BP and the government famously declared that most of the oil had disappeared.
But as I've noted, as much as 98% of the oil is still in the ocean.
BP and the government denied this, of course.
But the oil is not remaining hidden.
Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal noted on December 9th:
A university scientist and the federal government say they have found persuasive evidence that oil from the massive Gulf of Mexico spill is settling on the ocean floor.
The new findings, from scientists at the University of South Florida and from a broad government effort, mark the latest indication that environmental damage from the blowout of a BP PLC well could be significant where it's hardest to find: deep under the Gulf's surface.
The Oil BP Tried To Hide Has Been Discovered, In Thick Layers On the Sea Floor Over An Area of Several Thousand Square Miles � Washington's Blog
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (53)
And we are still not talking of the millions of gallons of oil seeping through the faults and fractures beneath deep beneath the seabed.
- 14 votes
We are not even talking about the BP Blowout and Oil Spill unless it is about money.
The damage to our planet is sickening - literally! Oil and gas companies continue to rape Earth while everyone sits back with their thumbs up their butts. Fine. Earth will recover long after we render ourselves extinct. We are off to a great start poisoning plants and animals and evidence is beginning to show that we are making progress on ridding Earth of ourselves. We have yet to see the damage caused by the BP Blowout and Oil Spill.
Denial is a good way to assure that we keep ruining where we live. Is this our answer to population control? If so, it will work better then expected. Much better.
- 15 votes
Another Bush deregulation legacy that'll be with us for decades.
- 13 votes
Barack Obama today declared the US's largest and most politically embarrassing oil spill near an end as BP said it had reached a "significant milestone" in its efforts to permanently seal the Deepwater Horizon well.
My guess is that this is a Fox Hoax to discredit Obama again, since Fox is against everything, and now that Republicans cannot stop th bills from being passed, the only option is to create some falsity about Obama and the oils spill to try and ruin his vacation, since he rarely gets to go anywhere since being in the White House. Nioce try to discredit but no one is buying it.
- 3 votes
We need a national policy to eliminate dispersants. BP was very quick to dump huge amounts of the toxic Corexit on the floating oil. Dispersants sink oil where it cannot be seen, and the feds don't see it to estimate the fine for the oil spill.
The oil industry in the Gulf Region oil corporations should collectively purchase the state of the art skimming and recovery technology, then have it nearby for quick deployment.
- 5 votes
"My guess is that this is a Fox Hoax to discredit Obama again, since Fox is against everything, and now that Republicans cannot stop th bills from being passed, the only option is to create some falsity about Obama and the oils spill to try and ruin his vacation, since he rarely gets to go anywhere"
Vacation to India:
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2010/11/mother-of-all-vacations-obama-india.html
Third vacation since oil spill:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6658
Vacation to Hawaii:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101223/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_vacation
I read he had about 10 vacations this year alone.
Poor guy never gets to go anywhere - ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
If he doesn't it's because he's too bush playing golf!!!!!!!
Poor guy - ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!
- 2 votes
Now your going to talk about how Bush said he would not Play golfwhgile they soldeirs were at war, but Obama is clearly standing up to these Republican ideals and war mongering by doing the exact opposite. This takes a lot of guts and courage to stand up and say, I will not be a war mongering President making innocent victims of Afghanistan and Iraq. At least he has the initiative to get out there and spur Business by being on the course or on vacation. The stimulus has created a 40 percent growth in bank profits. Where was this growth under Bush?
- 2 votes
The oil didn't magically disapear like the BP and our government led us to blieve. But we haven't seen the end of the contamination.....how about the health concerns with the dispersent.
http://www.protecttheocean.com/gulf-oil-spill-bp/ ....BP’s use of Corexit 9500 on the oil before it rises to the surface seems to be a deliberate attempt to mask the poison, to cover up that it continues to flow out from the ocean’s floor, while making it impossible to recover. In short, BP and Exxon
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/77/214/Why_Is_BP_Using_Highly_Toxic_Corexit_Oil_Dispersant.html Less clear to researchers like Joye are what role the unprecedented deployment of oil-dispersing chemicals are having…on fisheries. “The primary producers — the base of the food web in the ocean — is going to be altered. There’s no doubt about that,” Joye said. “We have no idea what dispersants are going to do to microorganisms. We know they are toxic to many larvae.
3. Corexit was used during the Exxon Valdez oil spill and has been linked to illness and death. The variety of illnesses caused by Corexit are respiratory, nervous system, liver disorders, kidney disorders, blood disorders, headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems.
Read more: http://scienceray.com/biology/ecology/the-dirty-truth-about-bp-gulf-oil-spill-dispersant-nalco-corexit/#ixzz193ZDgHJZ
- 4 votes
Not going to get into any discussion with someone who thinks "The stimulus has created a 40 percent growth in bank profits" is good in today's economic environment. Here's some financial web sites you might want to check out to learn why:
zerohedge.com
market-ticker.org
financialsense.com
www.europac.net
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Merry Merry Christmas to you ET. I'm checkin out shortly, and will see you tomorrow.
- 2 votes
Thanks BH
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas also :)
Eth
- 1 vote
Where is the study results from the University of South Florida? Not that I don't trust you but I would like to read the results of the study myself.
- 2 votes
Presidential Vacation time is not a subject you want to bring up.
Just in first year:
Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did.
President Obama has spent all or part of 26 days "on vacation" during his first year as president.
President Reagan, in 1981, spent all or part of 42 days away from the White House "on vacation" at his home in Santa Barbara, Calif.
President George W. Bush spent even more time away from the presidential mansion in the nation’s capital than Reagan. Of the 77 total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his first year as president in 2001. (this is just trips to his ranch, does not include Camp David or other "vacation days", don't have his just first year total for that, but for his presidency is his total time spent at Camp David to all or part of 487 days.
Yes, that's 487 days. And Camp David is not even where the president has spent the most time when not at the White House: Mr. Bush has made 77 visits to his ranch in Crawford during his presidency, and spent all or part of 490 days there. I'll let you do the math for the TWO PLUS YEARS on vacation.
Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, spent less time "on vacation" during his first year than his son, but spent more days than President Obama. According to travel records provided by the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, the former president took six trips — spanning all or part of 40 days.
- 10 votes
This whole piece is a a load of crap.
logdump, would appreciate if you can give some examples of the article which you think are craps.
- 3 votes
TR
You missed the point
It was stated Obama doesn't get any vacations - when in fact he does.
Nonetheless - please state your sources.
- 1 vote
The gulf has natural oil fields leaking anywhere from 400 to 600 barrels a day into it and has been doing so before we got here. The real question is: What damage will the toxic chemicals used by BP to sink the oil do? Cancer at the least I would say. No seafood from the gulf for me thanks.
- 2 votes
Yeah... it's not a good idea to be overexposed to solvents, any painter knows that. BP just made one bad move after another and people don't realize enough about chemistry to understand the repercussions.
- 6 votes
There is no way that it could have disapeared. It s hidden, but continueing. They can say Obamas the comeback kid, but this will come back to bite hi in the ass.
He will have no one to blame but himself.
- 7 votes
The Obama Deception HQ Full length version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Obama's secret meeting with the Bilderberg Group
in case you guys dont understand, those reporters were taken , kidnapped, so that the possibility -- that they would snoops around Westfields Marriot or see or hear something that would indicate that, or Bildereberg, or other attendees -- would not exist. I was there, to protest on June 6, 2008. It's real y'all....
Oh, and if you watch this man's press conferences, he's still such a weasel, thank god -- he's like the GW of the Obama admin -- we see the truth from him much clearer than obama.
- 4 votes
BK Lim:
You hate Obama. That's your choice. It's just that you are ignoring facts. Obama did not cause the oil spill. Then the only comparison we have is George HW Bush's handling of the Exxon Valdeze oil spill. ExxonMobile was allowed to hold up final settlement for the spill for over 20 years on appeal. Many of the plaintiffs had died or moved away by then. Then people got pennies on the dollar for their losses. There is still plenty of oil floating around and Valdeze, Alaska is now a ghost town.
- 9 votes
mountainmike, It ain't so much about Obama, as it is his choices. In everything.
NOAA is under siege. Jane Lubechenco gotta go. And so do a lot of others. To jail.
- 3 votes
BK Lim:
You hate Obama. That's your choice.
mountainmike-1199289,
I would be interested in knowing the basis of your statement?
I just posted the links and comments which I find contrary to what the main media was projecting to the world - the message of hope for the world in that Obama was the President for Change; Change for the better, after 8 years of Bush Presidency. I would not be drawn into any political issues or sides; that is outside my field of expertise. I highlight only unethical and professional issues, issues that are morally wrong and the root causes of disasters.
It's just that you are ignoring facts. Obama did not cause the oil spill.
I would be most grateful if you can point out where I had made the statement "Obama caused the oil spill". I would gladly make the correction if there is.
I have also not made any statements or conclusion on the Exxon Valdeze oil spill, except to seed articles I find interesting for understanding the Gulf mega oil spill.
Hope I make my apolitical stand clear. I stand corrected if I gave the wrong impression.
- 4 votes
respectfully and nicely said. i dont think bk lim was trying to dis you, he was just taking off on the points made earlier that obama, who was brought into this discussion later on, had nothing to do with the spill.
but he had plenty to do with the, errr, investigation, or lack thereof, or management thereof, or mitigation thereof, this atrocity.
obama is not the environments friend. he is not the common folks friend. he is, has been and always will be the talking head (for the beginning of century 21) of the papered elite.
he is another wannabe with little or no backbone.
he dropped the ball massively on the BP fiasco, and he is still sitting in their lap.
all of us must drop the idea that we can get anything just or even responsible from the so-called government of the people.
aint so, never has been.
the governing must be done by the folks who care about more than their own egos, and it must be done one person at a time, recognizing the value and necessity of reasoning with another person about the realities that matter most - the health and welfare of the planet and its living systems, and its energetic systems.
period.
- 2 votes
Well in 2012 we'll get Sara Palin in there and she'll fix everything... or maybe another Bush!! That should turn things around.
- 2 votes
Well, duh. I thought that was going to be kind of an obvious outcome. Of course it's still in the ocean and it will settle in layers beneath the salty waters...that's like a middle school science topic
- 3 votes
In fact they said at the time that most of the oil could not be recovered and dont forget the right wing mouth piece Limbaugh said it was just a natural occurrence and in some respects he was correct. Oil escapes from many vents in the ovean floor sinks and lays on it.
- 1 vote
logdump
In fact they said at the time that most of the oil could not be recovered
Wonder who the "they" are? Care to quote the links to where this statement was taken from?
dont forget the right wing mouth piece Limbaugh said it was just a natural occurrence
What is that "natural occurrence" you are referring to? Limbaugh's mouth? or the oil? or "most of the oil could not be recovered"?
and in some respects he was correct.
If I say "flooding is a natural occurrence" then in some respect I am right. If the Dam burst then the flooding that occurred is no longer natural. Oil and gas seeps occur naturally as well as man-made. Those seeps that were caused by the blowout are no longer natural, right?
The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted. ~Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
Scientifically your statement below cannot be right. Natural oil after escaping from the vents float to the surface and do not sink and lay on the ocean floor. You better contact the author of the article you just quoted before he becomes the laughing stock of the whole world.
You can actually test the logic in the sentence to see the fallacy. For oil (from the reservoir) to seep to the vent at the seabed means it has to be lighter than the surrounding rock formation and pore fluid. It also has to overcome the resistance (inverse of permeability) in the migration to the top. Oil is lighter than water and the water column has significantly less resistance than the rock formation. So why wouldn't oil float to the surface?
Oil escapes from many vents in the ovean floor sinks and lays on it.
- 4 votes
In the link below, it says that the oil is so bad, that it is disrupting the Atlantic current, causing the EU cold spell because it isn't bringing them warmer water from the Gulf. It also talks about these underwater leaks, but doesn't explain how the oil is remaining in the deep - aside from the dispersants, which are already in the water. IDK - it's sick either way.
http://phoenixrisingfromthegulf.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-gulf-of-mexico-is-dying/
- 3 votes
So, which is worse . . . . the oil or the dispersants?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/07/of-course-clean-up-workers-cant-find.html
Actually, if BP had let things run their course:
- Oil-skimming vessels could have sucked up most of the oil
- Booms would have stopped most of the oil from hitting the shore
- And oil-eating bacteria would have broken down most of the remaining oil
Instead, BP has used millions of gallons of dispersants to hide the oil by breaking it up, so it sinks beneath the surface.
That means that oil-skimming vessels can't find it or suck it up. As the Times-Picayune pointed out on July 16th:
- 4 votes
you are correct in your questioning. and in your conclusions.
bp needed relief from the obvious, satellite and news pix of their puking disaster.
so they bullied poor obama and his puppy CG people. they just injected this known evil into the water both on the surface and at depth to vastly alter the view from above of the magnitude of their unforgivable behavior.
this gave them the lead time to pull the political and financial strings needed to take over their own investigation of themselves, and their own management of their mismanagement of themselves, and to kill off, and bribe, and threaten into silence, all those who might shed light on their armageddon in the gulf.
bk lim is one of the few with the balls and the brains to tell it like it is. i admire and respect him, and it is good to hear from him again.
