For the first time, scientists are coming up with an explanation of the huge discrepancies in observed phenomenon related to the BP / Transocean / Halliburton oil disaster.
The last previously reported "official" statement by the US Coast Guard had the leak at ~ 5,000 barrels per day. That was up from 1,000, which was up from "no leaks." So, clearly, they were just guess-timating.
Earlier this week, NPR referred BP's only released video clip to several scientists for their analysis of ONE of the leaks.
The worst news is after the bump:
http://www.npr.org/...
The unchecked oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has produced large tar balls that are now washing ashore in coastal Louisiana. To make matters worse, an NPR analysis indicates the leak is releasing at least 10 times more oil than BP and the government have estimated.
http://www.marketwatch.com/...
NPR reported late Thursday that scientific analysis of a video of the leak, released Wednesday by BP, put the rate closer to 70,000 barrels a day, making the resulting spill already far worse than the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska
Now we have the explanation for the huge question: If it is not on the surface, where is all this oil?
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Scientists Find Giant Plumes of Oil Forming Under the Gulf
Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick. The discovery is fresh evidence that the leak from the broken undersea well could be substantially worse than estimates that the government and BP have given.
What on earth? Oil is lighter than water and should float, right? But this isn't just refined oil It is crude oil containing all sorts of highly toxic contaminants already, and bubbled through with methane gas at that. Released from leaks a mile below the surface, in the deep cold, the oil behaves differently than we would expect.
But there's more to it than that:
While they have detected the plumes and their effects with several types of instruments, the researchers are still not sure about the exact consistency of the plumes. They are almost certainly not solid bubbles of oil, Dr. Joye said, but are likely to be a mix of oil and water that could resemble salad dressing.
Salad Dressing? Thousand Island? Creamy Ranch? Deep in the sea?
What would cause oil to behave like that?
The scientists involved in the Pelican mission, which is backed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency that monitors the health of the oceans, are not certain why that would be. They say they suspect the heavy use of chemical dispersants, which BP has injected directly into the stream of oil emerging from the well, may have broken the oil up into droplets too small to rise rapidly.
The actions of BP are causing the oil to remain invisible, which is helpful both to BP and the US government, because it obscures the size of the problem.
Remember, only one below-surface slick is 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick. There are many of them.
And the oil continues to flow at around 70 -80,000 bbls per day. All BPs attempts to date have failed.
Their disperants are hiding the problem. And huge dead zones will appear where the under water dispersant-oil mixture lingers, killing all in its path.
The tragedy is no less horrible than everyone has been saying. It is just that much of it will be invisible due to the US EPA-approved science experiment taking place 5000 feet below the surface of the sea, where BP continues to inject massive quantities of disperants with full government approval.
UPDATE, May 15, 11:11 pm CDT: The use of dispersants is the key to creation of these underwater oil slicks. Actually, "slicks" minimizes the problem, because a slick is fractions of an inch thick. These are lakes of undersea oil.
The EPA has permitted BP to use a more toxic and less effective dispersant than others available. And:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
Carys Mitchelmore, an environmental chemist at the University of Maryland Centre for Environmental Science and a co-author of a 2005 US National Academies report on dispersants, told Nature: "No one will tell you using dispersants won't have an effect. You're trading one species for another. The long-term effects are really unknown. The dispersant has inherent toxicity. And these oil droplets tend to be the same size as food particles for filter-feeding organisms."
"Dispersants... are toxic to marine life, so there are trade-offs to consider," David Pettit of the Natural Resources Defence Council told the Washington Post last week. "And just because humans can't see oil on the surface doesn't mean it's not still in the water column, affecting marine life from plankton to whales."
In the meantime, the EPA says this: http://www.nytimes.com/...
All the company is required to do is to choose an EPA-approved chemical, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters yesterday during a conference call aimed at addressing questions about dispersants being used in efforts to contain the Gulf spill.
"Our regular responsibilities say, if it's on the list and they want to use it, then they are preauthorized to do so," Jackson said.
Perhaps it is time we tell Lisa Jackson that "regular responsibilities" are a little lax for a disaster of this scope and toxicity: http://blog.epa.gov/...
BECAUSE less toxic and more effective dispersant are readily available and not being used by BP:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Corexit ranks far above dispersants made by competitors in toxicity and far below them in effectiveness in handling southern Louisiana crude.
Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.
What a disaster. While clearly BP / Transocean / Halliburton (the usual suspects) are responsible for this disaster beginning, the EPA must not be complacent about the solutions being applied. BP, it seems, likes their particular dispersant because... They Run the Company that makes the more toxic, less effective dispersant:
(same link as above)
Critics say Nalco, a joint partnership with Exxon Chemical that was spun off in the 1990s, boasts oil-industry insiders on its board of directors and among its executives, including an 11-year board member at BP and a top Exxon executive who spent 43 years with the oil giant.
"It's a chemical that the oil industry makes to sell to itself, basically," said Richard Charter, a senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife.
Corruption runs strong and deep. Only millions of voices can build the pressure to stop this charade of a "clean-up" that is destroying the Gulf beneath the waves.
UPDATE 2: The number of oil rigs in operation, as of 2006, via Wikipedia and NOAA: http://en.wikipedia.org/...
When you fly over at night, it seems there are cities floating on the water - there are so many lights.
The Deepwater Horizon was near the center-right edge of the map when it sank.
Isn't it about time for effective and comprehensive regulation of an industry like this?
