NOAA director: "The light crude oil is biodegrading quickly"

[DCBob]

from Wash Post..

Oil from the BP blowout is degrading rapidly in the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico and becoming increasingly difficult to find on the water surface, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday. "The light crude oil is biodegrading quickly," NOAA director Jane Lubchenco said during the response team daily briefing. "Significant oil has been dispersed and broken down by bacteria."

Lubchenco said, however, that both the near- and long-term environmental effects of the release of several million barrels of oil remain serious and to some extent unpredictable. "The sheer volume of oil that's out there has to mean there are some pretty significant impacts," she said. "What we have yet to determine is the full impact the oil will have not just on the shoreline, not just on wildlife, but beneath the surface."

But much of the oil appears to have been broken down into tiny, microscopic particles that are being consumed by bacteria. Little or none of the oil is on seafloor, she said, but is instead floating in the gulf waters.

Her conclusions come from the work of several NOAA boats now collecting water samples, as well as the analysis of academics brought in to help study the spill effects. The goal, she said, is to get a scientifically sound assessment of the overall environmental effects of the spill. "We're close to being able to put together a comprehensive picture of what is still out there -- how much has been removed by skimmers and burned off and how much remains," she said. "We're getting close to an answer."

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072705263.html?hpid=topnews

Althought the crisis is not yet over, I think President Obama handled this situation well. He did not over-react and now it looks like this major crisis is now mostly under control. We should still be concerned about the oil "floating" underwater although its likely that oil will also be degraded by organisms over time.

[Xipe Totec]

1. The question is not where is the oil. The question is where is the oxygen

the oxygen used by the bacteria to break down the oil is not available for fish and other marine life to live.

We have a fucking dead zone now, oil or no oil.

[DCBob]

2. Do you have any further information on your "dead zone" claim?

I have not heard anything about that. Do you have a link? Thanks.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Think it through carefully

If bacteria are consuming the oil, they need an oxidant.

That means oxygen. You might as well burn the oil for all the difference it makes.

The amount of oxygen in water is minuscule compared to the atmosphere.

Even an algae bloom caused by too much phosphorous in the water is enough to deplete oxygen and create a dead zone.

http://toxics.usgs.gov/hypoxia/hypoxic_zone.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/30/biologists-find-oil-spill-deadzones

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html

[sandnsea]

5. Not necessarily

It appears to be a little more complicated than that.

http://www.oiltracers.com/services/exploration-geochemistry/oil-biodegradation.aspx

In addition, we've been having peculiar dead zones north of us and while it's always disturbing, it hasn't proven to be the end of the world or even any given fish or crustacean in the area.

[Xipe Totec]

7. I'll wait for a source other than the oil industry, thank you

Underwater degradation of oil does not require oxygen?

Yea, right.

[BootinUp]

21. Not that simple,

complex hydrocarbons do not necessarily need oxygen for a part of them to break down. Once it gets down to mostly just carbon, thats a different matter. There are tests for carbon content that are performed in inert atmospheres, they essentially breakdown hydrocarbons till nothing but carbon is left. Now this is at high temperatures. I assume that in the environment the process is greatly slower, or never completed. Oxygen would be required to "burn" the carbon part.

[sandnsea]

25. anaerobic biodegration

Take your pick because I have no way of knowing what source will be acceptable to you.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2ADFA_enUS354&q=oil+biodegrade+anaerobically&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[CreekDog]

28. but beyond the usual oxygen depletion you've added something big to consume more of it

how long can you hold your breath?

[DCBob]

6. Your most recent link was from almost a month ago.. anything more recent?

If there are still "dead zones" they would not be hard to find.

[Xipe Totec]

8. Are you challenging the basic chemistry of biodegradation of oil?

Or do you think that oxygen is magically replenished in a month?

[DCBob]

10. If true then there should be easily detectable dead zones..

Where are the reports?

[Xipe Totec]

11. Read the links, not just the dates n/t

[DCBob]

12. All indications from recent observations by NOAA scientists are that the oil is being dissipated..

Do you have recent observations that refute that? Seems you dont.

[Xipe Totec]

13. Wallow in your deliberate ignorance then

According to researchers who have been studying hypoxia for decades, oil could exacerbate this year’s dead zone. For example, oil on the surface of the water could restrict the normal process of atmospheric oxygen mixing into and replenishing the water column concentrations. In addition, microbes in the water that break down oil and dispersant also consume oxygen; this could lead to further oxygen depletion. It is also possible that the microscopic animal grazers of algae, or zooplankton, could be affected, thus allowing more of the hypoxia-fueling algae to grow.

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/deepwater_horizon/2075_dead_zone.pdf

[DCBob]

17. ignorance?? just asking for some actual scientific observations..

never mind. I am wasting my time with you. good night.

[CreekDog]

30. you are playing a game

it's clear to everyone watching.

your logic:

oil being dispersed, no data at your fingertips showing low dissolved oxygen ergo, cherrypicking studies to show oil not consuming oxygen as it is broken down, ergo...no problems here.

bye bye.

lalalalala you can't hear us.

[DCBob]

41. You are the one playng games. I quoted NOAA scientists.. some you dont like it.

bye bye. play games with someone else.

[CreekDog]

29. only to the extent that dissolved oxygen is being monitored

i am getting tired of this kind of game.

[CreekDog]

34. goalposts moving

just got farther away!

darn! :D

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[izquierdista]

4. Basic chemistry

Look in my journal here if you want more details, I have been posting about it all along. There is only one way to get rid of the hydrocarbon in all this spill, and that is to oxidize it to CO2. Whether that is by burning or by biological metabolism, it still requires the same amount of oxygen.

Prof. Samantha Joy at Univ. of Georgia has been out doing measurements of the oxygen levels: http://www.marsci.uga.edu/directory/mjoye.htm

It would be nice if there was a flotilla of boats with air pumps oxygenating the water of the Gulf, but apparently there's no call for that (other than by myself). Waiting for natural oxygenation of the water that occurs by wave action is going to mean that the dead zone is going to last a long time.

[DCBob]

9. Where exactly is this "dead zone" now?

Just making claims in a blog means nothing. A recent scientic research report would be helpful.

[izquierdista]

19. I gave you a link.....

But if you need more, here's a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oen7JlxkJI

Ya know, these things called "search engines" are amazing, you can come up with all sorts of research reports in just milliseconds

[DCBob]

20. That link was to some contact page at a university.. maybe you sent the wrong link..

I was hoping to see a recent scientific report indicating they have detected a dead zone. I guess you dont have one. Never mind. I think they arent any.

[izquierdista]

22. You left out an 'm'

in the last word.

[DCBob]

24. ftxed.

[CreekDog]

32. you expect a study to be published immediately after data is collected?

again...a good indication of your lacking credibility.

[DCBob]

43. This must be the most analyzed and monitored body of water on earth..

If there were serious problems relating to "dead zones".. you would think someone would be reporting on it. right?

[CreekDog]

31. you are playing a game again...refusing to even discuss oxygen consumption by oil breakdown

everybody watching needs to understand what game is being played for them but not for their benefit.

everybody reading, please understand who is willing to discuss all the issues with you and who will only argue over points in an effort to mislead you.

please understand.

[DCBob]

45. So you thnk its all a big conspiracy? NOAA, the media, me.. we are all in on it..

you need therapy.

[CreekDog]

57. no, i don't know why you did that, but it was misleading

:shrug:

[dionysus]

63. (s)he's right.

[Imajika]

14. So, not the Gulf killing disaster so many people predicted...

Even right here on DU so many people claiming the Gulf was going to die, and here it turns out the Gulf is taking this all in stride.

People really need to stop buying into the media hype.

And yes, the President handled this situation extremely well. The media and the doom and gloomers on the other hand should be embarrassed.

[Xipe Totec]

15. Sounds like you are buying this media hype

wishful thinking.

[DCBob]

23. So are the NOAA scientists also in on this "hype"..

is it always a conspiracy with some of you people?

[DCBob]

18. Yes, it does appear not to be the catastrophic disaster many were predicting..

Thank goodness.

[CreekDog]

33. nobody should stand for being lectured by somebody who denies gulf hypoxia problems

and for being lectured by somebody who denies any causal link between exacerbation of hypoxia by oil consumption.

nobody.

quit trying to convince us by omitting half of the story.

[DCBob]

40. I never denied that.. some poster said this spill caused dead zones.. just asking for verification.

looks to me there is none.

[CreekDog]

49. hasty conclusion

one made without data i might add.

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

36. since you like to quote NOAA so much

"(NOAA director) Lubchenco rejected the sanguine conclusions of a BP restoration consultant. "Anyone who classifies the results of the accident as anything less than catastrophic has not been watching," she said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072705263.html?hpid=topnews

[DCBob]

42. Clearly it has been a disaster.. any idiot knows that.. but it appears to now be under control..

and improving by the day.

