Oil spill area coming back to life

[Evo]

This is great news! Mother nature has a remarkable ability to spring back. This is very happy news for the fishing and tourism industry in Louisiana.

BARATARIA BAY, Louisiana (AP) – Shoots of marsh grass and bushes of mangrove trees already are starting to grow back in the bay where just months ago photographers shot startling images of dying pelicans coated in oil from the massive Gulf oil spill.

More than a dozen scientists interviewed by The Associated Press say the marsh here and across the Louisiana coast is healing itself, giving them hope delicate wetlands might weather the worst offshore spill in US history better than they had feared.

<snip> Irving A. Mendelssohn, a coastal plant ecologist at Louisiana State University, said the wetlands data so far is good news for fishermen who depend on the ecosystem to produce shrimp, menhaden and other seafood.

“My gut feeling, based on what I have seen, based on the recovery people have observed, I doubt that the impact to the wetlands is going to create a significant problem for our coastal fisheries,” Mendelssohn said.

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/271969/oil-spill-area-coming-back-life

 

[waht]

Most of the oil has disappeared also.

Makes we wonder how much the media has exaggerated the whole disaster and that everyone went along with them.

 

[russ_watters]

Makes we wonder how much the media has exaggerated the whole disaster and that everyone went along with them.

Well, the government consistently underestimated the flow rate which allowed BP to downplay the spill rate, but at the same time the media hyped the "disaster" side. Maybe none of that is good, but it is tough to blame the mouse for going after the cheese: It's not his fault - he is what he is.

There's a great Simpson's bit where the TV station has a piece on the "Deadly" blizzard pounding Springfield. They have a death toll counter that is spinning like a slot machine display. The newscaster says, "the death toll now stands at...[click/klang]...zero...but it is poised to skyrocket at any time!"

That's just what the media is.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's not his fault - he is what he is.

Of course, that's no excuse.

 

[vela]

There's a great Simpson's bit where the TV station has a piece on the "Deadly" blizzard pounding Springfield. They have a death toll counter that is spinning like a slot machine display. The newscaster says, "the death toll now stands at...[click/klang]...zero...but it is poised to skyrocket at any time!"

That's just what the media is.

There's also this from Xkcd.

http://www.xkcd.com/748/

 

[Cyrus]

but, but...good god, think about the HIPPIES! We NEED this oil spill to be a disaster, so they can have a good irrational cry about it over some granola.

 

[edward]

but, but...good god, think about the HIPPIES! We NEED this oil spill to be a disaster, so they can have a good irrational cry about it over some granola.

You apparently didn't hear that there was no granola harvest this year. Everyone was busy harvesting spaghetti.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8638140580645535068#

 

[edward]

On the serious side I wonder how much of what was coming out of that pipe was methane??

Regardless something made the outcome of this spill much better that the Exxon Valdez spill. Warmer water?? More bacteria??

 

[Evo]

Regardless something made the outcome of this spill much better that the Exxon Valdez spill. Warmer water?? More bacteria??

Yes, scientists say that the warm water, bacteria, etc... make Gulf spills much less disastrous. The Ixtaca spill, which also disappeared, was a good example.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Another important difference between the Exxon Valdez spill the Horizon blowout is that in the Exxon Valdez spill, all of the oil was released onto the surface where it was much easier to wash ashore. In the Horizon blowout, the oil spill came from a wellhead about a mile beneath the ocean surface. While the article (from a Philippine news source?) gives anecdotal evidence of marshlands recovering from oil washed ashore during the spill, it does not discuss the well being of the marine life, especially those in deeper waters closer to the source of the spill where oil concentrations were likely to be higher and more dangerous. The health of the marine ecosystem is intrinsically harder to measure, especially for those smaller organisms that form the basis of the gulf food chain. While it is clear that some fears from the media about the oil disaster were overblown, evaluating the full environmental impact of the spill requires more than just considering the health of the plants onshore.

In addition to the factors discussed by others, the use of dispersants to break up the oil seems to have greatly helped minimize the effects of the oil, especially by speeding up the rate at which bacteria could digest the oil.

 

[Evo]

Ygggdrasil, It's an AP Associated Press news release.

 

[Cyrus]

On the serious side I wonder how much of what was coming out of that pipe was methane??

Regardless something made the outcome of this spill much better that the Exxon Valdez spill. Warmer water?? More bacteria??

I believe it was due in part to being raw oil, as opposed to refined crude in the Exxon case.

 

[Evo]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 (UPI) -- More than 5,000 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico has been reopened to commercial and recreational fishing, a U.S. agency said.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said it was opening 5,144 square miles in the gulf to fishing. NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard said they haven't observed any oil from the BP spill in the area since July 3.

"We are confident that gulf fish from this area is safe to eat and pleased that recreational and commercial fisherman can fish these waters again," said NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco in a statement.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Res...g-lanes-in-Gulf-of-Mexico/UPI-72371281532108/

 

[russ_watters]

52,000 square miles still closed, so that's a circle of 128 mile radius. Still a pretty significant piece of real estate.

 

[Evo]

52,000 square miles still closed, so that's a circle of 128 mile radius. Still a pretty significant piece of real estate.

It has to meet FDA standards, testing is still being done. Things are moving in the right direction, which is a relief.

 

[turbo]

Before the street-dance starts, we should perhaps consider that the Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia are holding a press briefing today regarding a recently completed study that concludes that 70-79% of the oil released from the blown-out well is still in the Gulf waters. The long-term impact of the remaining oil is not known.

http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/100816_Sea_Grant.shtml

 

[nismaratwork]

Before the street-dance starts, we should perhaps consider that the Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia are holding a press briefing today regarding a recently completed study that concludes that 70-79% of the oil released from the blown-out well is still in the Gulf waters. The long-term impact of the remaining oil is not known.

http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/100816_Sea_Grant.shtml

Some of which has been found in a rather deep canyon. If people here want to be first in the water and eating gulf shrimp, go for it, but I won't be that person. It takes time for toxins to move through the food chain from the bottom up (literally and figuratively in this case), but I believe that it will. Beyond that, the work of bacteria which require oxygen to "eat" the oil may take some time to show their impact.

It is too soon to cry doom, but it's about 5-10 years early to be happy or even optimistic. Remember, 2 million gallons of dispersant, and the depth+temp of the 'spill' is going to mean that a lot is not visible to anything outside of chemical testing over a huge area... cubed when you consider depth.

 

[turbo]

One troubling aspect of this is that blue crab larvae are heavily oiled and they are food for lots of small critters that are food for larger ones. There is speculation that the crab larvae may be able to release some oil from their bodies when they molt, but that has not been demonstrated, and as yet we don't have any idea what the dispersant might do to them. Last I knew, there wasn't even a proper test for Corexit in seafood. Hopefully, that is being resolved because fishermen can't hope to gain back the trust and business of their brokers and processors until they can be assured that the fishermen's catch is safe for consumption.

Locally (here in Maine) blue-fin tuna fishermen are concerned that we may lose at least one season's worth of that valuable game-fish, since blue-fins breed in the Gulf.

 

[nismaratwork]

Life... Ha. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/19/gulf.oil.plume/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[russ_watters]

New story, but 2 month old information.

 

[Evo]

New story, but 2 month old information.

Exactly, the oil has been disappering from the water since then, the news is outdated.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps nismaratwork saw the CNN headline and teaser and posted the article without reading it - the headline and teaser are very misleading, worded as if this was a new discovery.

Headline: "22 Mile Long Hydrocarbon Plume Detected in Gulf"
Teaser: "Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said they have detected a plume of hydrocarbons that is at least 22 miles long and more than 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, a residue of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill."

"have detected" is present tense.

I see this a lot with major media online at night - I think their editors only work during the day because generally, the poorly worded or overly provocative titles/teasers disappear after a few hours or the next morning.

 

[nismaratwork]

Perhaps nismaratwork saw the CNN headline and teaser and posted the article without reading it - the headline and teaser are very misleading, worded as if this was a new discovery.

Headline: "22 Mile Long Hydrocarbon Plume Detected in Gulf"
Teaser: "Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said they have detected a plume of hydrocarbons that is at least 22 miles long and more than 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, a residue of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill."

"have detected" is present tense.

I see this a lot with major media online at night - I think their editors only work during the day because generally, the poorly worded or overly provocative titles/teasers disappear after a few hours or the next morning.

I hate to admit it, but you're right. I skimmed the article, but I missed that. I apologize... really I should have known better given that it's a news organization. On the bright side, this is good news, that I'm wrong... just not for my pride.

 

[russ_watters]

I hate to admit it, but you're right. I skimmed the article, but I missed that. I apologize... really I should have known better given that it's a news organization. On the bright side, this is good news, that I'm wrong... just not for my pride.

I do it all the time - thanks for admitting it, it shows class.

Seriously, though, do reporters have to pass high school English class or is that an optional requirement?

 

[nismaratwork]

I do it all the time - thanks for admitting it, it shows class.

Seriously, though, do reporters have to pass high school English class or is that an optional requirement?

Apparently not, but then I'm really not in a position to critique them.

Thanks for the class comment, it wasn't easy eating that level of crow. Thanks to you and Evo for pointing out my error.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Exactly, the oil has been disappering from the water since then, the news is outdated.

So it is your conclusion that the report is meaningless? If so, please justify that assertion.

I didn't misinterpret the news report. It was all reported accurately in what I saw. This is older information BECAUSE it has been peer reviewed. I don't hear any of the scientists saying it is insignifcant. What they do say is that they don't know how significant this may be. So if anyone here does, I would like to know how.

 

[russ_watters]

Outdated is outdated, Ivan. It isn't meaningless, it is just outdated.

This thread is about what is happening now, not what was happening 2 months ago.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Seriously, though, do reporters have to pass high school English class or is that an optional requirement?

It's always their lack of knowledge -- even very basic knowledge -- about statistics that gets me.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Exactly, the oil has been disappering from the water since then, the news is outdated.

Perhaps you should read the actual paper in Science that the CNN article references (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/science.1195223.pdf[/URL]). In contrast to other reports, the authors of the [i]Science[/i] paper, which is the first peer-reviewed study of the oil spill to be published, do not see significant degradation of the oil around the plume they study. From the study:[quote]The lack of systematic oxygen drawdown within the plume suggests that the petroleum hydrocarbons did not fuel appreciable microbial respiration on the temporal scales of our study[/quote]

While this suggests that marine life may not be so likely to be threatened by hypoxic zones created by oil-degrading bacteria, it does suggests that the oil may stay in the gulf longer than anticipated. The paper also presents data on the composition of the oil stating that, while some of the lighter components of the oil have disapeared, many of the heavier, more toxic components of the oil (such as benzene and toluene) are enriched in the plumes.

Of course, this research has to be put in context with other observations of decreased oxygen levels in the gulf, indicating that the oil is being signficantly degraded by microorganisms in the gulf. For example, other teams using independent methods have reported significant decreases in dissolved oxygen levels (30-50%) indicating significant microbial activity. (see [url]http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100727/full/news.2010.378.html[/url])

In light of these conflicting data, it is clear that the story is more complicated than it seems. Clearly microorganisms are degrading the oil but the extent of which is unclear and it may be that different environments within the plumes support different amounts of microbial activity. Indeed, different researchers have different estimates of the amount of oil remaining in the gulf. Whereas the researchers with the US government have estimated that up to 75% of the oil has been degraded, other researchers at the University of Georgia say that as much as 80% of the oil remains in the gulf (see [PLAIN]http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i34/8834notw8.html[/URL]). Others offer similar criticism of the government figures, for example:[quote]Cowan isn't persuaded by this accounting. "There's not enough information in there to make anybody with any kind of quantitative or ecological background believe it," he says. Jeffrey Short, an environmental chemist based in Juneau, Alaska, believes that estimates of oil collection, skimming and burning should be reliable because they are directly measurable. But with relatively few data to call on, estimates of how much oil has dissolved, dispersed or evaporated could be off by factors of two to three, says Short, who works with the conservation-advocacy group Oceana and helped lead the damage assessment of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill before he retired from NOAA. [/quote] ([url]http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100811/full/466802a.html[/URL]).

Because of these conflicting studies and the relative lack of data, I still contend that it is much too early to be able to accurately evaluate the environmental impact of the spill on the gulf.

 

[OmCheeto]

We could do our own study, based simply on the numbers.

7.80E+05 = m^3 oil spilled into gulf(wiki)
2.50E+15 = m^3 of gulf of Mexico(wiki)
3,205,128,205 = by volume: parts water per parts oil
0.000312 = ppm oil to water
15 = legal limit in ppm in http://www.amsa.gov.au/marine_environment_protection/Educational_resources_and_information/Teachers/Classroom_Projects/Mathematics_and_Oil_Spills.asp"

A discharge of 15ppm cannot be seen on the water therefore if you can see an oil spill it is an illegal discharge.

48,077 = magnitude below the Australian legal limit.(couldn't find ours. 15 ppm might be an international limit.)

Although this assumes the oil is dispersed evenly thought the gulf. Spreading it out on the surface yields:

1600000 = km^2 gulf area(wiki)
1000000 = m^2 per km^2
1.6E+12 = M^2 gulf
0.0000004875 = thickness of oil spread evenly over gulf in meters
which comes out to be
0.4875 micrometers

From the http://www.amsa.gov.au/marine_environment_protection/Educational_resources_and_information/Teachers/Classroom_Projects/TABLE.GIF" from the above web site, an oil slick of that thickness will not be visible.

And then we have:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-08-20/business/os-ocean-research-oil-spill-restorati20100819_1_slicks-bp-spill-bp-rig"
Florida marine scientists take lead in researching oil-spill disaster's effects in Gulf
August 20, 2010|By William E. Gibson, Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — A Florida research vessel last week discovered polluted plankton on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, an indication that toxic oil from the BP spill may be setting off a chain reaction of ecological damage.

This and other findings have prompted marine scientists to warn that determining the long-term damage to the Gulf and its marine life — and how to repair it — will require as much as 10 years of study at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

$200,000,000 = dollars Florida scientists hope to spend on studying oil spill(least number of hundreds of millions)
$256.41 = dollars spent per cubic meter
264 = gallons per cubic meter
$0.97 = dollars spent per gallon

Hmmm... Seems a bit high. But at least it'll keep our scientists out of the soup line.