Skip to main content

View Diary: BP's Gulf Disaster: ROV #137 (330 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Scientists confirm UF plumes: Where is media? (10+ / 0-)

    No one is reporting this in national media that I've heard.

    That report of oil within the sand, below the surface. That is scary. I live in N. Cent. FL. and so hate to read that. A very bad sign for sea life.

    Thanks for that information.

    you (Repubs) lie down with "Nazi"-chanters, you get up with a responsibility for what they might do. -David Corn

    by Gorette on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 07:37:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That Prof. Blum who was on with Rachel (9+ / 0-)

      said the dispersant made the oil soak in to soils and sand. If that's the case, you beach folks should scream bloody murder.

      Use dispersant to keep it off the beach but make it 10 times worse when it does hit the beach.

      There need to be Congressional hearings just on the damned dispersant and why the government allowed them to continue to use it.

      It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

      by Fishgrease on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:46:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly right! Well said, Fishgrease. (7+ / 0-)

        Use dispersant to keep it off the beach but make it 10 times worse when it does hit the beach.

        Embedded oil/dispersant.

        What exactly are the repercussions of inches of oily sand? Doesn't it also indicate that the seabed must be similarly oiled/dispersant-infected?

        Makes me sick. Agree about hearings on dispersant!

        you (Repubs) lie down with "Nazi"-chanters, you get up with a responsibility for what they might do. -David Corn

        by Gorette on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:58:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dispersant said by NOAA to be parts per million (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fishgrease, rubyr, David PA, Yasuragi

          and therefore I guess, not worriesome in the least.

          In this country, they always present parts per million as nothing. Relying on "common sense" rather than scientific fact.

          Will the hurricane pull up the oil that is below the surface of the Gulf?

          • All of the sampling to date shows that except near
          the leaking well, the subsurface dispersed oil is in
          parts per million levels or less. The hurricane will
          mix the waters of the Gulf and disperse the oil
          even further.

          --from the NOAA Hurricane/Oil factsheet -- pdf

          you (Repubs) lie down with "Nazi"-chanters, you get up with a responsibility for what they might do. -David Corn

          by Gorette on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:23:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  On Second Thought (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i m bobo, David PA, Yasuragi

        If the dispersant/oil froth makes globs layer in the fashion described, following tidal action it should ease removal, depending on if/how further tidal action affects the layer that's deposited now.

        A two-inch thick deposit, as the article describes it, at a depth of 6" is not a daunting task to clean up.  And it's fairly innocuous in place.

        Oil in the marshes that's adhering to vegetation and constantly being agitated with no opportunity to settle and deposit like on a beach, is a real headache when it comes to clean up and remediation.  It also represents a far more lethal scenario to marine life than oil on comparatively sterile sandy beaches.

        "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Kennedy (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

        by Limelite on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:58:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  what does this have to do with dispersants (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fishgrease, rubyr

        This appears to be undispersed oil.

        High tide deposited oil on beach in a nice layer.  Next high tide deposited 6" of sand on top.

        Pennsacola Beach appears to be in Escambria, FL, on the barrier islands outside the line of boom which protects the bay.   Pennsacola beach is the boom, as far as nature is concerned.  Aerial photos show no booming of any kind, but they are pretty old 2010-05-15.

        Interaction of dispersed oil with beach sand could get interesting.  But it has been studied and the outcome was at least 49 times better for dispersed oil:

        At the experiment’s conclusion, approximately 49% of the applied oil for the oiled treatment remained in the tanks sorbed to sediments or other surfaces. The rest of the oil was removed via the effluent. In the chemically-dispersed oil treatment, all of the oil was flushed from the tanks; no oil (much less-than1%) remained on the sediments. These studies indicate that a timely dispersant application to spilled oil can reduce residual oil accumulation on beach substrates.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/...

        You could argue that beach protected by booming would be protected if the oil was undispersed but are you really going to stop >>99% of the oil under a wide range of real world conditions including storms?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site