[CreekDog]

35. FAIL

"(NOAA director) Lubchenco rejected the sanguine conclusions of a BP restoration consultant. "Anyone who classifies the results of the accident as anything less than catastrophic has not been watching," she said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/27/AR2010072705263.html?hpid=topnews

[MikeW]

16. the Gulf has always had a hypoxia problem

its been extensively researched and monitored

http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/hypoxia

[sandnsea]

26. Great link

Lots of excellent info there.

[CreekDog]

37. DCbob suddenly went silent

after you posted that link.

better luck next time. :hi:

[DCBob]

38. Its called going to sleep..

some of us do that from time to time.

[DCBob]

39. That map does not even correlate to the where the spill is..

The worst areas are over near the Texas coast.

[TheKentuckian]

46. I don't mean this in a nasty way at all

but how the hell do you get to the point at this early stage that everything is under control and will be ok?

We aren't going to have any real idea for years how much damage is being done to the habitat and wildlife.

I think we are already trying to let BP off the hook and shove this under the rug.

[DCBob]

47. Everything is NOT totally under control.. but the situation does appears to be improving greatly.

By no means am I minimizing BP's liability in all this. They should be nailed with the cleanup bill and fined the max. My main point is things are not as dire as they appeared to be just a few weeks ago and that the President probably did the right thing in not over-reacting.

[TheKentuckian]

48. How would you define overreacting?

[DCBob]

50. Nuking it would have been one massive over-reaction..

I suspect a President McCain would have done just that and the Gulf would probably be radioactive for the next 10,000 years. Also, removing BP from day to day control of the operation as many were suggesting and bringing in an alternate personnel. That might have worked but it also might have caused more problems and delays. Bottom line it looks like the President handled this correctly.

[TheKentuckian]

53. Ok, I agree on nuking but that was very fringe

As far as removing BP, I'll stand by that and still want them out and those with less interest in covering their asses and avoiding liability and criminal culpability that put our people, wildlife, and habitat in charge of the project acting in concert with global industry experts.

I still see no case for BP running this show and putting their interest first but I appreciate your responding.

[yellowcanine]

51. Seems to me you are blaming the messenger here. The OP posted comments of the NOAA director.

And even the NOAA director wasn't saying that "everything is under control and will be ok." Bit of an overreaction, don't you think? Reading the actual posted material before commenting might be a better way to go to promote reasonable discussion. NOAA apparently has good science to say that some of the oil is being broken down. That is some good news but reporting that doesn't mean they are saying that there won't still be a huge negative environmental impact. Saying there is SOME good news does not negate the bad news. Keep things in perspective.

[CreekDog]

52. read all the posts of the "messenger"

He continually argues that the spill has not caused severe problems and disputes any argument that says the breakdown of oil could increase the dead zones in the gulf.

He was roundly criticised and was deserving.

[DCBob]

54. Yes I hope yellowcanine does read all the posts of the "messenger"..

he or she will see that I never said anything like what you are claiming. If you need to lie to make a point then you are wasting everyone's time here. Get lost.

[DCBob]

56. chew on this creekdog...

Where is all the oil? Nearly two weeks after BP finally capped the biggest oil spill in U.S. history, the oil slicks that once spread across thousands of miles of the Gulf of Mexico have largely disappeared. Nor has much oil washed up on the sandy beaches and marshes along the Louisiana coast. And the small cleanup army in the Gulf has only managed to skim up a tiny fraction of the millions of gallons of oil spilled in the 100 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig went up in flames.

So where did the oil go? "Some of the oil evaporates," explains Edward Bouwer, professor of environmental engineering at Johns Hopkins University. That’s especially true for the more toxic components of oil, which tend to be very volatile, he says. Jeffrey W. Short, a scientist with the environmental group Oceana, told the New York Times that as much as 40 percent of the oil might have evaporated when it reached the surface. High winds from two recent storms may have speeded the evaporation process.

Perhaps the most important cause of the oil’s disappearance, some researchers suspect, is that the oil has been devoured by microbes. The lesson from past spills is that the lion’s share of the cleanup work is done by nature in the form of oil-eating bacteria and fungi. The microbes break down the hydrocarbons in oil to use as fuel to grow and reproduce. A bit of oil in the water is like a feeding frenzy, causing microbial populations to grow exponentially.

Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth. Such microbes have been found in every ocean of the world sampled, from the Arctic to Antarctica. But there are reasons to think that the process may occur more quickly in the Gulf than in other oceans.

Microbes grow faster in the warmer water of the Gulf than they do in, say, the cool waters off Alaska, where the Exxon Valdez spill occurred. Moreover, the Gulf is hardly pristine. Even before humans started drilling for oil in the Gulf — and spilling lots of it — oil naturally seeped into the water. As a result, the Gulf evolved a rich collection of petroleum-loving microbes, ready to pounce on any new spill. The microbes are clever and tough, observes Samantha Joye, microbial geochemist at the University of Georgia. Joye has shown that oxygen levels in parts of the Gulf contaminated with oil have dropped. Since microbes need oxygen to eat the petroleum, that’s evidence that the microbes are hard at work.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_sc3270

[CreekDog]

59. i wasn't disagreeing with you on this part

i just got frustrated that you wanted to take it further, that you minimized the devastation and that when you were called out for doing so, that you started denying widely supported and accepted issues surrounding the gulf and this spill's likely impact on it.

[yellowcanine]

60. I have no dog in the fight. I called it as I saw it. It seems to me that we can

either follow the science and learn something or stick to all of our preconceived notions and biases. The fact is that there does appear to be a greater ability in the Gulf to recover from oil spills, probably because of the warm water and its effect on microbial activity. This knowledge may actually argue against increased exploitation in the Arctic, by the way, in spite of Sarah Palin et al., because the colder environment has less capability of recovery from a spill than the warm Gulf. Of course a greater ability to recover does NOT mean that great damage hasn't been done. It obviously has, but we should still acknowledge a little good news when it occurs. There is no need to accuse the messengers of that little bit of good news with being shills for BP, etc. When we do that we fall into the same antiscientific partisan tunnel vision thinking that the global warming skeptics indulge in.

[TheKentuckian]

55. Thanks for your input, I did read the thread Bob was asked because he posted and added his opinion

[Radical Activist]

58. Cross my fingers I guess

that the ocean will recover faster than expected.

As a side note, the mountains of Appalachia will NEVER recover from mountaintop removal coal mining. There are worse environmental disasters out there.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Yeah, right it is all perfect now

The idea of downgrading the impact of this horrible and avoidable destruction does not appeal me. The political point is not worth scoring. Smacks of pettiness.

[DCBob]

62. Who said its "perfect"?? and who is downgrading the impact??

These are scientific observations. You have a problem with that?

[Bluenorthwest]

65. Hyperbole is what you guys do, and when in Rome...

I'm sure that you are able to discern the difference between the science quoted and the editorial words at the end. The gusher is halted, but the crisis is human and it is far from under control, in my opinion. Those words I took issue with were yours, not the science, but you knew that.
I have friends down there. They are in crisis. So there you have my editorial, the crisis is not under control. Capping the gusher does not end the crisis it caused, although it does allow us to begin.
Words are important, and we should not forget this like we did Katrina. That crisis is still not really over either. The crisis came after the storm.
Some things are larger than silly petty political points making. In my opinion. You are free to yours as well. Of course.
But saying the crisis is over is hyperbole, and it was met in kind.

[DCBob]

66. The gusher is capped, the Gulf isnt dead, beaches arent ruined, there arent millions of dead animals...

Of course there are still major issues and risks ahead but seems to me the worst scenarios of this crisis have been averted.

[Imajika]

67. The doom and gloomers don't want to hear that...

They just don't. The oil spill is going to destroy the world! We're dooooooooooooooooomed. You get the same thing with the economy. Is the economy bad? Yes. Is it another great depression? Certainly not. But just read any thread about the economy and you'll see people determined to downplay all signs of economic stabilization and growth, and make all sorts of dumb statements claiming we are in another depression. We are NOT in a depression. Technically, we are not even in a recession anymore. I'd expect such nonsense from the opposition party as they are trying to paint things as being worse than they are to help their election chances. We do it to them, they do it to us. Such is politics. But you'd think people who are all on the same team would not echo Republican scare tactics.

So many people right here were just casually talking about the Gulf as if it had been destroyed and would be some dead body of water. All that talk was silly. Try to point that out to people, and your suddenly a champion of BP or something.

The oil spill was disruptive and bad. Period. It was never, ever, going to kill the Gulf of Mexico. It was never going to ruin every beach up and down the Gulf.

The doom and gloomers ought to be embarrassed by their completely incorrect statements and predictions. And the media, the media is actually responsible for probably billions of dollars of lost tourism revenue.

The President handled this situation extremely well. The media, Republicans and doom and gloomers - not so much.

[dionysus]

64. except that no one even remotely implied that...