Scientists find oil plume below Gulf's surface

[Barrett808]

Source: AOL News

Since the Gulf of Mexico oil spill began three weeks ago, most eyes and cameras have been focused on the widening, orange slick. But now, as experts argue that the flow rate could far exceed the government's estimate of 210,000 gallons a day, a team of independent scientists studying the water in and around the disaster zone have found another problem: stores of leaked oil lingering beneath the surface in long, stringy filaments and snowflake-like collections.

"It doesn't float right up on top as you would think," Raymond Highsmith of the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology tells AOL News. "Some of it floats right under the surface, and some of it now looks like it's quite a ways down."

Read more: http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/05/scientists-find-oil-plume-below-gulf.html

[Magleetis]

1. We are witnessing

the killing of the Gulf. It's slowly killing me too.

[nashville_brook]

14. i can't get that thought - either of those thoughts -- out of my head.

[Mark D.]

15. More Than That

If it's actually 5-10 times more than estimated leaking, and it goes on for years as some say, it could be the end of the world's oceans. Every DU person, every one they know, needs to join in a single rallying call. Bigger than the anti-war protest. Tell congress, tell senators, tell the president, go to the UN now. Don't expect BP, Haliburton, or the Coast Guard alone to fix this.

Nobody knows how to stop it. Sure, it's deep, it's high pressure, but it's a 3 foot wide pipe. If every nation's available navy, and scientists/engineers both private and public, put an all out, no expense spared effort into finding a way to plug the leak, and implementing it, we could find a way much more quickly. If they wait until the oil is lapping the shores of Europe and Africa, it will be too late.

Dispersants only spread the oil faster with added toxins. 'Nuking it' not only may not work, but could open up a bigger hole to let more oil through. You don't nuke a giant reservoir full of flammable oil and methane gas for God's sake. Nations united to go into world wars twice last century at the expense of millions of lives. Nations united to invade other nations as 'coalition forces'. We need the UN and every nation to declare war on THIS LEAK. NOW!

[TK421]

88. agreed...this is a bigger threat to humanity than any war we are currently involved in

we're talking about peoples businesses..livelihoods destroyed, and countless millions lost only for BP to profit at the end of this ( I know we can agree there will be a massive spike at the pump because of BP's complacency on this issue ) They had better find a solution.....and fast

Why isn't this getting MORE coverage on the news? Senate races are important, yes, but this is a catastrophe

[defendandprotect]

121. Life began in the oceans . . .

[pasto76]

16. if they dont stop it, we may witness the death of the atlantic too.

[yawnmaster]

70. any references to evidence of that? eom

[defendandprotect]

122. Does it occur to you that when you have "hard evidence" .... it's too late???

If this oil enters the Gulf Stream . . . if it's carried further off by

hurricanes/storms -- it will pollute all of our oceans -- eventually.

One doesn't even need "vision" to get that --

One just needs common sense --

[Aramchek]

18. overexaggeration doesn't help anyone

[caseymoz]

28. That's not an exaggeration.

It may be premature to say it could kill the oceans worldwide, but could very well kill the gulf and maybe the Atlantic.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. There is no overexaggeration there.

The Gulf is already very stressed by agricultural runoff creating dead zones. Much of the gulf is quite shallow and fragile, and between the Florida peninsula, the island of Cuba, and the Mayan peninsula the gulf is poorly designed for easy exchange of waters - it is practically a closed system, all but an inland sea. The Central American coast of the Gulf may be safe, with the outflow of rivers mitigating the effects of the pollution but even there there is no guarantee. We really have no idea how badly this level of contamination can poison a sea as restricted as this. The Caribbean should be OK, but I'd take no bets on the gulf.

[Donnachaidh]

39. and deliberate unederestimating doesn't help anyone either - but both BP

and the government are doing THAT daily.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

42. Tell me. How is it over-exaggeration? Anything you have to support your position

would be most welcome.

[Aramchek]

45. "The oil is not evenly distributed, either horizontally or vertically. It's very patchy."

How can you make a reliable estimate on something like that?

The closest you can come is to watch the oil leave the pipes with the ROVs.
That is what an estimate should be based on.
That article is guesswork.

[The Hope Mobile]

51. That work has already been done. They took the diameter of the hole

and figured out the velocity of the flow by placing a marker in it and measured what distance was covered in what amount of time then figured the volume. The estimate from that was at least a million gallons a day. I've read this but I don't have the source at the moment though I'm sure its not hard to find.

Yes, it would be extremely difficult to judge by aerial shots or anything that would measure percentages in the gulf . . . or whatever, but that's not how its done. It IS quantifiable. It is definitely killing the Gulf.

[Botany]

57. the damage from this oil leak could be deadly

[loudsue]

62. It is actually worse than that. When you look at the entire chain of life,

we're looking at some really nasty drought and weather problems due to this spill. There is an entire ecosystem in this world that we are about to have a field trip learning experience in. The next 12 to 14 months are going to be real enlightening for those who come late to tree-huggers 101 school of ecosystems.

[tekisui]

89. Jeez, do you work for BP?

[Javaman]

24. Yeah, because fertilizer run off from the MIssissippi over the years creating dead zones...

did nothing to contribute to the problem.

oy.

Sorry to be a jerk, but the gulf has been in serious serious shape for decades.

You think this is the only spill that has ever happened?

The gulf has long been a cesspool made so by us.

I could go into further detail, but what is the difference now. we as a race continue to poop where we live, eat and breath.

Not only do we not have respect for the planet, we have no self respect.

[caseymoz]

29. You had "dead zones" in the gulf, but a dead gulf far worse.

[ConcernedCanuk]

41. "we as a race continue to poop where we live, eat and breath. "

.
.
.

spot on

I remember as a youth, living in Oakville Ontario, not far from Toronto -

going down to the beach in the late fifties and unable to swim in Lake Ontario because of the pollution in the water

why?

BECAUSE WE WERE DUMPING OUR SEWAGE INTO IT!

untreated at that time

just dumped millions of gallons of shit and piss into the Great Lakes

heck

no ANIMAL shits in their drinking water(well, except fish I suspect)

ever see a cow, dog, cat, squirrel, bear, fox, wolf, whatever shit in the water??

nope

but us "civilized" creatures

we do

still

:freak:

[jberryhill]

43. "no ANIMAL shits in their drinking water"

Yeast.

[TroglodyteScholar]

47. Isn't yeast a fungus? n/t

[Wednesdays]

63. I'll drink some yeast poop to that!

Yeast eats sugar and poops alcohol. Beer and wine, for example. :)

[jberryhill]

100. Well... You see what happens if you live in your own waste?

You become a fungus!

[svpadgham]

66. Hippos

n/t

[ConcernedCanuk]

113. 300 posts in 6 years - and one is to ME!

.
.
.

I'm flattered.

should I be?

[Javaman]

73. I guess you don't like beer. nt

[ConcernedCanuk]

112. Wrong.

.
.

I think beer is healthier than most of our water.

Beer is my favorite alcoholic beverage.

[Leftist Agitator]

58. "ever see a cow, dog, cat, squirrel, bear, fox, wolf, whatever shit in the water??"

Yep. Deer and Moose. More than once.

[Javaman]

75. So therefore?

you are just fine with us destroying ourselves. remind me never to live near you.

and please point out, from my post, where I said, that we were the only ones that did?

We are the only animals with the ability of reason, we should know better.

[Leftist Agitator]

78. Was I replying to you?

Oh, wait, I wasn't? Oh...

[ConcernedCanuk]

115. Well, sometimes when ya gotta go, ya gotta go -

.
.
.

but WE did it by design

I bet that MOST of the deer and moose poop is in the bush

Almost ALL of ours was and still is (treated mind you) going into our water.

Third world countries as we call them don't do that - they mix it with grass and so on to use it for fuel - heat and cooking.

It's just most of us "civilized" people that keep throwing our shit and piss into our drinking water.

Pretty intelligent of us eh?

[Ticonderoga]

68. The Blue Scrub Jays

in my yard shit in their birdbath and then drink it. Just sayin...lol

[Lionel Mandrake]

91. We used to dump raw sewage in the San Francisco Bay.

The smell at the east end of the Bay Bridge was horrible when I was a kid.

[ConcernedCanuk]

114. Makes one wonder why we call ourselves the "superior" race

.
.
.

Maybe it's just because we have the ability to kill everything else.

And sadly enough

We do it

[Lionel Mandrake]

117. Maybe Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) had the right idea

(before he changed his mind) in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (2008).

[ConcernedCanuk]

123. Klaatu - wasn't there a musical group named that way back when?

.
.
.

I seem to remember having an album(vinyl) and on cassette -

I can hear one of their songs in my head as I type, but the words don't come back . .

memories . .

[Lionel Mandrake]

124. Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_(band)

"Klaatu was a Canadian progressive rock group formed in 1973 by the duo of John Woloschuk and Dee Long. They named themselves after the extraterrestrial by the same name portrayed by Michael Rennie in the film The Day the Earth Stood Still."

By the way, the original (1951) movie starring Michael Rennie was much better than the 2008 remake starring Keanu Reeves.

[ConcernedCanuk]

125. Guess I'm giving away my age . .

.
.
.

:blush:

[amandabeech]

92. Lake Michigan wasns't a pretty picture then either.

Even half way up there were huge algae blumes and massive alewive die-offs.

Now, of course, the zebra and quagga muscles have cleaned everything out, including the food for the lake fish.

Oh, and Milwaukee finally stopped dumping storm drain overflow into it after a huge law suit. Grand Rapids, Michigan, still has problems. And lots of Amway money to fix it if they wanted.

[JoeyT]

93. Among other things that have been done to the Gulf.

I remember about 20 years ago seeing whopping great pipes dumping raw sewage straight into the Gulf.
The Air Force used to tell people that transferred into Keesler to NEVER let their families go in the water.
The bycatch dumps on the beach were pretty sweet too. If the wind blew just right the smell would make you sick.
We've been working hard at destroying the Gulf for the last fifty plus years, and trying to save it for the last decade or two.
Being willing to admit that doesn't make BP any less guilty.

[icee]

27. If we are in some kind of Final Days, I wish someone would tell

us. I have a few things I'd like to see.

[Ticonderoga]

69. Best be for making some plans ol' buddy.

[icee]

82. BP is right now putting a large drinking straw down the hole. Then

a tanker will drink from the straw. What is this Cat in the Hat?

[superconnected]

71. You know how the polar bears are drowning now because the ice is too thin to hold them and it's all

because of our pollution in the atmosphere, we're next. The flooding and super hurricane seasons we now see are killing people but it's coming down on us in so many more ways at once - even cancers.

You've been told.

[icee]

83. Roger that. The US is broke, hated around the world, killing

polar bears and itself at a rapid rate. Can't we somehow go back to 1957? Where the hell is Eisenhower?

[Skink]

84. 2012 dude

and for earlier posts the leak is going to be stopped but not for awhile.

[icee]

85. 2012? That's what I'm figuring also. They may have to nuke the

spill.

[marshall]

36. Thank the maker that Obama is on this!

Imagine where we would be if this had happened four years ago!

[Donnachaidh]

40. the leak would be the same, and the leak would be continuing AS IT IS RIGHT NOW

Sorry, but the *it would be far worse if Bush was there* crap does not wash in this situation. It's actually laughable that anyone would even think to use that stupid talking point here.

[kestrel91316]

48. Well, we all know you long for the good old days under Bush......

[inna]

53. what a stupid and mean thing to say.

:thumbsdown:

[readmoreoften]

55. What, really, is Obama doing differently than Bush would? You like Obama. We get the point.

But, sorry, there's little substantial difference.

[tabasco]

77. And Heckuva job Brownie or some other dipshit would be in charge.

At least Obama has some standards.

[flyarm]

97. yeah like giving BP 3 more Oil leases ..after this spill..is that what you mean?

and 27 more leases since this leak..is that what you are refering to?????

some fucking standards!

[pokercat999]

99. Hey! Give the man a break, BP was one of his biggest

contributors! :sarcasm:

[marshall]

107. That's not the point

I realize the accident itself would be the same regardless of who was at the wheel. But the reaction is what is much different.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TroglodyteScholar]

49. Dude get a grip. n/t

[Wednesdays]

64. Really. If they meant "South" as in what once were the Confederate States

It'll take a very long time--if ever--for Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia to get oil on their shores. And Arkansas and Tennessee will never get a single drop.

Yes, the spill will be devastating, but to say the entire South will be destroyed, is just going way overboard.

[Karenina]

103. Let's hope no high winds blow through...

:eyes:

[marions ghost]

65. What utter CRAPOLA

:thumbsdown:

I know you're upset, but that's no reason to spew crap--there's enough of that from BP and, oh yeah, the geyser.

[undeterred]

79. Are you a confederate?

Listen to yourself.

[WillyT]

74. It May Slowly Be Killing ALL Of Us...

:shrug:

[willing dwarf]

86. Environmental Despair

I remember about 12 years ago hearing a radio program on the psycho dynamics of environmental despair-- the deep sadness individuals feel as they recognize their alienation from the earth, and confront their helpless participation in the environmental degradation of the planet. The presenter was a psychologist from the Pacific Northwest.

At the time I felt like they had really hit upon a deep truth, but after that one program I've never heard the issue addressed again. I don't know who doesn't feel deep despair as we watch the eco system of the Gulf being destroyed. It's as bad as all the worst case scenarios, but far worse than I ever imagined.

It feels very very dark now. Like we're really pushing to the limits. So sad.

[bananas]

111. Hug a tree

Try it!
http://healing.about.com/cs/trees/ht/How_hugtree.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/me2/kyndsisterz/hug.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipko_movement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8340316

[tranche]

2. I was watching Planet Earth last night. Deep Seas I believe.

And they talked about the deep sea ecosystems in (i believe the Gulf) in which between two different layers of saltwater lived a carpet of mussels which on it's own sustained an entire new ecosystem, floating on a plane deep under the sea. I can see oil acting the same way down there if the conditions were right.

[mike_c]

3. this was one of my concerns as well....

Oil on the surface is worst for birds and for shoreline ecosystems, but emulsified oil at depth is potentially much worse for ocean life.

[jpak]

54. The ruptured well is releasing large quantities of methane and hydrogen sulfide

as well as petroleum - all that is going to oxidize and consume oxygen below the thermocline.

and it's going to be really bad if this continues for months...

[thecrow]

4. Maybe that's from all the dispersants

that they have never tried before...?
We are totally outside the box with this one, and I fear for the Gulf region.

[Michigan-Arizona]

7. That was my first thought as well n/t

[Uncle Joe]

8. That's what I was thinking, someone posted another thread wondering why these balls near the shore

have seperated from the main glob.

[Brother Buzz]

5. Thermoclines

Just wait until a severe tropical depression marches through and disrupts things

[GoddessOfGuinness]

9. Quite a dumbfounding thought...

:-(

[Dr.Phool]

11. The season is only two weeks away.

[DLnyc]

23. Slightly disconcertying to see what appear to be 4 tropical waves drifting

west across the Atlantic. Sometimes these develop into storms, mostly they don't. No prediction of storms currently, but it stills gives me an uneasy feeling.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATWDAT+shtml/141747.shtml?

[jwirr]

21. Or a hurricane kicks in.

[Brother Buzz]

33. I was under the impression a hurricane is a uber SEVERE tropical depression

but I'm not a weatherman, nor do I play one on television. ;)

[jwirr]

37. I was just thinking what one could do churning up the waters and

driving the oil to shore.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread, Barrett.

[Barrett808]

12. You're welcome -- just sharing the grief.

:scared:

[florida08]

10. omg

These bacteria can eat up the oil, which is good for the clean-up, but they also produce a byproduct, hydrogen sulfide, that draws oxygen out of the water. Oxygen depletion would, in turn, endanger animals in the area. Sure enough, the group has already found that some of the oil-soaked spots beneath the surface registered lower levels of oxygen.

[Alameda]

17. OMG!!! Where did you find that...not that I in any way doubt it.

The arrogance and stupidity of some humans is astounding!

edited to correct grammar

[florida08]

34. it's in the OP

toward the bottom..:wow:

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. Makes me wonder how often they've been used in minor spills that

escaped the notice of the press, and how much they've contributed to the dead zones in the gulf.

EDIT: what now? We had to kill the gulf to save it?

[texastoast]

56. Yes, like the wolves

Must kill to save.

:crazy:

[skeptical cynic]

46. It isn't quite that simple

Most bacteria that metabolize hydrocarbons are aerobic, so it is the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) that reduces the oxygen level. For a bacterial bloom to occur, there have to be other nutrients available (e.g. the common N, P and K in fertilizers, which are often added to enhance biodegradation of hydrocarbons in bioremediation operations). The bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide are sulfur-reducing bacteria that use sulfur as an electron acceptor instead of oxygen. Those bacteria are the source of the hydrogen sulfide that exists in high concentrations in crude oil. The more "sour" (sulfur-containing) the crude, the greater the H2S levels that may exist. The hydrogen sulfide is toxic in its own right, without scavaging oxygen.

We're going to hear a lot of simplistic propaganda from vested interests trying to play down the effect that this spill is going to have on the Gulf. We heard a little bit more today from BP regarding how small the spill is relative to the gulf. Well, how small is a virus or a bacterium or a bullet compared to an elephant or a blue whale? Toxins work at parts per million and parts per billion, and the toxins from this spill are not immediately diluted by the full volume of the Gulf, they exist in column and strata and clouds.

Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska are big too, and twenty-one years after the Exxon Valdez the PWS herring fishery still hasn't recovered. And guess what! Exxon can produce a scientist or industry expert to explain why it isn't their fault.

[florida08]

59. yes

like HIV. Money buys explanations. And yet you have an ex governor and senator from Alaska who still promote the oil industry.

[skeptical cynic]

94. Yes, it is embarrassing.

And Palin and Murkowski are not the only oil whores in Alaska.

Palin is just a political version of Anna Nicole Smith--appealing to the Jerry Springer crowd--a train wreck that will eventually self-destruct.

Murkowski is the dangerous one, as she proved when she blocked raising the liability limits for oil spills.

[BrklynLiberal]

95. How could anyone from Alaska ever vote for her again?. Isn't she killing their environment?

Didn't they all have to live thru ExxonValdez..Aren't they STILL living thru it?

[skeptical cynic]

98. Palin seems to have a following nationally, but...

I seriously doubt she has enough following left in Alaska to be elected to anything other than major of Wasilla.

My wife refers to Wasilla as "a town full of pissed-off white people," which sort of explains how Palin could be elected there again. She is much more popular in the Lower 48 than here.

A lot of communities in Prince William Sound were and still are affected by EVOS. The herring fishery has yet to recover. But more, the EVOS seems to have had the same effect psychologically as an abusive childhood--EVOS has helped define what the coastal communities have become, and the towns seem to have the same sort of love-hate relationship with Big Oil that an adult child of an alcoholic has with a parent.

I've very worried about Obama's energy policy, with its offshore drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, where even a spill response as inept as the one we're watching in the Gulf of Mexico would seem effective. The truth is that marine spill response is fantasy, and a marine response in the Arctic Ocean with floating ice is more that fantasy, it's delusion.

[BrklynLiberal]

116. ..and what about Murkowski?????????? She voted to allow their environment to be raped.

[skeptical cynic]

118. Also an embarrassment

Never voted for her, or her dad.

[florida08]

106. couldn't agree with you more

[The Wielding Truth]

108. When we can be told that black is white and most believe,I fear for our survival.

It is so harmful to disrespect our living earthly environment and worship greed and power in the guise of a comforting strength.How can we awake the drones of business?If there is a god of mankind, it's presence is needed to step in and defend our mother,Earth.

[florida08]

13. K&R

[jus_the_facts]

19. Naww...BP assures us they've changed the oil into cream puffs and cotton candy....

....let's dance! :argh:

[Divine Discontent]

20. bbuu. buu.. but - it's only a small part of the volume of water in the oceans!

deranged thinking.

the people that say that are just trying to cover the tail of the corporation of "BP", their lifeblood for big checks every month!

I have said along with millions of others, that man was going to screw up the oceans in a bad way with stupid acts. And I cannot see how this is going to be the last.

They'll have the seas become one giant Dead Sea before the babies alive today move on to the other side...

[JCMach1]

22. Some DUers called me an idiot for saying this the other day...

That a large part of the output is hidden... not coming to the surface.

I am right at least a couple of times a year!

[Dappleganger]

25. Good call.

Albeit a sad one. :(

[Proletariatprincess]

26. Why aren't they using mushrooms?

They have been proven effective in cleaning oil from sea water with no toxic or adverse effects on the environment. They were used effectively in the San Francisco Bay after a tanker leaked. But I have heard not one word about them being used in this most disastrous event.
Anybody out there hear anything?

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Considering the plans we've heard about, I think someone there

is using mushrooms.

[florida08]

35. lol

[kestrel91316]

50. Uh, perhaps because mushrooms might have trouble growing in the OPEN SEA??

[zogofzorkon]

61. Using mushrooms has fallen into disfavor n/t

[Odin2005]

38. K&R

[Vinca]

52. I have never understood the reasoning behind using chemicals

to disperse the spill. I read that it causes the oil to spread apart in small droplets and sink to the bottom. Apparently the goal is out of sight, out of mind. It would seem to be easier to clean up if it remains in a giant glob on the top. What a nightmare this is.

[protocol rv]

60. Explanation

The dispersants are intended to disperse the oil into small droplets, so bacteria can eat it. A large portion of oil components is biodegradable, meaning the bacteria really like to eat it, by allowing more bacteria to get at the oil, the oil disappears sooner. There are some components the bacteria don't like, these are the 'tar balls' which remain and appear on the beach. Some tar balls are so heavy, they sink. If there's a plume of oil underwater, the plume is caused by an emulsion, because oil floats on water. This emulsion binds water to oil by polar bonds. As long as the plume is made up of accessible oil, the bacteria should still get to it, although they seem to thrive better in warmer water. I hope this helps reduce the confusion. By the way, I'm from Venezuela, we know quite a bit about oil spills and how to clean them up :-)

[Hannah Bell]

101. good explanation, thanks

[Vinca]

105. Thanks - I didn't realize bacteria would eat any of it.

[sasquuatch55]

102. Vinca ,I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as dispersants are concerned

smoke and mirrors

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

67. Maybe we can borrow the Giant Gay Repellent Umbrella

Umbrella promo

We could anchor it to the sea floor over the eruption and it'll trap the eruption while protecting us from the Gay Agenda at the same time. Sounds win-win to me (and no more stupid an idea than the stuff BP is coming up with).

Seriously, this is catastrophe of global proportions. Just as China's air pollution has circled the world and volcanic dust causes red sunsets thousands of miles away, over the years and decades this oil and methane will spread thoughout the world's water. Right now there is no way to predict the long term effects of all this oil being pumped into the sea, and I'm sure the oil industry already has its "scientists" working on projections to show no or a negligible effect on the Gulf. Look at how long they've been able to create doubt in the public's minds about global warming.

Not sure why the U.N. hasn't jumped in to this, or why NASA, NOAA, the Navy and every other engineering or scientific organization hasn't been ordered to drop their current projects and solve this thing! Surely it'd cost less to clamp this pipe than we pour into Bush's wars.

p.s. Anyone know whether the Navy still operates its NR-1 submarine? 5,000 feet is probably beyond its crush depth, but if not it might be useful in a circumstance like this.

[benld74]

72. We are SO Effed,,,

THIS information WILL NOT see the light of the talking heads of ANY television media. THIS would AND should strike fear in ANY level headed individual. IF it DOES NOT they are either lying, in the oil business, OR Republican.

[yawnmaster]

76. Lets take this into perspective and deal with it logically and stop the knee jerk reactions...

and over emotional displays.
A few days is not going to destroy the oceans...or even the gulf.

perspective:
A natural oil seep near Santa Barbara has been leaking over 5000 gallons of oil a day, constantly, for a few years - like 100,000 of them.
The organic substance is taken care of. Yes, this is a maybe 100 times bigger, but the ocean is big and its a natural, yes, biodegradable substance, that occurs in many places (not because of man). Lets not make things worse with other chemicals. Lets stop the leak, and deal with stopping future occurrences. Lets stop with the end of the oceans nonsense.

[liberation]

80. "perspective" does not mean what you think it means....

[BrklynLiberal]

96. hmm...He may be a BP employee...THEY define perspective for him.

[RoccoR5955]

81. Capitalism is killing the planet, plain and simple. N/T

[unkachuck]

87. let's....

....turn lemons into lemonade....

....I'm going down to the Gulf next week, hiring me a boat and I'm going fishing for tar-balls in the Obama Oil Spill....

....sorry Prez, it's been leaking for weeks, you've taken charge, you're the one who likes off-shore drilling, you're the one who won't get tough with big-oil, this leak is yours....so, fix it!

[lonestarnot]

90. Agree.

He should have never fell in with those oil bitches in the first place.

[Hubert Flottz]

104. Goodness gratious...

Great Balls Of Tar!

I think somebody predicted this in song?

I wish the "Entitled" "Energy Companies" had the "ENERGY" to fix the things they F@$% up. Things like Our childern's mountains and Our children's Gulf of Mexico.

[DaveofCali]

109. How is this spill any much different than the Ixtoc I oil spill?

The Ixtoc I oil spill of 1979 was in the Gulf of Mexico, like this one. An oil rig by Pemex (from Mexico) caught fire and collapsed due to a blowout, and about 126 million gallons of oil (11 times larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill) was eventually released into the Gulf of Mexico, flowing up to the Texas coastline within two months. Despite the oil well being 11,600 feet below the surface (compared to 5,000 feet for this oil well), Pemex was able to cap the oil well within 10 months.

Despite this oil spill being 11 times larger than the Exxon Valdez, the Gulf of Mexico eventually survived, and even though the Ixtoc I oil well was more than 2 times deeper than the BP one, Pemex was still able to cap it. Even though there are a few differences, I think its premature to be calling this oil spill "the death of the Gulf of Mexico", and overexxageration and the accompanying drama is not nice, a form of fear mongering, and causes unnecessary distress on others.

[Uncle Joe]

110. I believe that 11,000 feet was underground not under the water surface, divers were able to reach it

Ixtoc I was an exploratory oil well in the Bay of Campeche of the Gulf of Mexico, about 100 km (62 mi) northwest of Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche in waters 50 m (160 ft) deep. On 3 June 1979, the well suffered a blowout and is recognized as the second largest oil spill and the largest accidental spill in history.<1><2>

<snip>

In the next nine months, experts and divers (including Red Adair<5>) were brought in to contain and cap the oil well. Approximately an average of ten thousand to thirty thousand barrels per day were discharged into the Gulf until it was finally capped on 23 March 1980.<6> Prevailing currents carried the oil towards the Texas coastline. The US government had two months to prepare booms to protect major inlets. Eventually, in the US, 162 miles (261 km) of beaches and 1421 birds were affected by 3,000,000 barrels (480,000 m3) of oil.<6> Mexico rejected US requests to be compensated for cleanup costs.

The oil slick surrounded Rancho Nuevo, in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which is one of the few nesting sites for Kemp's Ridley sea turtles. Thousands of baby sea turtles were airlifted to a clean portion of the Gulf of Mexico to help save the rare species.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I

This current catastrophe is approximately a mile under the surface and no diver can go that deep, everything will have to be done robotic-ally.

[Barrett808]

119. Submerged oil plumes are miles long

BP wrestling for third day Sunday to plug Gulf of Mexico oil leak – Submerged oil plumes are miles long

Three or four large plumes have been found, including one at least 10 miles (16 kilometers) long and a mile (1.6 kilometers) wide, said Samantha Joye, a marine science professor at the University of Georgia.

Researchers Vernon Asper and Arne Dierks said in Web posts that the plumes were "perhaps due to the deep injection of dispersants which BP has stated that they are conducting." BP has won government approval to use chemicals on the oil near where it is gushing to break it up before it rises to the surface.

[IndianaGreen]

120. The dispersant is causing this!

Big Oil is lying to the American people, and government officials are in collusion with the Big Lie.

BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really gushing from the well.

“The answer is no to that,” a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said on Saturday. “We’re not going to take any extra efforts now to calculate flow there at this point. It’s not relevant to the response effort, and it might even detract from the response effort.”

The undersea plumes may go a long way toward explaining the discrepancy between the flow estimates, suggesting that much of the oil emerging from the well could be lingering far below the sea surface.

The scientists on 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 into the stream of oil emerging from the well, may have broken the oil up into droplets too small to rise rapidly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html?hp