2. 考研
  3. On September 19th, nearly five months after the spill started, BP finally sealed the Macondo well. An adjoining relief well had

On September 19th, nearly five months after the spill started, BP finally sealed the Macondo well. An adjoining relief well had

admin2019-08-01  28
问题     On September 19th, nearly five months after the spill started, BP finally sealed the Macondo well. An adjoining relief well had already been completed, and Macondo got a final wallop of cement. This is the coup de grace. A temporary containment cap was placed over the wellhead in July, and a cement filling was installed in August.
    Now more efforts will turn to assessing and compensating for the damage, which involves several things happening at once. The Natural Resource Damage Assessment process, overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA), quantifies the damage and what it might cost to fix it. It figures out BP’s bill, in other words. Alongside this, an army of federal and state agencies, government researchers, academic scientists and independent advocates works on pieces of the picture: whether sampled fish show traces of oil in their gall bladders, whether whales are avoiding their usual mating grounds, whether water samples contain more hydrocarbons than would occur from natural seepage. BP has also pledged to spend $50m a year for the next ten years on its own independent research effort, as well as supplying scientists for what the NOAA is doing.
    Estimating the size of the spill was essential first step. On August 2nd the National Incident Command estimated that the spill amounted to a total of 4.9m barrels of oil. NOAA added an account of where it all went: a quarter dissolved or evaporated by natural means; 17% was siphoned up from the wellhead; 8% was burned off; 16% was dispersed naturally; 8% was dispersed through the prodigious application of chemicals. The remaining 26%, according to NOAA is spread around: some shimmering on the surface as sheen, some buried in layers of sediment on the sea floor.
    Non-government scientists worry that the spillage estimate is too small. And the dispersed oil has not exactly gone: it simply has a better chance of biodegrading, and less chance of coming ashore. This process is already well under way: the gulf is full of bacteria that happily chomp oil, if they get it in tiny specks. Earlier this month the Joint Analysis Group, another government outfit, reported that the levels of oxygen in the sea were about 20% below normal, though not low enough to endanger marine life. That suggests that the bacteria are indeed at work. Presented with a sudden food source, they are gobbling away, using lots of oxygen to digest it.
    James Cowan, a Louisiana State oceanographer, is more critical of the use of chemical dispersants. The lighter bits of the dispersed oil may be eaten by bacteria, or will rise the sea surface, to weather or evaporate. But he reckons that the heavy parts have simply sunk to the bottom. From there, they could still work their way into the food chain.
    It is quite likely, though, that the damage will be a lot less than was feared as the oil was gushing.
    No hurricanes came to push the slick inland, and most the oil has been successfully kept offshore. So far there has been no discernible effect on fish stocks and almost all the fisheries have now reopened. But it is still early days. Any trouble that may lurk deep in the sea will remain obscure for some time yet.
The work of the National Resource Damage Assessment will help______.
选项 A、reduce the damage caused by the oil spill
B、supervise NOAA’s job of assessing the damage
C、measure the loss of the involved party
D、instruct the work of academic scientists and advocates
答案C
解析 属事实细节题。通过题目中首字母大写的名称可定位至第二段第二句。选项A犯了偷梁换柱的错误，文中只表明该组织将对此次漏油事件的损失进行量化，而非减小损失，故错误。选项B犯了颠倒文意的错误，文中表明NRDA受NOAA监督，负责对损失进行评估，而非NRDA监督NOAA，故错误。第二段第三句表示，该组织的工作相当于为BP公司整理账单，换句话说就是评估他们在此次事件中的损失，故选项C正确。选项D犯了移花接木的错误，学术科学家和个人出现在后文中，与该组织的工作毫不相干，故错误。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/hX87FFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)