- 4 votes
With it on the bottom, not only is it hidden, but easier to clean up - as long as they don't charge the us to clean it up before they sell it for big bucks...
- 1 vote
Maybe you should ask the EPA why it remained as an approved and legal measure to handle an oil spill.
- 2 votes
With it on the bottom, not only is it hidden, but easier to clean up -
. . . then why is it still on the bottom? It was suggested in the article that I linked to above that it would have been easier to clean up if it was on the surface. I'm no scientist, but that makes more sense to me than releasing another dangerous chemical into the ocean.
- 3 votes
At $90.00 a barrel that oil is worth its weight in gold. Finding the deep pockets can be very profitable. Japaneses fishing trawlers have been known of mining the ocean floors of noodles of metals for decades. Know of those ships sunk during WWII in the Pacific have been turn into Hondas. Having millions of barrels of free crude oil for the taking is a real temptation. Clean up service.
- 1 vote
Fifth Horseman,
Nodes of manganese and other metallic ores are vastly different from oil. Recovering tons of sediment to extract the dispersed oil is both costly and environmentally destructive, even without considering the deep water depth.
- 3 votes
it's a tube and a centrifuge - not as difficult as skimming - these pockets are like bubbles under water, rather than a skim-coating on the surface.
Hey Jane yeah you Dr. LUBEchenco they found it the oil. Out of sight LOST YOUR MIND!!! GREEN is DIRTY , GREEN is FRAUDULENT, your worst then Bowski, Miliken, and Maddoff combined. We know the Green game and you could've prevented the COREXIT, everything that has DIED or is DYING is on your Head. You are so lost within yourself. A fresh Graduate could of called this it already happened you could've GOOGLED IT!!! It's bad enough your SCREWING up every FISHERMENS LIFE, and now you FLEW OVER PARADISE AND PUT DOWN A PARKING LOT. You are an IDIOT thats right IDIOT I-D-I-O-T. RESIGN the Planet can't handle you. GREEN NON-PROFITS are TAX-SHELTERS and JOBFARE samething as WELFARE just more ZEROs and false self-Esteem.
- 2 votes
I'd like to wish BH and the rest of the Gang HAPPY HOLIDAYS...
- 2 votes
Back atcha NO J. My favorite Christmas present is you being here with us. We have important work to do. I'm thankful for our growing group of crusaders for justice. For fish, and our environment. The ENGOs ain't fighting for justice. They exist for money.
- 3 votes
Glad to have you here, NOAAMOREJANE.
Wish you, all the newsviners and readers a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. We all need the luck and well wishes we can get for what is coming in the next couple of years.
- 3 votes
The whole thing is beyond words to express the extent of the disaster. Or my disgust with the big money and powers that be that have done everything they can to cover it all up.
Out of sight, out of mind. Americans tend to be so short term memory, that they will buy any story handed to them. "Its all clean!" "woohoo!"
Later when it becomes so evident that it cannot be ignored, someone will get all the blame for the whole mess. Right now my guess is Pres. Obama will get a huge chunk (if not all) the blame for this. It will be passed off as if he personally dumped every drop of oil into our gulf. And folks will eat that up like the starving idiots they are.
- 5 votes
bk - your thoughts on the injection at depth into the gulf stream and the cutoff of the warmer water at the carolinas?
i know the projected speed and volume of this flow below florida into the atlantic has been calculated pretty well. what i just cant know is if the circulation away from the continually leaking wells and would-be wells would put these many millions of gallons into that stream.
i have said again and again that no one in power wants to or is allowed to say what you and i and lots of others know is happening.
thanks for all your courage and hard work. i mean that. oil geology and oceanography are difficult sciences, and without good info put into understandable language, even other scientists have difficulty visualizing things.
you have made my knowledge and correlations much better.
- 3 votes
mick the biologist
Thanks for dropping in and giving your thoughts on the issues.
bk - your thoughts on the injection at depth into the gulf stream and the cutoff of the warmer water at the carolinas?
Let's recap the facts first. Before the oil spill disaster, we know the Gulf water is layered (as do all of the world's ocean) according to a combination of factors - density, salinity, temperature, current etc. No doubt natural oil and gas seeps exists before the disaster but whatever existed before contributed to that gulf stream. Oil is also used loosely but in reality gas (H2S, methane and other light hydrocarbons) exists in greater abundance especially if the oil seepage from the reservoir is much warmer than the temp at seafloor level pre-disaster. Hydrates above the stabilization level – evaporate into gas (methane) adding to the volume of gas.
At the blowout on 20 Apr and until 22 April, oil and gas spewed out from the blown well (S20BC - third well) from the shallow sub-seabed, most probably from oil and gas that had accumulated in the first 5,000-6,000 ft (the "probably" refers to the depth range). The accumulation of gas and oil could have been natural (possibly less than 20% pre-drilling) but the majority (>80%) probably was during and post drilling stage. Well B tapped mainly the shallower gas reservoir (Texaco Gas reservoir -just a convenient reference). But all the 3 wells are connected via both shallow and deep major faults. Well A was leaking gas before 22 April.
On 22 April around 10 am, the 2nd underground explosion (which blew off the BOP) occurred when the cement plug at the base of the well gave way big time. Oil started to gush out directly through the well at high pressure and velocity. Before 22nd April oil was seeping much slower through the fractures and faults at much lower volume. The coastguard reported a "big gas bubble" at the base >50 km away at 11 pm 22 April and another observed "orange seep" (midway) both along the NW-SE fault-line passing the Macondo wells - suggested the second explosion was many times more powerful (mainly due to more hydraulic pressure from the reservoir oil) than the initial gas blowout which caused the fire but not powerful enough to bring down the Deepwater Horizon rig.
Why are these facts important?
I believe the volume of gas and oil coming (without the corexit factor yet) from all the three wells combined would be insufficient to disrupt the giant gulf stream flow with respect to volume. This substantiated our earlier assertion that oil and gas were gushing out at a greater volume through the faults and other zones of weakness (acting as vertical conduits) around the Domes' edges not only Biloxi Dome. So what we had all been estimating from one open well diameter is a gross under-estimate. Large columns of gas stretching from the Biloxi Dome to the Gloria and Whiting Domes would be sufficient volume and speed (within a short time) to drastically alter the large body of water especially over prolonged period - at least 3 months. This was the unseen destructive component of the mega-oil (oil-gas) spill. As seen from the ROV videos as late as early NOV before they were shut down (not broadcast) the blow-out craters, vaporising seabed sediment, linear clouds of gas, drilling mud, cement etc, the gas is escaping and blowing out through the weaker zones. The escaping columns of gas also provide the vertical upwelling force. Without these numerous vents of escaping gas, the water tends to settle back to a layered structure.
Next add the Corexit Factor. I am not a chemist so those who are more knowledgeable are invited to contribute to this discussion. But I suspect (from the dispersion and settling pattern) the dispersed fluid do not stay as colloidal suspension. In very quiet (low energy) water they settle down as fluffy sediment (see samples picked by Dr Samantha Joyce). At shallow water, the fluid seeps through the beach sand and convalesced back to oily layers – that’s why we get oil a few feet below the ground surface. So all these interactions (vertically and laterally) kept the water body from stabilizing back into a stratified form for the gulf stream to flow.
The above is a compressed summary of the effect of oil spill and is by no means a comprehensive explanation on the disruption of the whole gulf stream flow. The fractured and faulted Salt Geology allowed the gas and oil to be dispersed underground over a larger area than otherwise possible. We will dealt with this and the spate of anomalous shallow earthquakes in my future postings.
- 4 votes
One little teeny problem here.
Oil is lighter than water. In other words, it floats.
The oil that was on top of the water, much of it evaporated, the rest was skimmed. Very little of it was left, and the seawater emulsified much of it.
But this makes for a great conspiracy theory. Kind of like the truthers. We can call them the gulfers.
- 5 votes
Edward
In normal oil spills I have seen, the oil floats and accumulate back as oily scums at the coast. The dispersant must have heavy metallic elements in them to settle down the dispersed oil particles in very quiet water.
- 4 votes
"South Florida and from a broad government effort, mark the latest indication that environmental damage from the blowout of a BP PLC well could be significant where it's hardest to find: deep under the Gulf's surface."
... exactly where BP wants it....
- 3 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |



