NYT: Oil slick on gulf surface disappearing rapidly on its own

posted at 9:48 pm on July 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

ABC actually beat them to the punch on this story, reporting yesterday that clean-up crews are having trouble even finding the spill (“experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment”), but only now that the Times is on it will it really break big.

It’s not that the oil’s all gone, of course. But a lot of it is. And the rest is … hiding.

Scientists said the rapid dissipation of the surface oil was probably due to a combination of factors. The gulf has an immense natural capacity to break down oil, which leaks into it at a steady rate from thousands of natural seeps. Though none of the seeps is anywhere near the size of the Deepwater Horizon leak, they do mean that the gulf is swarming with bacteria that can eat oil.

The winds from two storms that blew through the gulf in recent weeks, including a storm over the weekend that disintegrated before making landfall, also appear to have contributed to a rapid dispersion of the oil. Then there was the response mounted by BP and the government, the largest in history, involving more than 4,000 boats attacking the oil with skimming equipment, controlled surface burns and other tactics.

Some of the compounds in the oil evaporate, reducing their impact on the environment. Jeffrey W. Short, a former government scientist who studied oil spills and now works for the environmental advocacy group Oceana, said that as much as 40 percent of the oil in the gulf might have simply evaporated once it reached the surface.

An unknown percentage of the oil would have been eaten by bacteria, essentially rendering the compounds harmless and incorporating them into the food chain. But other components of the oil have most likely turned into floating tar balls that could continue to gum up beaches and marshes, and may represent a continuing threat to some sea life. A three-mile by four-mile band of tar balls was discovered off the Louisiana coast on Tuesday.

Less surface oil means fewer dead animals and, presumably, less of a chance that a hurricane’s going to blow in and paint the coast black. As for the oil below the waves and what it’s doing to marine life, oxygen levels, etc., the feds will have to get back to you on that. So far, so good, though: The Times notes that two early assessments have found relatively low concentrations of toxic compounds in the deep sea.

Exit question: Now that they’re probably going to start scaling back the clean-up, will The One also relent on the drilling moratorium he seems to wants so badly?

Update: Says Karl, “I’d bet that you could search the NYT coverage of the Exxon Valdez and not find a story like that.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’ve read all the opinions on this thread, and they run the gamut. I respect Kermit’s opinion. We have an honest difference. I have several veteran oil people in the family, and some pretty experienced men, including the local government, are saying that the dispersants caused a buoyancy change. Also, that the dispersants caused a giant blob. Straight from the Coast Guard’s town hall literature I read about the dispersants and found that what they actually do is collect the oil together in a chain – of which the dispersant molecule is the head link. This chain is kept together by the dispersant molecule until the oil is collected or broken down.

Dispersants make collection easier, but they do not cause the oil to disappear.

The massive amounts of dispersant sprayed at the well head meant that most of this oil never saw the surface. And, despite the amount of natural gas, etc., there was and is still a hell of a lot of oil – unaccounted for.

cane_loader on July 28, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Exactly what I’ve been saying. This whole notion that obviously all oil rises to the surface isn’t accurate when you take into account the massive depth this leak happened at as well as the chemical dispersants the’ve been pumping into the ocean.

It’s there. It just hasn’t surfaced yet.

You-Eh-Vee on July 28, 2010 at 12:41 AM

The ocean… You fear to go into those waters. BP delved too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of The Gulf… shadow and flame.

[...]

sharrukin on July 27, 2010 at 10:16 PM

A Tar-Balrrrrog?

Noocyte on July 28, 2010 at 12:52 AM

Queue jaws music in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…

ray on July 28, 2010 at 1:02 AM

BP delved to greedily? What? The environazis have force all companies to drill that deep.

How about greedy government? If I think somebody is “GREEDY” I don’t have to buy their product. If the government is greedy or racist or incompetent or apathetic or corrupt I’m just screwed. Give me a greedy private sector over a greedy government sector any day. At least I can choose where I shop if it’s in the private sector.

Mojave Mark on July 28, 2010 at 1:02 AM

A Tar-Balrrrrog?

Noocyte on July 28, 2010 at 12:52 AM

Atleast someone recognized the LOTR reference.

sharrukin on July 28, 2010 at 1:23 AM

God help the people who are affected, your heart just goes out to them, really.
Terrible.

B Man on July 28, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Hey, what’s a Nazgul like you doin’ in a place like this?

Sorry: classics never get old.

Noocyte on July 28, 2010 at 1:31 AM

The massive amounts of dispersant sprayed at the well head meant that most of this oil never saw the surface. And, despite the amount of natural gas, etc., there was and is still a hell of a lot of oil – unaccounted for.

cane_loader on July 28, 2010 at 12:33 AM

cane_loader: Yup!!:)
==================================================

(dispersant)-eth into the void……

and was contained in the Obamaeth (Abysis)-eth…….

canopfor on July 27, 2010 at 9:54 PM

canopfor on July 28, 2010 at 1:53 AM

Crap,I spelled Abysis wrong,should be Abyss!!

canopfor on July 28, 2010 at 1:55 AM

The Gulf oil isn’t going away. The New York Times is just trying to make the Gulf oil story disappear because it’s hurting Obama.

OxyCon on July 28, 2010 at 1:57 AM

Everything about this “crisis” has been a total joke.

Media coverage cause the most damage, and yes I live on the Gulf Coast.

Tax receipts have actually gone UP in Mobile, AL due to influx of BP funded make work.

Clean up workers are standing around looking at each other due to over reaction.

Most beaches have experienced little relative damage, and I have been to many.

And worst of all the is the drama queens that our society seems to reward with undeserved attention screaming about how the towns, ecosystem, and general life will take decades to recover. Shut the fck up you insipid children!

Whole event is an entire disgrace by all parties involved.

ClassicCon on July 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Agreed. When this first happened I researched past oil spills and even at this point, while it’s a pretty good size, it is still by no means the biggest or the worst, and as we’re now finding out, the Gulf is doing a good job of cleaning itself up. Imagine that. A planet that has been around for 4 billion years is able to self-regulate. Reminds me of my favorite George Carlin routine.

Anyway, the media has done a tremendous disservice to many of those living on the Gulf Coast by sensationalizing and blowing the effects out of proportion. Not to take away from what the folks in Louisiana are going through — they are real victims in all of this and all efforts from this point forward should be on helping them clean up the mess and get back on their feet — but my friends have a place in Destin and were down there just last week. I asked how the beaches look and my friend said, “They’re beautiful. White as ever, and the water is crystal clear green.” If you relied only on the hysterical MSM for news, you would think the entire coastline from Panama City to Galveston is black. So all of these proprietors down there are losing business and there’s no reason for it.

NoLeftTurn on July 28, 2010 at 2:06 AM

Inside Job!!11!

abobo on July 28, 2010 at 2:17 AM

Crap,I spelled Abysis wrong,should be Abyss!!

canopfor on July 28, 2010 at 1:55 AM

Heck no, dude that was perfet!

BTW your entire Obamaeth Soliloquy was beautiful comedy and a great laugh.

Fishoutofwater on July 28, 2010 at 3:33 AM

The Gulf oil isn’t going away. The New York Times is just trying to make the Gulf oil story disappear because it’s hurting Obama.
OxyCon on July 28, 2010 at 1:57 AM

Yes it is. (or at least that’s my guess)

The oil is being eaten up by a google microbes. It’s going away.

elfman on July 28, 2010 at 3:46 AM

It would be dead for 40 years if there was a Republican president instead or clear up instantly as soon as a Dem president was elected.

milemarker2020 on July 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM

FIFY.

The War Planner on July 28, 2010 at 4:25 AM

So Rush was right? imagine that.

gdonovan on July 28, 2010 at 5:09 AM

I wonder if this oil would be disappearing as quickly if Bush were president…….. or at least reported as such

ToddonCapeCod on July 28, 2010 at 5:55 AM

So if you are going with the conspiracy theorist end of things… an alien base in the Gulf of Mexico was found by the Obama Administration that didn’t know what to do when they got a request for crude oil from the aliens (their tanning salons had run fresh out) and BP was ordered to start the blow-out so the aliens could trap a huge amount of the material in a thermal inversion layer for their own ends.

That actually makes more sense than an entire industry and whole rafts of governments that haven’t bothered to understand the natural ecology of the region, determine if bacteria were present that could aid in bio-remediation, isolate them and breed a new form that can live in a deeper range to aid in attacking a thermally trapped and somewhat denser layer of oil, spends billions in a fiasco clean-up operation, and no one, no one is still bothering to catch on to the natural factors going on.

This is how conspiracy theories get legs: they are more reasonable than reality.

Out of all this the only one coming up roses is that local environmental official who didn’t wait for any direction, found boom that couldn’t handle the normal chop of the Gulf, then found old barges to chain together to break up wave action so that the booms could function and protect the shrimp hatcheries along the coast. He was excoriated for doing that by various higher-ups, and yet may now have the re-start of the shrimp fishery within his grasp. The industry will be hard hit until that sub-surface layer is dealt with… but the man who may have done the most for the industry didn’t wait for orders, money or anything else, but did the job that needed to be done. Local initiative wins out over big government… what else is new?

ajacksonian on July 28, 2010 at 6:34 AM

Ah, the mysterious sinking oil. A gallon of crude oil weighs between .8 and .9 of a gallon of sea water (which is even more dense than fresh water which is why people, as well as oil, float even more on salt water), it floats. The entire water borne oil spill industry is designed to capture oil on the surface. If it is not on the surface it is not there. Don’t believe me. Get some water and oil (any oil), mix it in a jar, add some salt if you want, and watch.

Viator on July 28, 2010 at 6:59 AM

Rush has been saying this for weeks.

wi farmgirl on July 28, 2010 at 7:01 AM

Rush has been saying this for weeks.

wi farmgirl on July 28, 2010 at 7:01 AM

Yep, Rush was right. I’m looking forward to three hours of gloating today.

forest on July 28, 2010 at 7:31 AM

Okay, let me get this straight. 180 million gallons of oil in the Gulf can be restored back to balance mostly by nature itself in a few months, but my car is causing sea levels to rise and glaciers to melt?

John Deaux on July 28, 2010 at 7:51 AM

Remember when the CEO said, “It’s a very big gulf,” and got blasted?

In any case, any good news on this disaster is wonderful to hear.

AnninCA on July 28, 2010 at 7:53 AM

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/july-24-children-still-playing-in-highly-toxic-sand-containing-over-200-ppm-oil

I had no idea that Rush had studied chemistry and was an acknowledged expert on these things.

The spill is destroying the gulf coast and putting its citizens at risk. The only people that really care are the residents at risk.
For everyone else it serves up fodder for framing their political arguments to their preferred worldview.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 8:32 AM

This is going to be a blow to the Obama administration. One less “crisis” to take advantage of. This admininstration goes from crisis to crisis ever since he became president.

Wills on July 28, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Less surface oil means fewer dead animals and, presumably, less of a chance that a hurricane’s going to blow in and paint the coast black. As for the oil below the waves and what it’s doing to marine life, oxygen levels, etc., the feds will have to get back to you on that. So far, so good, though: The Times notes that two early assessments have found relatively low concentrations of toxic compounds in the deep sea.

The ratio of oil to water in the Gulf of Mexico from the total oil leaked from Deepwater Horizon was less than one gallon of oil per more than SIX BILLION gallons of water. (no link… heard that on Rush) Are they now going to have to switch from measuring pollutants in PPM (parts per million) to PPB (billion) so they can state the pollution impact? Anything else would be a lie.

The worst oil spill in the Gulf was in 1979. It leaked huge amounts. The beaches of the southern coast of Texas and Padre Island were covered in more than an inch of oil. Shorelines were covered. Estuaries were devastated. A hurricane formed and passed through the area. After it passed, the oil was GONE. In less than a year, the estuaries were NORMAL.

I hope whoever wrote the above paragraph intended it as a joke because the facts don’t support the fear mongering.

CC

CapedConservative on July 28, 2010 at 8:34 AM

This is bad news for Obama.
Guess he will get this year’s Chicken Little “The Sky is Falling” Award.

That is what happens when you surround yourself with advisers that want any problem to be huge so they can hype the fear and use the event to push their political agenda and force more Big Government rules and regulations on every one.

albill on July 28, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Soooo, what does this mean for the fishing industry?

hawksruleva on July 28, 2010 at 9:03 AM

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/july-24-children-still-playing-in-highly-toxic-sand-containing-over-200-ppm-oil

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 8:32 AM

Ok. They detected over 200 parts per million of contaminants. What level is considered toxic?

hawksruleva on July 28, 2010 at 9:05 AM

I think the next issue will be the effects of the dispersent used on the fish.

The gulf around my area is shallow, so it doesn’t take much to pollute it.

AnninCA on July 28, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Ok. They detected over 200 parts per million of contaminants. What level is considered toxic?

hawksruleva on July 28, 2010 at 9:05 AM

The article I linked says 0 is normal. I don’t know what the EPA “safe” level is but the same site posted this.

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/epa-opening-public-decontamination-stations-400-people-seek-medical-care-after-visiting-florida-beach

It certainly is not healthy.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Ah, the mysterious sinking oil. A gallon of crude oil weighs between .8 and .9 of a gallon of sea water (which is even more dense than fresh water which is why people, as well as oil, float even more on salt water), it floats.

Crude oil (and oil in general) is not a pure substance. Far from it. It has components (such as short-chain alkanes and alkenes, longer chain components, volatile components, non-volatile components, dissolved gases etc.). If you give a specific gravity for the crude as a whole, of course it is less than one. One needs to remember that these components separate due to mechanical actions of the water (waves), temperature and pressure changes upon emerging from the reservoir, and other factors. So, whereas some components of the oil float, and even quickly evaporate, other components suspend or even sink in the sea water. You can bet that there are many, many tonnes of oil that will continue to wash ashore and sink to the floor of the gulf, resulting in very far-reaching environmental consequences. This is not over by any means, and the econonic impact will be huge as well.

Okay, let me get this straight. 180 million gallons of oil in the Gulf can be restored back to balance mostly by nature itself in a few months, but my car is causing sea levels to rise and glaciers to melt?

It won’t be a few months, to be sure. The balance has been altered for many months to many years, according to biologists and chemists. Your car and hundreds of millions of others belching out megatonnes of carbon dioxide seem to have a profound effect on climate, based on the best science available at present.

oakland on July 28, 2010 at 9:35 AM

oakland on July 28, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Paul R. Ehrlich is that you?

Inanemergencydial on July 28, 2010 at 9:44 AM

attacking the oil with skimming equipment, controlled surface burns and other tactics…. Some of the compounds in the oil evaporate, reducing their impact on the environment.

I bet that’s the first time the NY Times has reported that the burning of oil reduces the environmental impact.

slug on July 28, 2010 at 9:46 AM

So there isn’t going to be a giant flaming hurricane?

darclon on July 28, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Instead of BP making commercials touting their efforts to stop and clean up the spill, why don’t they pay for live shot commercials of the gulf beaches with people swimming and sunning and restaurants serving sea food. They aren’t going to change minds or improve their corp image, but they can help the people who’ve been hurt by this.

Kissmygrits on July 28, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Don’t believe me. Get some water and oil (any oil), mix it in a jar, add some salt if you want, and watch.

Yeah, because that’s the same.

You-Eh-Vee on July 28, 2010 at 10:14 AM

a

Steve Z on July 28, 2010 at 10:33 AM

I believe it was in May when our man Rush predicted the Gulf would “cure” itself and dissipate the oil—–all the libs laughed and made fun of Rush. Who’s laughing now?

Herb on July 28, 2010 at 10:54 AM

So the press went rampant about all the oil and the “doom and gloom” destruction of the coast to prove the point of how bad drilling was for the environment so as to help Obama with his “no-drilling” policy. Then when that backfired and it made Obama look incompetent, now, poof, overnight all the oil is gone – nothing to see here! That’s how the MSM works!

silvernana on July 28, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Ah, the mysterious sinking oil. A gallon of crude oil weighs between .8 and .9 of a gallon of sea water (which is even more dense than fresh water which is why people, as well as oil, float even more on salt water), it floats.
Crude oil (and oil in general) is not a pure substance. Far from it. It has components (such as short-chain alkanes and alkenes, longer chain components, volatile components, non-volatile components, dissolved gases etc.). If you give a specific gravity for the crude as a whole, of course it is less than one. One needs to remember that these components separate due to mechanical actions of the water (waves), temperature and pressure changes upon emerging from the reservoir, and other factors. So, whereas some components of the oil float, and even quickly evaporate, other components suspend or even sink in the sea water. You can bet that there are many, many tonnes of oil that will continue to wash ashore and sink to the floor of the gulf, resulting in very far-reaching environmental consequences. This is not over by any means, and the econonic impact will be huge as well.

Okay, let me get this straight. 180 million gallons of oil in the Gulf can be restored back to balance mostly by nature itself in a few months, but my car is causing sea levels to rise and glaciers to melt?

There is some merit to all of these arguments. But we do need to get a reasonable idea of the scale of the problem, without either exaggerating or minimizing the danger.

The latest estimate for the oil release rate was 53,000 barrels per day. Multiply that by 87 days and 42 gallons per barrel, and the total volume of oil would be about 194 million gallons, or about 25.9 million cubic feet of oil. This is enough oil to cover one square mile (27.9 million square feet) to a thickness of 0.929 feet, or 11.14 inches. But if the oil spread to an area of 1,000 square miles (a circle about 36 miles in diameter), its average thickness would be 0.011 inches, or about 0.28 millimeter. If it spread to the entire area of the Gulf of Mexico (579,000 square miles), its average thickness would be 0.000019 inch, or 0.00048 millimeter.

The actual oil spill did not spread itself uniformly over some area of water and leave the rest untouched, but was affected by the action of ocean currents and waves, which could be affected by the wind. Where it is concentrated, near the well, it could have devastating effects on marine life, as well as on coastal wildlife where it washed up on nearby beaches and marshland. Oil skimmers and cleanup crews should need to seek the areas of thickest oil slicks and work on containment and removal, but slicks less than about a millimeter thick are probably not worth worrying about–nature can probably take care of them. It is an exaggeration to say that this oil spill “killed” or contaminated the ENTIRE Gulf of Mexico–it is not unreasonable to believe that bacteria living in a surface layer several meters thick exposed to sunlight could digest an oil layer whose thickness is a tiny fraction of a millimeter. The vast majority of the Gulf of Mexico is still uncontaminated.

There ARE natural seepages of crude oil into the oceans (including the Gulf of Mexico) which have nothing to do with mankind’s drilling, and there ARE bacteria that can digest crude oil and break it down to harmless compounds. While the BP well was gushing 53,000 barrels per day, these natural scavengers were overwhelmed, and oil accumulated in the Gulf, but for oil-eating bacteria, the BP spill is a tremendous food supply, which caused them to multiply rapidly, increasing the consumption rate. If the spill is now stopped, a higher-than-normal bacteria population can attack the accumulated oil and help consume it, then these bacteria will die back to normal levels as the food (oil) supply is depleted.

“Oakland” is correct that crude oil is a complex mixture of many hydrocarbons of widely varying density and volatility. Natural gas reaching the surface can evaporate, and some of the lighter hydrocarbons (propane, butanes, pentanes, etc.) can dissolve in water to some extent. As a crude oil slick interacts with waves and wind, some lighter hydrocarbons will evaporate or dissolve in water, and the heaviest compounds (asphalts) may separate and sink, or wash up on beaches as tar balls. They could affect marine life in shallow water, but would have little effect if they sank into water a mile deep, where there is little, if any life at the bottom.

It is an exaggeration to say that the oil slick has totally “disappeared”, but if the inflow from the BP well is stopped, natural forces will tend to reduce its impact over time. Natural gas has probably evaporated, light hydrocarbons have dissolved, some heavier compounds have sunk to the bottom, and as the remaining slick spreads to larger areas, its thickness will decrease, possibly to a low enough value that oil-eating bacteria can completely consume it. Human efforts to contain and clean up the spill should continue–vacuuming of thicker areas, cleanup of marshlands and beaches, containment booms around thicker slicks, building berms to protect vulnerable marshlands.

We need to hold BP accountable for this disaster (but not demonize oil drilling in general), and criticize the Federal government for its slow and incompetent response, and its failure to mobilize all cleanup and containment methods possible while the oil was still gushing into the Gulf.

But Nature can slowly clean up mankind’s messes, if we don’t make our messes too fast, and Nature never sleeps.

Steve Z on July 28, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Thanks, Steve for your input. I would have also added the effects of oil being passed up the food chain. In the crude are various compounds (such as the chemical aromatics) that can accumulate in animal and plant tissue, thus rendering them somewhat toxic to the consumer organisms.

oakland on July 28, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Dear Leader has totally lost interest in this “oil spill”.

That is soooo 100 days ago.

Dear Leader is interested in new opportunities, say… in immigration.

Kuffar on July 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_beaches

Somehow I think that Rush doesn’t get it and the nature cleaning itself up sentiments are wishful thinking.

In the crude are various compounds (such as the chemical aromatics) that can accumulate in animal and plant tissue, thus rendering them somewhat toxic to the consumer organisms.

oakland on July 28, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Good points and for those not directly affected by living around the gulf coast they should seriously consider whether the food they put in their mouth is at risk.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM

It is so simple a third grader can tell you that “Mother Nature can take care of herself”. So stop donating your hard earned dollars to the environmental watch groups (i.e. Environmental Defense Fund, etc.)

MSGTAS on July 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Steve Z on July 28, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Nice post.
I liked how you reminded us how insignificantly small the human race is in camparison to the entire planet. We will do well to remember that when thes envirowackos attack the economy again.

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on July 28, 2010 at 1:20 PM

In the crude are various compounds (such as the chemical aromatics) that can accumulate in animal and plant tissue, thus rendering them somewhat toxic to the consumer organisms.

oakland on July 28, 2010 at 12:13 PM

yes, over years and years and years of exposure.A one time event shouldn’t affect it too badly

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on July 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Oil isn’t water. Oil stays undissolved in water. Oil is on the beaches. Who is spreading words otherwise?

johnnyU on July 28, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Exit question: Now that they’re probably going to start scaling back the clean-up, will The One also relent on the drilling moratorium he seems to wants so badly?

2nd Exit Question: Now that they’re probably going to start scaling back the cleanup, will The One also relent on the recreational & commercial fishing moratorium he seems to want so badly?

From the LA/TX border in the west to Apalachicola Florida in the east, the entire Gulf of Mexico federal waters are shut down solid to commercial fishing and recreational fishing.

In Louisiana alone, 70% of working people are directly employed by the seafood/commercial fishing/recreational fishing industry and oil & gas industry. To quote a well known Democrat, James Carville, “we’re dying down here.”

As head of an online offshore fishing club, part of running the club is checking on fisheries regulations and related issues. Everything I’m hearing says that the only thing holding up the elimination of the fishing moratorium is Obama’s FDA saying that the seafood is safe to eat.

Meanwhile, all five Gulf states’ fish & game scientists are saying that they have been doing ongoing testing of pelagic fish, bottom fish, shellfish and shrimp and none of the samples have been contaminated with oil. Why can’t the FDA get off its ass and let us get back to work?

Oh yeah, that’s right, I almost forgot that Obama is beholden to the Enviro Industry and they’d love nothing more than a total permanent shutdown of all Gulf fishing. After all, never fail to take advantage of a crisis!

Mark
Pres., 100 Fathom Fishing Club

CatchAll on July 28, 2010 at 1:46 PM

yes, over years and years and years of exposure.A one time event shouldn’t affect it too badly

Do you have any authoritative information that backs this up? Are you aware of the harm chemicals such as cyclic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can cause to organisms?

Would you drink oil-contaminated water?

Are you aware that there are water-soluble components of crude?

oakland on July 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM

oakland on July 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Are you aware that the mexicans spilled more oil into the gulf decades ago and we aren’t dead?

Inanemergencydial on July 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Oil doesn’t necessarily stay on beaches, wave action and storms scour the beaches regularly. The heaviest components weather into chunks similar to a piece of asphalt road and is harmless to wildlife. That’s how Texas’s beaches were cleaned up from the Ixtoc spill. The process might even be faster than government workers working their 15-on / 45-off shifts.

slickwillie2001 on July 28, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Are you aware of the harm chemicals such as cyclic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can cause to organisms?

Would you drink oil-contaminated water?

Are you aware that there are water-soluble components of crude?

oakland on July 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Are you aware that organisms can also self repair and those that don’t tend to die and be re-absorbed into the eco-system?

Look, When I was young kids would actually chew hard chunks of tar that fell off the trains going through. I never liked it myself but none of us died from it.

sharrukin on July 28, 2010 at 4:22 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_beaches

Somehow I think that Rush doesn’t get it and the nature cleaning itself up sentiments are wishful thinking.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM

LOL, citing an al-AP “news story” won’t help whatever case you are building.

Especially if it cites NRDC, a looney-Left outfit that employs nutbar RFK Junior as its “Senior Lawyer” and has Leftist loons Laurie David, Robert Redford, James Taylor and Leo DeCarpio on its Bored of Trustees.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

There’s natural microbes that eat oil:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/can-microbes-save-the-gulf-beach.html

As Rush pointed out:

Notice how harder to find is in the Washington Post headline, oil in Gulf degrading, becoming harder to find. Makes it sound like the oil is still there. Oil is still there like it’s hiding somewhere next to the 3.6 million jobs that have been created or saved. We know those jobs are there, too, but we can’t see ‘em, we can’t find ‘em. Where’s the oil? We’re looking for the oil. It’s just harder to find, like it’s hiding next to ten years of missing heat from global warming. But if the bacteria have eaten it, isn’t it actually gone?

theCork on July 28, 2010 at 5:36 PM

I went to the Mississippi Gulf Coast a week ago. No oil on the beaches but there were crews of 40 out looking for it. Mother Nature is a bitch and she fights back. In fact you better keep your guard up or she’ll kick your ass like in Katrina.

roux on July 28, 2010 at 5:45 PM

But if the bacteria have eaten it, isn’t it actually gone? (rush)
theCork on July 28, 2010 at 5:36 PM

How about the sub-surface goo?

jerrytbg on July 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM

How legit is floridaoilspillaw as a source for anything?

Inanemergencydial on July 28, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Inanemergencydial on July 28, 2010 at 6:42 PM

I’m sorry…that was their research? /

jerrytbg on July 28, 2010 at 7:58 PM

I’m sorry…that was their research? /

jerrytbg on July 28, 2010 at 7:58 PM

I was asking a serious question.

Guess I’ll throw this in for good measure…

/

Inanemergencydial on July 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Here’s hoping Mother Nature is helping out…

Khun Joe on July 28, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Are we saying then that is really IS a matter of a large body of water with a small percentage of oil?

Koa on July 28, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Steve Z on July 28, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Thanks Steve

Red State State of Mind on July 28, 2010 at 9:50 PM

/

Inanemergencydial on July 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM

;)
Truly, I didn’t mean to be flippant…But it appears most of the data came from NOAA…
A little twist on their part? Maybe…
But the data looks valid to me. And I do follow this type of stuff…fwiw.

jerrytbg on July 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_beaches

Somehow I think that Rush doesn’t get it and the nature cleaning itself up sentiments are wishful thinking.

In the crude are various compounds (such as the chemical aromatics) that can accumulate in animal and plant tissue, thus rendering them somewhat toxic to the consumer organisms.

oakland on July 28, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Good points and for those not directly affected by living around the gulf coast they should seriously consider whether the food they put in their mouth is at risk.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Oh, yes! It’s the worst catastrope EVER! What a crock. I live in southwest Florida and fish offshore, generally past the 20 fathom line. That averages about 50 miles and more offshore.

When preparing baits, I thoroughly wash sunscreen off my hands before touching the baits to keep the fish from smelling it and avoiding the bait. The ratio of ALL the spilled oil is ONE GALLON OF OIL to SIX BILLION GALLONS of sea water in the gulf.

As Inanemergencydial said, Paul R. Ehrlich indeed.

CC

CapedConservative on July 29, 2010 at 5:30 AM

CapedConservative on July 29, 2010 at 5:30 AM

I live in Louisiana and can tell you that it is an entirely different story here.

Bradky on July 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM

Are you aware that organisms can also self repair and those that don’t tend to die and be re-absorbed into the eco-system?

And, are you aware that some of those that die could very well be humans?

oakland on July 29, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Marine scientist Ivor Van Heerden, another former LSU prof who’s working for a spill response contractor, says “there’s just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. I have no interest in making BP look good — I think they lied about the size of the spillbut we’re not seeing catastrophic impacts,” says Van Heerden, who, like just about everyone else working in the Gulf these days, is being paid out of BP’s spill response funds. “There’s a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html#ixzz0v5XL2Exa

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 12:10 PM

The battle to get Americans to accept the science behind climate change has been “lost,” an expert at the Aspen Environment Forum declared Wednesday, but there’s still a way to win the war to reduce carbon emissions.

“Climate scientists — stop talking about climate science. We lost. It’s over. Forget it,” Foley told a surprised audience during a featured panel discussion on the last day of the three-day forum.

“The skepticism around climate change has created a trap for us,” Foley said. “Stop digging yourself into the hole. Get out of it. Talk about it a different way. Reframe the issue.”

“I’m not saying ignore the issue. Turn it around, reframe it,” Foley persisted.

J_Crater on July 29, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Climate change science is so complicated that very few can grasp the complexities. Deniers use this fact to mislead many people about the mechanisms of climate change and the risks that are associated. It’s like economics – present facts or statistics and interpret them in ways that the truly informed would never do.

The oil spill is the same type of thing. One can downplay the 150 million gallons of spill by saying that this is just a drop in the bucket of the many billions of gallons of water in the region of the spill. What more informed folks understand is that there are far-reaching and long-living consequences involved with introducing foreign substances into the environment. Just because the beaches look “clean” doesn’t mean that things are pristine. Sure, the bulk of the oil has dispersed, evaporated or has been digested by bacteria. The substances that persist are causing great harm to estuaries and marshes. This harm may not be readily apparent to those who don’t have training in the science of ecology (which is nearly everyone), so most folks have no idea of the complexities involved in the interactions between organisms and crude oil components.

Add to this the unknowns in all of this, and I don’t see any reason for celebration.

Now, that the spill hasn’t had greater and worse consequences is a tribute to those who worked hard to mitigate the effects of this event(yes, including BP). Thanks goodness we have highly skilled and knowledgeable folks who got busy and worked hard contain and salvage may millions of gallons of crude. Also, many folks on the coast have worked hard to clean the beaches and to prevent oil from reaching far up into the marshes. Those folks who took this seriously and who knew the dangers involved in an oil spill of this magnitude are true heroes.

oakland on July 29, 2010 at 12:44 PM

And, are you aware that some of those that die could very well be humans?

oakland on July 29, 2010 at 11:40 AM

If was that toxic nutbar the average guy would have seen a lot of hospitalizations and deaths over the years. Oil and petroleum products are rather common these days. It’s a wonder any gas jockey at the local fill-up station is alive to tell his harrowing tale.

Deniers use this fact to mislead many people about the mechanisms of climate change and the risks that are associated. It’s like economics – present facts or statistics and interpret them in ways that the truly informed would never do.

Deniers? Is that something like holocaust deniers?

What more informed folks understand is that there are far-reaching and long-living consequences involved with introducing foreign substances into the environment.

You are not an ‘informed’ folk. These are not foreign substances, they are natural substances that have been around for millions of years and have leaked into the same waters again and again over that time.

so complicated that very few can grasp the complexities.

Deniers use this fact to mislead many people

the truly informed would never do

What more informed folks understand

so most folks have no idea

This is just one endless ego boost for you isn’t it? That is the primary attraction to this green claptrap!

You are one of the enlightened ones whose mission is to bring the light of true knowledge unto the land and save us poor wretches from our own ignorance.

Your my hero!

sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 1:55 PM

You are not an ‘informed’ folk. These are not foreign substances, they are natural substances that have been around for millions of years and have leaked into the same waters again and again over that time

You might want to study up.

Also, oil in the waters isn’t normal, and consuming its components isn’t either.

oakland on July 29, 2010 at 4:21 PM

…oil in the waters isn’t normal, and consuming its components isn’t either.

oakland on July 29, 2010 at 4:21 PM

So where did the oil go? Did the Global Warming monster destroy it? Did the “green energy unicorns” eat it?

You need to get out of Oakland into the real world in order to discover what “normal” is.

landlines on July 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Also, oil in the waters isn’t normal, and consuming its components isn’t either.

oakland on July 29, 2010 at 4:21 PM

In the gulf of Mexico, oil in the water is normal. It comes from all the natural seeps in the ocean floor.

Your “environmental” rants our boring, at least try to get a few facts right occasionally.

Slowburn on July 29, 2010 at 5:39 PM

In the gulf of Mexico, oil in the water is normal. It comes from all the natural seeps in the ocean floor.

The large amounts and concentrations from the spill are not normal.

Would you swim near the spill? Would you eat fish caught near the spill? If so, you might want to move down there; real estate may be much cheaper of late.

If my “rants” bore you, then don’t read them.

oakland on July 29, 2010 at 5:49 PM

If my “rants” bore you, then don’t read them.

oakland on July 29, 2010 at 5:49 PM

You can spread your propaganda where you please comrade.

Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 5:52 PM

UPDATE: The story is spreading, and Drudge links to more examples. Yahoo News picks up the story:

Where is all the oil? Nearly two weeks after BP finally capped the biggest oil spill in U.S. history, the oil slicks that once spread across thousands of miles of the Gulf of Mexico have largely disappeared. Nor has much oil washed up on the sandy beaches and marshes along the Louisiana coast. And the small cleanup army in the Gulf has only managed to skim up a tiny fraction of the millions of gallons of oil spilled in the 100 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig went up in flames.

And Vanity Fair has a shorter piece titled So … Has Anyone Seen the Oil That Spilled into the Gulf?

Paul_in_NJ on July 30, 2010 at 7:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2