Where is all the oil? _____ The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? President Obama has called the BP oil spill "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced," and so has just about everyone else. Green groups are sounding alarms about the "catastrophe along the Gulf Coast," while CBS, Fox and MSNBC are all slapping "Disaster in the Gulf" chyrons on their spill-related news. Even BP fall guy Tony Hayward, after some early happy talk, admitted that the spill was an "environmental catastrophe." The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill — he calls it "the leak" — is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype. Well, Limbaugh has a point. The Deepwater Horizon explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it's important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana. full article
Oil plumes. The oil is not just on the surface or on the beaches. http://www.aolnews.com/nation/artic...-oil-plume-found-below-gulfs-surface/19477682 That's where a great deal of the oil is and remains. Also, when you spread a great deal of oil across a large surface area (as the Gulf is), it could seem less catastrophic.
Federal Science Report - press release The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed – much of which is in the process of being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the robust federal response efforts. A third (33 percent) of the total amount of oil released in the Deepwater Horizon/BP spill was captured or mitigated by the Unified Command recovery operations, including burning, skimming, chemical dispersion and direct recovery from the wellhead, according to a federal science report released today. An additional 25 percent of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and 16 percent was dispersed naturally into microscopic droplets. The residual amount, just over one quarter (26 percent), is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tarballs, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments. Dispersed and residual oil remain in the system until they degrade through a number of natural processes. Early indications are that the oil is degrading quickly. These estimates were derived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI), who jointly developed what’s known as an Oil Budget Calculator, to provide measurements and best estimates of what happened to the spilled oil. The calculator is based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government’s Flow Rate Technical Group estimate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and independent scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods. “Teams of scientists and experts have been carefully tracking the oil since day one of this spill, and based on the data from those efforts and their collective expertise, they have been able to provide these useful and educated estimates about the fate of the oil,” says Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “Less oil on the surface does not mean that there isn’t oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren’t still at risk. Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts.” The estimates do not make conclusions about the long-term impacts of oil on the Gulf. Fully understanding the damages and impacts of the spill on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is something that will take time and continued monitoring and research. Dispersion increases the likelihood that the oil will be biodegraded, both in the water column and at the surface. While there is more analysis to be done to quantify the rate of biodegradation in the Gulf, early observations and preliminary research results from a number of scientists show that the oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly. Scientists from NOAA, EPA, DOE, and academic scientists are working to calculate more precise estimates of this rate. It is well known that bacteria that break down the dispersed and weathered surface oil are abundant in the Gulf of Mexico in large part because of the warm water, the favorable nutrient and oxygen levels, and the fact that oil enters the Gulf of Mexico through natural seeps regularly. Residual oil is also degraded and weathered by a number of physical and biological processes. Microbes consume the oil, and wave action, sun, currents and continued evaporation and dissolution continue to break down the residual oil in the water and on shorelines. The oil budget calculations are based on direct measurements wherever possible and the best available scientific estimates where measurements were not possible. The numbers for direct recovery and burns were measured directly and reported in daily operational reports. The skimming numbers were also based on daily reported estimates. The rest of the numbers were based on previous scientific analyses, best available information and a broad range of scientific expertise. These estimates will continue to be refined as additional information becomes available.
As long as it does not collect in the marsh or on the beach where birds and stuff get covered in it, the oil will naturally breakdown with bacteria. It is pretty bad though. Not fire hurricane bad, but pretty bad.
Its too early to determine how much of environmental damage may have been done by the oil and dispersants. While there hasn't been a lot of surface visibility of the oil recently a lot is probably still suspended in the water column. We also don't fully understand the deep ocean environment and how that interacts with the ocean overall. The release of that much oil and dispersants is unprecedented and it might be awhile before we can determine its affects.
I don't know what to believe anyone. One article states the oil is almost all gone and another article would say it's going to last for decades and its a mess. I think it's damage control on the Obama administration, the fed gov and BP. It's in their best interest to say the oil is mostly all gone. But the exxon valdez spill was much much smaller in scale and that took years to finally clean up. So it's hard to believe that the oil is mostly gone from this spill or that the damage or threat is all gone. But who knows they could be right and I hope they are but its just hard to believe with all the spin going on.
There are bacteria and microorganisms that actually breakdown oil. These bacteria thrive in warmer conditions, something the Gulf of Mexico provides while Prince William Sound does not so i guess you should expect the process to be quicker when there is extra help. Of course, I don't think the problem is completely gone.
I don't think so...all the news the past couple of days saying "Where has all the oil gone?" is ridiculous...I dont think we'll ever know the full extent of the oil spill, as I believe damage was done not only above the surface, but below it as well... Yes, oil has leaked and spilled before, and mother nature handles some of it, but a well gushing at this rate for over 3 months has affected the envirnoment, and IMHO, its foolish to think otherwise...
I agree and I think there will be a lot of unknowns for a long time. Superficially it doesn't appear that bad. But after a few more storms things may change. I'm almost more worried about the dispersants than the oil I have heard from people working cleanup that releasing the water from the mississippi has helped keeping it from the marshes/wetlands etc.
Sounds like the conservative controlled media spinning their little web of deceit. Oh, wait a minute...
It just seems the Exxon Valdez was much worse in terms of environmental damage. Could that be because the Valdez was carrying heavy crude and horizon deepwater was leaking light crude and natural gas? Of course the Valdez was right off the coast and the HD was about 70 miles offshore.
Notice how no one is talking about all of the methane released and the potential "dead zones" Just seems too convenient that it's almost all gone and no harm done...I'm VERY suspicous but will be the first to admit that I have little scientific knowledge about the true effects of an oil spill
Agreed about Valdez due to the proximity of the coast. I don't particularly trust the estimates of how much leaked out. I tend to think it was a lot more than they estimate. I fear there is a ton of crude settled at the bottom of the gulf, so it only appears that it is gone because it's not visible up top.
I don't think people are confusing the two - everyone was expecting apocalyptic damage and it just hasn't materialized.
I went to Galveston a couple days before there were reports of oil on the beach. I wasonly in the water for 30 seconds up to my knees. When I got out, I had oil on my feet and legs. So, no, in my mind it hasnt been exaggerated.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...rt-on-oils-fate-in-gulf-raises-eyebr-903.html Federal Report on Oil's Fate in Gulf Raises Eyebrows By ALLISON WINTER AND KATIE HOWELL of Greenwire Published: August 5, 2010 Scientists are raising concerns about a new federal report that says most of the oil from the Gulf of Mexico spill has been dispersed or contained. More News From Greenwire Transocean Reports $267M Gain, Discloses BP Contract Bruised Backers of Energy Bill Plot Aug. Offensive in Senate Texas Defies EPA on Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Yucca Project's Last 600 Employees Scramble for New Jobs Moderate Senate Democrats Seek Compromise for Gulf Spill Bill The report (pdf) released yesterday attempts to clear up a mystery surrounding the fate of the millions of gallons of oil that gushed from the failed BP PLC well before it was capped in mid-July. The report says all but 26 percent of the spilled oil is accounted for. Much of the oil that remains is being degraded or cleaned up on Gulf Coast beaches, the report states. "The bottom line here is we can account for all but about 26 percent of the oil, and of that, much of that is in the process of being degraded and cleaned up on the shore," Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said yesterday at the White House. But some scientists say such a statement is misleading. "For months, there has been a great huge shadow over the Gulf; that shadow has lifted, and that is good, and we're all glad and relieved," said Ian MacDonald, a professor of biological oceanography at Florida State University who has been tracking the flow of the spill. "But we shouldn't lift our guard, and we shouldn't pretend it is over." The report is based on a calculation made earlier this week by a team of federal scientists that about 206 million gallons of oil had leaked from the well. The scientific team can calculate the precise amount of oil that has been contained, but in other recovery efforts like burning and skimming, calculations are less precise. The report acknowledges it is based on the "best available scientific estimates," but scientists are concerned that the report was presented with more certainty than it likely deserves. "I find it troubling to give these very precise numbers, very precise estimates, for things that are just extrapolations," said MacDonald. Pedro Alvarez, chairman of Rice University's civil and environmental engineering department, agreed. "I'm not trying to say it's inaccurate; I'm trying to highlight that there's uncertainty." "We don't know exactly how much was released," he added. "It's not like when you have a tank with a known inventory." Alvarez thinks the federal science team could have better reflected that uncertainty. But Lubchenco yesterday defended the report and deflected questions about the scientists' concerns. "We believe that these are the best direct measurements or estimates that we have at the moment," she said. "We have a high degree of confidence in them." The scientists are also concerned about the amount of oil that has been described as having disappeared -- a claim that scientists say is not backed up by either the report or the conditions in the ocean. Carol Browner, President Obama's top energy and climate adviser, yesterday morning said the initial assessment showed that "more than three-quarters of the oil is gone." "The vast majority of the oil is gone," she said on NBC's "Today" show. But the scientists say that although much of the oil is out of sight, it is still present in the water. The report estimated that 26 percent of the oil has dispersed -- either naturally or through the use of chemical dispersants. Like bacon grease that disperses when dishwater detergent is put into a pan, the dispersed oil is less visible but is not gone from the ocean. The dispersed oil, Lubchenco said yesterday, "is in the process of being very rapidly degraded naturally, and so Mother Nature is assisting here considerably." She noted that "diluted and out of sight doesn't necessarily mean benign." MacDonald said the oil left in the water column is still significant. "There are 10 Exxon Valdez spills that are still in the water -- that has not disappeared but is still in the water being biodegraded," said MacDonald. "They're hoping Mother Nature, the old girl, is going to take care of that stuff for us. Gee whiz, I hope she can do it without croaking." Alvarez agreed. "What they're not saying is that probably most of the oil is still in the water. That's my main beef." That dispersed oil could still have significant effects on marine life, such as bluefin tuna. The imperiled tuna swim, mate and spawn in the Gulf in the spring and summer. Larvae or juvenile bluefin tuna could be exposed to the dispersed oil. Some environmentalists and marine biologists have predicted it could affect a whole year class of the fish, and the effects may not be fully known for decades. There is also still significant residual oil that is buried in marine sediments or coastal soils. Once buried and not exposed to the same wave and solar action, it may break down more slowly, scientists say. The oil could eventually come to the shore as tar balls or form sticky mats. Still, Alvarez says there are trade-offs. "When you disperse oil in the water ... it migrates easier, and therefore it reaches more eco-receptors, more marine life," he said. But "the dose would be lower. The oil would be reaching organisms at lower concentrations." Still, he added, "Dilution should not be the solution to pollution." Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
