Started By
Message
locked post

Possible good news about the plumes

Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:42 pm
Posted by TigerFred
Feeding hamsters
Member since Aug 2003
27678 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:42 pm
This only an initial study and more is being conducted, but perhaps the initial study is a good indication that the plumes aren't as heavy as some thought.

LINK to NOAA initial analysis press release
quote:


* Hydrocarbons found in surface samples taken at the Slick 1 source, 40 nautical miles northeast from the well head, were consistent with the BP oil spill source;
* Hydrocarbons found in samples from Station 07—42 nautical miles northeast from the well head—at the surface, at 50 meters and at 400 meters are petroleum-derived but in concentrations too low to confirm the source; and
* Hydrocarbons found in samples taken from Station 01, 142 nautical miles southeast of the well head, at 100 meters and 300 meters were not consistent with the BP oil spill source.
* An additional analysis of samples taken from waters 1,250 meters deep and 1,000 deep at two stations closer to the well are consistent with the findings of the University of South Florida. Our preliminary results revealed petroleum hydrocarbons so highly fractionated that it was not possible to confirm the source of the oil.



Posted by mylsuhat
Mandeville, LA
Member since Mar 2008
49516 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:43 pm to
you mean people have been exagerating things?! NO WAY!!!












This post was edited on 6/8/10 at 1:48 pm
Posted by nycajun
Nothin' could be finer.....
Member since Dec 2004
18183 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:47 pm to
Having read the linked release, it's hard to find anything that obviously supports the characterization "possible good news." Help us out.
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:49 pm to
quote:

This only an initial study and more is being conducted, but perhaps the initial study is a good indication that the plumes aren't as heavy as some thought.


No it's worse.

Using the dispersants they made the hydrocarbons more miscible in the seawater. This makes them more difficult to clean up, and more bioavailable.

This is even worse, not better.
Posted by TigerFred
Feeding hamsters
Member since Aug 2003
27678 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 1:52 pm to
When the test samples are so low in concentration to identify the source it sure sounds like the plumes aren't as heavy as some thought. If the plumes aren't heavy in concentration it sounds like good news to me.

I would wait to make a final judgment until I see more data from further testing.



Posted by tgrbaitn08
Member since Dec 2007
148031 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:10 pm to
How dare you shed some positive light into this thread Fred....Dont you know that this is the end of the world as we know it??
Posted by Drop4Loss
Birds Eye Of Deaf Valley
Member since Oct 2007
3967 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:12 pm to
Lemme read again, oh yea, that study was made by the Gubament.................

How do ya think its gonna read....
Posted by mylsuhat
Mandeville, LA
Member since Mar 2008
49516 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:13 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/8/10 at 2:50 pm
Posted by TigerFred
Feeding hamsters
Member since Aug 2003
27678 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:16 pm to
Having less oil in the gulf is worse? please explain
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:20 pm to
quote:

Having less oil in the gulf is worse? please explain


It's not less...unless somehow the dispersants magically made it disappear. They simply made the molecules more miscible in water. thereby decreasing the concentration per volume, and making them more bioavailable.

For example if I have 1 gallon of oil and nine gallons of water in a large container....and add dispersants....The oil "disperses", becoming more miscible int the whole of the body of water. This has done nothing to decrease the volume of oil...merely made it be able to mix with the water. thereby making it harder to clean up, and making it more bioavaliable for the wildlife...particularly at the more vulnerable basal end of the food web.
Posted by tgrbaitn08
Member since Dec 2007
148031 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:31 pm to
quote:



It's not less...unless somehow the dispersants magically made it disappear. They simply made the molecules more miscible in water. thereby decreasing the concentration per volume, and making them more bioavailable.

For example if I have 1 gallon of oil and nine gallons of water in a large container....and add dispersants....The oil "disperses", becoming more miscible int the whole of the body of water. This has done nothing to decrease the volume of oil...merely made it be able to mix with the water. thereby making it harder to clean up, and making it more bioavaliable for the wildlife...particularly at the more vulnerable basal end of the food web.



Have you ever heard that the answer to pollution is dilution. Once the oil is broken down or dispersed it is easier for the bacteria of the sea to degrade the oil into nothing.
Posted by el tigre
your heart
Member since Sep 2003
49712 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:36 pm to
quote:

Have you ever heard that the answer to pollution is dilution.


yeah, i have.

i've also heard that the solution to pollution is to don't pollute, or reduce all types of emissions to begin with.

Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:38 pm to
quote:

Have you ever heard that the answer to pollution is dilution. Once the oil is broken down or dispersed it is easier for the bacteria of the sea to degrade the oil into nothing.



Agreed, however the size of this spill far outweighs the microbial loop's ability to deal with the problem efficiently and in a timely manner. In the meantime, while the microbial loop ramps up its number of organisms to deal with the new food source, the oil has become more bioavailable to wildlife for an extended period of time. Being more miscible in the water it also becomes more likely to be entrained into the food web and at higher quantities in the organisms. That is a major problem.

Secondarily, with it being more interspersed in water, the overall area where the bacteria interact with the oil has increased. Thereby increasing the area where there will be reduction in available oxygen as the bacteria use it for respiration. These hypoxic or even anoxic zones are devastating to marine life, as evidenced by the Dead Zone in the Gulf.
Posted by tgrbaitn08
Member since Dec 2007
148031 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:42 pm to
quote:



i've also heard that the solution to pollution is to don't pollute, or reduce all types of emissions to begin with.



lame
Posted by tgrbaitn08
Member since Dec 2007
148031 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:43 pm to
quote:


Agreed, however the size of this spill far outweighs the microbial loop's ability to deal with the problem efficiently and in a timely manner. In the meantime, while the microbial loop ramps up its number of organisms to deal with the new food source, the oil has become more bioavailable to wildlife for an extended period of time. Being more miscible in the water it also becomes more likely to be entrained into the food web and at higher quantities in the organisms. That is a major problem.

Secondarily, with it being more interspersed in water, the overall area where the bacteria interact with the oil has increased. Thereby increasing the area where there will be reduction in available oxygen as the bacteria use it for respiration. These hypoxic or even anoxic zones are devastating to marine life, as evidenced by the Dead Zone in the Gulf.



Well, you're obviously way fricking smarter than I am, so I'll just let you win this one.
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:45 pm to
quote:

Well, you're obviously way fricking smarter than I am, so I'll just let you win this one.


There's alot of false info and hope about what's going on. As a humble scientist, I'm just trying to drop some knowledge where I can...so people understand the breath of the issue that now faces us all.
Posted by MountainTiger
The foot of Mt. Belzoni
Member since Dec 2008
14861 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:49 pm to
quote:

There's alot of false info and hope about what's going on. As a humble scientist, I'm just trying to drop some knowledge where I can...so people understand the breath of the issue that now faces us all.

Further to that effort, could you explain whether dispersing the oil is better than not dispersing it? Certainly it's a bad deal either way but from a layperson's viewpoint dispersed oil seems way better than concentrated oil.
Posted by BROffshoreTigerFan
Edmond, OK
Member since Oct 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:49 pm to
Knowledge dropped scientist.
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:52 pm to
quote:

Further to that effort, could you explain whether dispersing the oil is better than not dispersing it? Certainly it's a bad deal either way but from a layperson's viewpoint dispersed oil seems way better than concentrated oil.



See above on why dispersing it is bad. I think i covered it being more bioavailabe, etc....

Not to mention Corexit is a toxic chemical in its own right that does not have a microbial loop to break it down, and will become entrained into the organisms of the food web.
Posted by wilceaux
Austin, TX
Member since Apr 2004
12892 posts
Posted on 6/8/10 at 2:57 pm to
Do you mind if I ask who you work with?
I understand if you would rather not.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram