Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Oil spill area coming back to life

  1. Aug 13, 2010 #1

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.

    http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/271969/oil-spill-area-coming-back-life [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 13, 2010 #2
    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.
     
  4. Aug 13, 2010 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  5. Aug 13, 2010 #4

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Of course, that's no excuse.
     
  6. Aug 13, 2010 #5

    vela

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Education Advisor

    There's also this from Xkcd.

    http://www.xkcd.com/748/
     
  7. Aug 13, 2010 #6
    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.
     
  8. Aug 13, 2010 #7

    edward

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8638140580645535068# [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. Aug 13, 2010 #8

    edward

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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??
     
  10. Aug 13, 2010 #9

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  11. Aug 13, 2010 #10

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2017 Award

    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.
     
  12. Aug 13, 2010 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ygggdrasil, It's an AP Associated Press news release.
     
  13. Aug 13, 2010 #12
    I believe it was due in part to being raw oil, as opposed to refined crude in the Exxon case.
     
  14. Aug 13, 2010 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Res...g-lanes-in-Gulf-of-Mexico/UPI-72371281532108/
     
  15. Aug 13, 2010 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    52,000 square miles still closed, so that's a circle of 128 mile radius. Still a pretty significant piece of real estate.
     
  16. Aug 13, 2010 #15

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It has to meet FDA standards, testing is still being done. Things are moving in the right direction, which is a relief.
     
  17. Aug 17, 2010 #16

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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
     
  18. Aug 17, 2010 #17
    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.
     
  19. Aug 17, 2010 #18

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  20. Aug 19, 2010 #19
  21. Aug 19, 2010 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    New story, but 2 month old information.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook