a) they didn't have supertankers like we do now
b) The ships were likely sunk and burning so much would have been consumed

Interestingly enough, NOAA has recently compared the amount of oil spilled so far with the amount of oil washed into coastal areas from hurricanes Katrina and Rita....

So far, this oil spill has not put as much oil into the gulf as they did.

Yeah, keep in mind, Rynar, that the Katrina area is a huge etoleum processing region. So we're not just talking a couple tanker trucks caught outside by a storm. The source of the Katrina and Rita oil would be all the storage facilities and processing centers associated with the industry. Remember how gas prices spiked after Katrina? It's because all that **** took a beating and had to be rebuilt.

or even have some small benefits for them.

Yeah, keep in mind, Rynar, that the Katrina area is a huge etoleum processing region. So we're not just talking a couple tanker trucks caught outside by a storm. The source of the Katrina and Rita oil would be all the storage facilities and processing centers associated with the industry. Remember how gas prices spiked after Katrina? It's because all that **** took a beating and had to be rebuilt.

Oh, come on....

For those of you comparing the current problem to Katrina and Rita, I ask, even assuming you are correct, so what?

You can't go to Haiti, knock some buildings down, and say hey, it wasn't as bad as the earthquake. Man-made disasters are not comparable to natural disasters for two main reasons: responsibility and prevention.

The impacts of the storms are a worthy discussion in their own right, but this is separate from the discussion of the current situation, and should not be used to dampen criticism of the current spill.

Why is that so far fetched?

What is coming out of the well so far is primarily light chain hydrocarbons.

There have been multiple studies that show that light chain hydrocarbons are degraded fast enough in many environments that they provide a nutrient boost to the ecosystem.

Oil in and of itself is not usually all that toxic- it's either additives/impurities in oil or the secondary effects of the oil that are usually toxic.

First of all, carbon is not the limiting nutrient in any salt water marsh I’ve ever studied. So even if the marsh does get a boost of carbon, that will be excess carbon, and will not be productive. So, no “boost of nutrients” to the ecosystem. Secondly, the LAST thing the Mississippi delta needs is a burst of nutrients. The Mississippi River brings down much, much more than the system can handle. Eutrophication is a serious problem here – which I am sure you are aware since you mentioned the dead zone. Lastly, oil decomposes, and is broken down into the nutrients you mention and waste. This process requires oxygen, and therefore creates anaerobic, or hypoxic conditions. That dead zone you mentioned? It just got bigger.

You are confusing the coastal marshes with the shallow ocean environments directly off of them. The dead zone is certainly do to eutrophication, but it comes at the cost losing the nutrient rich sediment carried by the Mississippi into the gulf where they can cause algal blooms instead of into the marshes, where they are needed to keep the local ecosystems running.

This has been the biggest argument behind selective breaks in the Mississippi river levee north of New Orleans, as a means of replenishing both sediment and nutrients into the coastal marshes.