NOAA: Impact of spill to linger for decades

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

A top government scientist says the impact of the Gulf oil spill on wildlife is likely to linger for decades.

Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, made the comment Wednesday even as the Obama administration was citing a federal report that only about a quarter of the spilled oil remains in the Gulf of Mexico.

She said that oil has already had an impact on wildlife - and will continue to do so for "years and possibly decades to come."

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GULF_OIL_SPILL_WILDLIFE?SITE=TXKER&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[moksha]

1. Only a quarter is still 5x greater than the Valdez spill. This newspeak is

ridiculous.

[damntexdem]

2. Only a quarter of what oil? That on the surface?

What about the underwater plumes of oil?

[Psephos]

3. it looks like it's having trouble lingering until September

time will tell

[marions ghost]

7. You are so naive

At least a govt scientist is saying the truth.

[Psephos]

9. More data and less opinion beats more opinion and less data every time.

Use your own eyeballs for guidance instead of someone else's opinion from an ideological blog. The oil is going away fast. It's a light crude, with its major fraction volatile and subject to evaporation. It's well dispersed, which makes it easy for oil-eating microbes to chow down on it. The Gulf waters are very warm, which drives evaporation and emulsification at faster rates. The well is 50 miles out to sea, which means most of the oil ended up being microdispersed into ocean water instead of rising to the top. That's a good thing, because it increases the surface area of the suspended oil and makes it far easier for microbes to eat it.

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

The total fouled wetland in Louisiana is less than a thousand acres...about the size of a medium farm. The beaches that have been fouled are already cleaning themselves through sunlight, wave action, and microbial feasting. Animal death counts are way lower than forecast. Most fishing grounds and underwater breeding areas remain intact. Yes, there is serious work to do ahead. Yes, there were bad impacts on flora, fauna, ocean chemistry, and things we haven't thought of yet. There will be trouble ahead. But not at the levels we were scared about for several months. We need a sense of proportionality when judging the effects of a catastrophe. As bad as this spill was, it's now becoming apparent that it could have been worse, and for that, I am thankful.

If you want to study the likely outcome of this event, look up the Ixtapa well blowout in 1979. There is a good discussion at The Oil Drum. http://theoildrum.com/ That well spewed oil into the Gulf for four times longer than the Macondo. The major lasting effects were tarballs on Texas beaches, subtle changes in ocean microfauna off the Mexican coast, some changes in spawning patterns, and slicks that disappeared within weeks of the well being killed. No mass death. No lasting large-scale damage to the Gulf as a whole. Read about it...it's the best historical example we have to gauge future effects in this case.

The seafloor leaks millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf every year through natural seeps. There is an entire ecosystem that depends on those leaks. This spill was a major event, but not beyond the self-healing capacities of the Gulf. There will be scars, but the wound is healing and will continue to heal. It will not take decades.

Naivete comes from subscribing to others' pre-formed opinions and taking them as "truth," instead of figuring things out for oneself. The word "truth" is a fiction...it really means "schema." Facts are as numerous as stars, but as with the stars, it is the constellations we make of them that reveal order.

[marions ghost]

10. Do you work for Bioremediation Inc?

Instead of telling everybody that bacteria will take care of it (ie. "No Problem, Folks") why don't you tell them about THE DOWNSIDE, as expressed in this article? It's not nearly so simple as you pretend. (As for ideology, I'm sure you have a lot of that working for ya. Not gonna tangle with you on that straw man).

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/17/96092/bps-gulf-leak-boosts-interests.html

"...scientists caution that bioremediation is only a partial solution. It's best used on sandy beaches and in salt marshes after the thickest oil has been removed by bulldozer and shovel. It's never been tried before in deep water or open ocean.

And it runs some risk of damaging the very waters it's meant to rescue. Some scientists say it may be better at times to let nature take its course."

<SNIP>
"But there's a danger. Add too much fertilizer and you can create blooms of algae that use up all the oxygen in the surrounding water, creating "dead zones.'' There's already a 6,000-square-mile dead zone in the Gulf off the mouth of the Mississippi River, created years ago by the same fertilizers washing down from upriver farms. "It's pretty big and pretty scary,'' said Jim Spain, professor of environmental engineering at Georgia Tech.

As much as 20 million gallons of oil a year naturally seeps into the Gulf through tiny fissures in the seabed. Over time, microbes have evolved that eat the oil in the water — enough so that all the seeping oil doesn't create a sheen. The microbes are neither plant nor animal. They're bacteria, with names like Alcanivorax borkumensis.

But the huge BP spill has overwhelmed existing microbes. To grow enough in size and number to cope with the spill, they need nitrogen, phosphorous and iron.

"They're like Pac-Men — their mouths are only so big,'' said Reddy. "Their ability to eat oil is closely coupled to their number.''

Fueled by fertilizer, the microbes can multiply and eat the oil. That's the upside. The possible downsides are less well-understood." (continued at webpage)

Read more at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/17/96092/bps-gulf-leak-boosts-interests.html#ixzz0vg9qmVgm

[Psephos]

12. I made plenty of qualifying statements, and in no way said it's "No Problem, Folks"

In my experience when someone is hooked on a schema instead of a critical evaluation, they create a Manichean division of opinion into radically-for or radically-against. It's the oldest and simplest of a long list of fallacies.

I may come to different opinions than you, but I do it with both eyes open. I initially thought this blowout was going to be a catastrophe of the first order, but as events unfold, I now see that it is likely to be a catastrophe of the second or third order instead.

If additional evidence arises that causes me to change my opinion again, I will, because I don't need to protect a position. Knowledge evolves. Generally, it's those with religious impulses who state their conclusions first, and select their evidence afterward.

You are the one who came to me and called me naive. Seriously, how do you expect that to advance a discussion? I have a better idea. Lay off the loaded words (naive, no problem folks, work for Bioremediation, pretend, etc.) when your conversation partner has offered you no offense - unless your purpose is personal emotional satisfaction. But if your purpose is discussion, a bit of civility oils the machinery. Like me, you may find you benefit from consideration of other analyses, whether or not your opinion changes.

By the way, did you read about the 1979 blowout of Ixtoc 1? I prefer to talk about that as background first.

[marions ghost]

14. And your response to the article I posted????

Nada, because you don't really care about discussing the downside of microbial bio-remediation. So what's your vested interest then? I believe the scientists who are telling us that we will see many many, years of degradation of the Gulf as a direct result of this catastrophe. This is degradation that the Gulf can ill afford.

But don't believe me. When the evidence is in, ten years from now, just remember this day.

:hi: bye

[Psephos]

15. Glad to discuss that.

But after your response please...I did ask first. Pre-emption doesn't promote meaningful conversation.

[marions ghost]

30. Just

Remember...This...Day.

10 years from now, remember that some nameless poster on a message board told you what you will find out then. :hi:

[DCBob]

16. "bioremediation"??.. the microbes eating the oil are naturally occurring.

Bioremediation refers to the introduction or manipulation of microbes to help control/degrade oil, pollutants, contaminants, etc. I dont think this has happened.. this has been entirely natural effect so far.. afaik.

[marions ghost]

19. There aren't enough natural microbes to cope with this disaster

Because of the gigantic scale of the disaster, increasing the numbers of bacteria exponentially would have to be done, which is termed euphemistically, "bioremediation." It might be beneficial in close to shore, but may have a negative effect offshore, if you could even get it to work.

The effects of large scale promotion of bacteria are highly debatable--doing nothing could be better. What you risk is creating (more) huge dead zones, as the proliferation of bacteria makes water go anoxic (ie. no oxygen).

From the article:

"Scientists differ on whether fertilizing natural microbes can help degrade deep oil plumes as far as 3,300 feet beneath the surface of the Gulf. Georgia Tech's Spain said he fears fertilizing microbes at great depths might use up the tiny amounts of oxygen that exist there, creating even more oxygen-depleted dead zones."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/17/96092/bps-gulf-leak-boosts-interests.html#ixzz0vjo1xLpf

This idea is being put out as some sort of magic solution, by the oil industry and by people who want to do the "bioremediation."

Even to use the words "Gulf Cleanup" is seriously misleading by the media. It will be a long term recovery, if we can even succeed in that.

The Gulf is truly the toilet bowl of America now...

[DCBob]

22. There are plenty.. they multiple exponentially on their own when there is large food source..

like an oil spill. Biology 101.

[marions ghost]

23. Anoxia (define)

I'm glad you passed Biology 101. I'm getting input from senior marine scientists, thanx.

"Scientists differ on whether fertilizing natural microbes can help degrade deep oil plumes as far as 3,300 feet beneath the surface of the Gulf. Georgia Tech's Spain said he fears fertilizing microbes at great depths might use up the tiny amounts of oxygen that exist there, creating even more oxygen-depleted dead zones."

[DCBob]

24. Why do you keep bringing this up? Do you have any evidence they are "fertilizing" the microbes?

I have not heard any reports they were. Seems you are just making stuff up.

[marions ghost]

34. They would do that to take care of what is close to shore

so-called "bio-remediation." As far as what's going on beyond the shores, I think the following best sums up the situation of unknowns, where we are now. It is doubtful that microbes can handle the magnitude of oil, no matter whether "natural" or bio-remediated. Anoxia would likely result, which could do a lot of damage and then we don't even know the effects of the chemicals. And yet (LOL) everyone acts like they know a lot about what the microbes are doing--ie. eating all the oil, YAY!!!:eyes: WAY too simplistic. :eyes:

Check it out:

Scientist Samantha Joye's Gulf Blog:

http://gulfblog.uga.edu/2010/08/where-has-the-oil-gone/

Where has the oil gone?
By Samantha Joye | Published: August 1, 2010 3:26am

"The Deepwater Horizon wellhead that tapped the Macondo reservoir was capped on 15 July 2010. After the venting of oil and gas into the Gulf waters was stopped, everyone felt a sense of relief. Multiple news outlets have reported that the surface oil has disappeared, for the most part. I read many reports that stated conclusively the oil had been either transferred to the atmosphere (via evaporation) or that it had been consumed by oil-eating microorganisms. Everyone’s reaction was, not surprisingly, ‘what a relief !!’.

Should we be relieved? Is this disaster over?

On the whole, I believe the answer to both questions is no. It is a relief that the volume of surface oil is reduced, as this lowers the probability of oil-fouling of coastal beaches and marshes. However, it’s likely that a great deal of oil is still out there in the Gulf of Mexico’s waters, it’s just no longer visible to us.

While some of the oil has most certainly evaporated, much of it was dispersed and this oil is still floating around, invisible to our eyes, within the ocean’s water column. Some of the oil has probably sedimented to the seafloor, where it is also invisible to our eyes. The fact that this oil is “invisible” makes it no less of a danger to the Gulf’s fragile ecosystems. Quite the contrary, the danger is real and the danger is much more difficult to quantify, track and assess.

And, what about the dissolved gases, mainly methane? Very few measurements of methane concentrations have been made and very few people are thinking about methane’s potential impacts on Gulf deep waters. We, and a couple of others, have measured remarkably high methane concentrations in the water column. Its oxidation, and the microbial growth it fuels, will influence oxygen and nutrient budgets in the deepwater.

What about the dispersants? Where have they gone and what is their impact in the system? How are dispersants influencing the organisms that call the Gulf’s waters, beaches and marshes home? We do not know the answers to these questions but we need to know.

The impacts of the oil, gas and dispersant on the Gulf’s ecosystems will be felt for years, if not decades. We cannot pretend the danger has passed for it has not. Additional and on-going studies of open water, deep seafloor, and coastal dynamics are necessary. We must be diligent and we must insist that long-term monitoring programs be established and maintained so that we can evaluate and insure the recovery of the Gulf’s ecosystems.

Questions posed to the Gulfblog

1. Have microbes eaten most of the oil in the Gulf?

We don’t know. I have not seen any data reporting measurements of microbial oil degradation rates in the Gulf’s surface waters since the spill started and I’m not aware of anyone making such measurements. My group measured oxygen and methane consumption rates but not oil consumption rates per se. So, concluding that microbes have consumed all the oil would be impossible."

More at Blog

[DCBob]

35. So you just made up the "bio-remediation" stuff.. as I thought.

It's not mentioned once in the Dr Joye's blog. BTW, her blog is an excellent discussion of the issues... I dont dispute anything she says.

[marions ghost]

38. Bio-remediation stuff

seems to have been around since at least the 80's...using added nutrients to stimulate the microbes:

http://water.usgs.gov/wid/html/bioremed.html

LOL--So I didn't make it up and why would I make it up? :D

Dr. Joye referred to microbes in general, saying we just don't know the offshore effects. The OFFshore effects. And it looks like her group will take quite awhile to assess it, as y'know, they're scientists.

Use The Google, maybe? Lots of Bio-remediation stuff

Oil Spill Eater (looks more effective than "hair booms" at least....)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_QThCZuC-U&feature=related

[DCBob]

39. Why do you keep making things up? They are not using bioremediation techniques on this spill.

I am getting tired of this thread. ciao.

[marions ghost]

40. How about discussing anoxia then?

:hi:

[eowyn_of_rohan]

11. " seafloor leaks millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf every year through natural seeps "

Millions - Really!? Do you have a reliable source for that?

[Psephos]

13. It's true.

A 2003 National Academy of Sciences report estimated that the many natural seeps in the Gulf of Mexico together emit an average of about 2,762 barrels per day. The exact amount fluctuates over time.

2,762 * 45 * 365 = 45,365,850 gallons per year

Here's the paper: http://www.springerlink.com/content/bya6g7r7ceebanrl/


And here's a decent Scientific American article that more generally discusses the idea:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=unlike-bps-natural-oil-seeps


This goes on all over the world, and has for longer than human history. For example, last year, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution reported that natural oil seeps off Santa Barbara, Calif., have released 20-25 tons of oil each day for thousands of years. They also reported how microbes consume much of this oil.

Again, if you read my original post, I'm not saying the BP spill isn't a catastrophe - of COURSE it is. I said that it may not be as bad a catastrophe as originally feared. There are historical reasons to believe that natural processes will help a good deal with the clean-up. Unfortunately, it seems that some people (not you) just aren't happy unless they're unhappy.

[leveymg]

18. Not all from one source, you ninny.

The effects of a million little leaks is vastly different from a natural decomposition standpoint from millions of barrels from a single source. The effects of that will last for decades - DON'T DENY IT.

You're intellectually dishonest or repeating talking-points you don't understand, or both.

[Psephos]

27. Shepherd's Pie

Ingredients

* 4 large potatoes, peeled and cubed
* 1 tablespoon butter
* 1 tablespoon finely chopped onion
* 1/4 cup shredded Cheddar cheese
* salt and pepper to taste
* 5 carrots, chopped
* 1 tablespoon vegetable oil
* 1 onion, chopped
* 1 pound lean ground beef
* 2 tablespoons all-purpose flour
* 1 tablespoon ketchup
* 3/4 cup beef broth
* 1/4 cup shredded Cheddar cheese

Directions

1. Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil. Add potatoes and cook until tender but still firm, about 15 minutes. Drain and mash. Mix in butter, finely chopped onion and 1/4 cup shredded cheese. Season with salt and pepper to taste; set aside.
2. Bring a large pot of salted water to a boil. Add carrots and cook until tender but still firm, about 15 minutes. Drain, mash and set aside. Preheat oven to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C.)
3. Heat oil in a large frying pan. Add onion and cook until clear. Add ground beef and cook until well browned. Pour off excess fat, then stir in flour and cook 1 minute. Add ketchup and beef broth. Bring to a boil, reduce heat and simmer for 5 minutes.
4. Spread the ground beef in an even layer on the bottom of a 2 quart casserole dish. Next, spread a layer of mashed carrots. Top with the mashed potato mixture and sprinkle with remaining shredded cheese.
5. Bake in the preheated oven for 20 minutes, or until golden brown.


Chow down - you must be starving. ;-D

[leveymg]

31. Recipes haven't really caught on here. You must think you're at a different site.

In the meantime, after eating that, you must be badly in need of this:

FORMULA #5 INTESTINAL CATHARTIC - All-natural formula that helps condition the intestinal tract, remove toxic heavy metal debris from the intestinal tract, stimulate peristalsis, and normalize daily bowel movements.

INGREDIENTS: SENNA LEAVES AND PODS, CASCARA SAGRADA, CARBON (ACTIVATED CHARCOAL), BUCKTHORN, PSYLLIUM HUSK, BLACK WALNUT HULLS, RHUBARB, IRISH MOSS, ALOE VERA, MANDRAKE, POKE ROOT, SLIPPERY ELM BARK, CAYENNE PEPPER, BENTONITE CLAY, GUAR GUM, GOLDENSEAL AND IPECAC ROOT.

Here's the link: BEST NATURAL COLON CLEANSER - http://dherbs.com/store/10-day-supreme-colon-cleanser-p-345.html?zenid=8177c6934a44b25d68f55c8490cacf24

You may need to order in bulk. Inquire about discounts for real assholes.

[Psephos]

33. lol After you finish feeding, here's just the thing for people like you.

http://www.lasikathome.com/index.html

Helps you see things the way they are. Prolly fits your budget, too. Remember to aim carefully!

:-D

[CreekDog]

25. temporally and spatially different scales of action --don't try to trick me!

especially in the name of truth or science.

[Psephos]

26. Re-read what I actually wrote, don't infer things I didn't say, and take note of the full post.

There are natural mechanisms to deal with oil in ocean water, due to an ecosystem that has evolved to exploit natural seeps. Due to warm temperatures, light crude, and wave action, the oil is already well-dispersed. I.e., the droplets have a large surface-area to volume ratio, which enhances the ability of bacteria and fungi to eat oil.

This is not a bad thing. It does not mean the Macondo blowout hasn't and won't continue to have catastrophic effects. It does not mean that the need for cleanup is gone. It does mean we won't be seeing a gooey coastal nightmare on the scale of Valdez. Certainly there are other bad effects we don't know of yet, due to the amount of oil currently in the water column. But at least we know that, over time, the oil-eating-microorganism ecosystem will remove some or most of that dispersed oil. Gulf loop currents will also flush things out.

I posted well-sourced material. If you have well-sourced material from nonideological sources to add to the discussion, please do.

The Ixtoc 1 blowout in 1979 gives an idea of what to expect once the Macondo is killed. Go to theoildrum.com or other reputable, nonideological source, and read up on Ixtoc 1 if you don't know about it. From what I see, we can expect long-lasting effects on certain elements of ocean flora and fauna, but not a dead GOM or wrecked coastal economy.

http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250

[leveymg]

17. Evaporation isn't "cleansing" - NOAA: evaporated hydrocarbons in air over US cities

Approx. 30 percent of the oil has evaporated (of the aromatic hydrocarbons in crude oil, 15 percent is carcinogenic benzene by weight). Another 30 percent of the oil stayed on the bottom more or less permanently after the Exxon Valdez disaster. How is that a good thing for air-breathers, such as humans, and life at the ocean bottom, such as shellfish (and those who eat it, such as humans)?

Some people are trying to pretend this whole thing will just go away. They're only fooling themselves.

[marions ghost]

20. dontcha love it?

People just don't want to understand how nature works. Nature is not as forgiving as we think. And scientists who are willing to educate the public don't get much cred.

We get all this spin and BS because it's not what the vested interests want to hear. And there are many vested interests in the Gulf. :shrug:

[leveymg]

21. Most of this propaganda is BP trying to avoid the full $30 bil. fines under the OPA

If the company can brainwash the American public into believing the problem has "gone away", the company may get off with a vastly reduced penalty short of the full $30 billion in potential EPA fines ($3000/bbl times 10 mil bbls), which would effectively make BP a U.S. national oil company.

The semi-official estimate is $4.9 million barrels spilled with a $1100/bbl fine. (@$6 billion) But, that's based upon an estimated flow rate of 62,000 bbls/day and is without triple-damages assessed for reckless disregard. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gulf-spill-unleashed-49-million-barrels-of-oil-2010-08-03

[marions ghost]

29. Yes the propaganda machine is hard at work...

gotta COREXIT ya know.

Reckless disregard. Is that like "criminal"?

[leveymg]

32. Criminal is the word. And the real crime is these sh-ts think they'll get away with it

and will again, and again, and again.

[marions ghost]

37. We are in the position of fighting the same battles over and over

just to get the truth out. The country is being run by The Compromised, the Criminal, and the Scared. We all know who the honest and the brave are because they are so rare.

Chances for adequate retribution and true justice are slim everywhere. The justice system is at the bottom of many of the current failures of democracy in America.

All we can do is just keep telling the truth and hold the line against the lies and the spin.

[leveymg]

41. Keep up the good fight. As if we had a choice? eom

:fistbump:

[snot]

4. Isn't NOAA one of the gummint agencies 'cons wanted to abolish, claiming

its functions cd be/are being done better by private corps.?

[Uncle Joe]

5. Kicked and recommended.

Lubchenco cited as an example bluefin tuna, which she said spawn this time of year. She said that eggs and larvae exposed to oil "probably would have died" or been significantly affected.

Thanks for the thread, cal.

[AlbertCat]

6. Impact of spill to linger for decades

Yeah... like hundreds of thousands of them....

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

8. "Linger" -- such a delicate, gentle word

for such a disastrous attack upon our coastline in the name of Big Money.

:cry:

[dipsydoodle]

36. in the name of Big Money......

Feeding the USA's thirst for oil more like it.

[frontrange]

28. BP must pay

BP must be forced to pay to cover the costs of the clean-up and restoration no matter how long it takes.