Gulf War, at least a quarter of it into the Arabian Gulf.  

Regardless, the aftereffects of an oil spill are likely to last for a long time. Twenty years after Exxon Valdez,

puddles of crude oil can still be found in Prince William Sound.

—David Biello

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe