Gulf Oil Spill Disappearance: Microbes Eat Up the Oil

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oil
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the disappearance of oil following the Gulf oil spill, exploring the role of microbes in the natural degradation of oil. Participants examine various factors influencing the cleanup process, including the effectiveness of microbial activity, the impact of dispersants, and the potential long-term ecological consequences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that a significant portion of the oil has evaporated, with estimates indicating that up to 40 percent may have disappeared due to volatility.
  • Others propose that oil-eating microbes play a crucial role in the cleanup, with some research indicating that these microbes can consume a substantial amount of oil within a month or two.
  • One participant notes that the Gulf's microbial ecosystem has a high capacity for hydrocarbon consumption, with specific genera like Alcanivorax and Cyclosticus being highlighted for their roles in degrading different fractions of oil.
  • Concerns are raised about the use of dispersants, which may alter the oil's state and affect microbial degradation rates, with some arguing that this could lead to ecological risks due to potential bacterial blooms.
  • Participants discuss the possibility of buried oil secreting toxins for decades, referencing historical spills like the Exxon Valdez incident as a cautionary example.
  • There is mention of the Gulf's warmer waters potentially facilitating faster microbial growth compared to cooler regions, suggesting that local conditions may influence the degradation process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the effectiveness of microbial degradation and the implications of dispersant use. While there is a general acknowledgment of the role of microbes in cleaning up the spill, the discussion remains unresolved on the long-term ecological impacts and the accuracy of various estimates related to oil disappearance.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the full extent of oil degradation, including the dependence on specific microbial genera, the role of oxygen availability, and the potential for anaerobic bacteria to slow down the degradation process. The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the long-term consequences of buried oil on the ecosystem.

  • #31
nismaratwork said:
Well, time will tell right? It's not as though worrying can be beneficial right now, and there's nothing practical to be done either. Wait and see, maybe hope a bit, but beyond that... *shrug*.

It's not even worth arguing about at this point in my view.

A sensible stance. I'll agree with that. If it turns out that we've really botched the environment up this time, it would be important to know either way. Hopefully it doesn't become an excuse for oil companies to become more careless with their drilling practices.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
FlexGunship said:
Hopefully it doesn't become an excuse for oil companies to become more careless with their drilling practices.

That's definitely a valid concern! Given the economic impact to BP thus far, however, I think that's probably a much stronger incentive for oil companies to avoid mishaps than would be any change to the regulations.
 
  • #34
mugaliens said:
That's definitely a valid concern! Given the economic impact to BP thus far, however, I think that's probably a much stronger incentive for oil companies to avoid mishaps than would be any change to the regulations.

Indeed, and when you add public outrage and increased sensitivity (for a time at least), plus the fallout that's coming when the families of dead and injured oil-platform workers sue... it's not a net incentive. I think oil companies are lying, cheating, amoral scum, but even I doubt that any want to see a repeat of this or anything like it. To see such an event occur anytime soon would shake public confidence in much the way that rapid-fire airline crashes would. Just try to explain on the news about the true nature of random occurrences over the screaming of shock-jocks and frightened people.
 
  • #35
edward said:
There appears to be a lot of oil in a sludge/scum form on the bottom of the gulf.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/oil-bp-spill-found-bottom-gulf/story?id=11618039

Damn, just when I thought we had dodged the bullet.

Edit: On second thought that may be the best place for it.

Oh my goodness! Scientists trying to put the kabosh on the truth?

Gee, where in the world have I seen that happen before? (reference to another forum and a certain mod who abused his authority to push his non-truthful agenda).

Go Professor Joye!
 
  • #36
mugaliens said:
That's definitely a valid concern! Given the economic impact to BP thus far, however, I think that's probably a much stronger incentive for oil companies to avoid mishaps than would be any change to the regulations.

AGREE x 1000!

I don't know why people don't see this fact more easily. The first thing Exxon did with a lot of their rigs after the Deepwater Horizon was shut them down for an 18 hour inspection. No regulation needed.

If there is another catastrophic oil spill, it will not be due to a faulty blow-out preventer.
 
  • #38
Proton Soup said:
anaerobes FTW !

Now THAT is the kind of "ftw" you're not going to see outside of PF. :smile:
 
  • #39
nismaratwork said:
Now THAT is the kind of "ftw" you're not going to see outside of PF. :smile:

FTW.jpg
 
  • #40
FlexGunship said:
FTW.jpg

HA! Two laughs in a row. :smile: Oh my sides...
 
  • #42
nismaratwork said:
Well, assuming that this isn't more of CNN re-publishing months old news... this is very bad in my view.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/15/gulf.oily.layer/index.html?hpt=C1

Ive just read the article. Not sure why this is bad news. That seems like the best place for it until it gets eaten by bacteria. True, it would get eaten faster if it were mixed up, but it would also affect more species in the water column more directly.

Given that the ecosystem has developed to deal with natural ocean-floor leakage, I would say this is an optimal storage location until it's all gone.
 
  • #43
FlexGunship said:
Ive just read the article. Not sure why this is bad news. That seems like the best place for it until it gets eaten by bacteria. True, it would get eaten faster if it were mixed up, but it would also affect more species in the water column more directly.

Given that the ecosystem has developed to deal with natural ocean-floor leakage, I would say this is an optimal storage location until it's all gone.

the bottom substrate also makes a great home for those bacteria. they adhere to the sand particles and form a biological filter medium. home aquarists take advantage of this with deep sand layers in the tank and sometimes refugia.

there will certainly be dead zones like those mentioned where the oil accumulates, but as long as it doesn't cover the entire bottom, those zones should be able to re-seed fairly quickly once the oil is consumed. maybe sooner if it gets buried a bit beneath the surface.
 
  • #44
Um... this is also the feeding ground for crabs, and a great many other basic food-chain items, as well as a placed that many try to make their home. You can skim oil on the surface, but if this isn't prone to metabolism by microbes, we're screwed.
 
  • #45
crabs are resilient bastards, they'll come back
 
  • #46
Proton Soup said:
crabs are resilient bastards, they'll come back

If that's serious, it's funny, if it's a joke in reference to other kinds of crabs... it's funny. Either way, this works for me. :biggrin:
 
  • #47
nismaratwork said:
If that's serious, it's funny, if it's a joke in reference to other kinds of crabs... it's funny. Either way, this works for me. :biggrin:

my feelings towards crabs are similar to yours towards Nader. :rolleyes:
 
  • #48
Proton Soup said:
my feelings towards crabs are similar to yours towards Nader. :rolleyes:

:smile: OK, I get it, I get it.

On topic a bit, it's important to remember that if the crabs are eaten before they can... ahhh... excrete the relevant toxins they'll pass this up the food chain. I admit, crabs alone, and mudbugs in general don't activate my sympathy to a great extent, but it's one example from a guy who is no marine biologist as to how the bottom is not a "safe" place. I will admit, it beats suspended plumes, but I don't know that it's better than the skimmable surface.
 
  • #49
nismaratwork said:
:smile: OK, I get it, I get it.

On topic a bit, it's important to remember that if the crabs are eaten before they can... ahhh... excrete the relevant toxins they'll pass this up the food chain. I admit, crabs alone, and mudbugs in general don't activate my sympathy to a great extent, but it's one example from a guy who is no marine biologist as to how the bottom is not a "safe" place. I will admit, it beats suspended plumes, but I don't know that it's better than the skimmable surface.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/is-gulf-seafood-safe-to-eat-the-nose-knows/19577398

I smell all of my crab first. So, I should be good.
 

Similar threads

Gulf spill, bioengineered life, and oil-eating bacteria
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
9K