Oil Spill, REACTION, concerns, ideas, help needed, tell us here, Deep Horizon Blowout

[ricki]

Jetpack sent the following to me. It helps put the area of the spill in perspective. It isn't good but better we know what is out there.

Click on:
http://www.beowulfe.com/oil/

[firstcoastkite]

Thanks for the updates Rick. I have been following the news closely on this one, as it has potential impacts all the way up the coast to St. Augustine eventually. Sure, noone wants to eat fish contaminated with oil, but I am sure we do not want to be kiteboarding in it either!

It is amazing to me that the federal government has not taken control of this situation already and plugged the well? BP has virtually no interest in capping the well and stopping the leak, and has repeatedly tried to capture the oil so they can profit from it instead of doing the right thing. The relief wells are just another way of guaranteeing that they can capture the oil from this huge reserve. I saw a report that they could make $500 billion off this one well if they can capture all of the oil.

So everything they have tried so far has been unsuccessful, and there is no guarantee that the relief wells will work either? They won't be completed until mid-August anyway. By then the Macando gusher will make the Exxon Valdez disaster fade into the background. If it continues unchecked they say it will flow for 7 years.

I have a degree in Environmental Science with a M.S. in Chemical Oceanography, and studied hydrocarbon (oil) breakdown in marine sediments in Tampa Bay. There are naturally occuring bacteria in the marine environment that eat oil, and will break down the lighter components of the crude over time. I have even read about biologically engineered bugs that can be introduced into spills with added nutrients to enhance bacterial degradation, but first you have to stop the flow of oil. You can't continue to clean up a spill that keeps on coming?

Learning about the environment is a depressing endeavor, because you realize that SO many things we do destroy the natural environment around us. From septic tanks draining through porous sand directly into estuaries, to drainage canals pumping fertilizers and pesticides direction into our intracoastal waterways from our finely manicured lawns, these are things that are under our control. BP is the one that created this problem in the first place, and now we are depending on them to fix it for us? Yes, they are the ones that have the expertise to work on the well, but who is calling the shots? I smell a rat, and it is a BIG one.

[Unimog Bob]

You and I have fairly similar backgrounds Eddie (both have M.S. in marine related science). I agree, the more I learned about the environment, the more depressing it became (all that man does to it). The most depressing aspect for me was how little the Fed. gov't truly cared about properly managing the environment/resources (worked with gov't for several years). I found it was all a dog and pony show.

I also agree, there is zero incentive for BP to want to cap this thing. Most reading this can't relate to even saying that, but most reading this have a conscience. The higher ups at BP have zero, absolutely none. Their only concern is the almighty dollar.

Lastly, as you mentioned, there are micro-organisms in the environment that are capable of breaking down the hydrocarbon chains in oil. The real key (imo) to their success is their ability to sequester oxygen and nutrients to speed up their metabolic processes. So, bioremediation may be more successful with proper use of correctly mixed fertilizers and the tilling of the affected soil.

Why is it that bioremediation hasn't been mentioned once in the news, by BP or the gov't?, and an approach to take advantage of these "bugs" not being discussed? I find this almost unbelievable.

I have read some ideas revolving around burning the affected affect marshes though, wtf (?).

One final gripe. Do people (at least the media) NOT get how incredibly important marshes are? My main area of study/research was salt marshes/grass flats.
I may have a bias (I think it's more just being informed), but marshes are crucial to the health of the oceans and it's fisheries. It's obvious to me that the fisheries in the Gulf are reliant on healthy marshes. It's impossible to have a healthy fishery with "sick" marshes.
I really don't think the media (or Obama) has a friggin' clue in this regard.
When showing the marshes, the birds (oh no... not birds again ) get all the attention. And it's sad, but let's focus on the environment as a whole, not just the birds. It's not a success if we save every single pelican, and don't save the marshes.

Also, the media truly seem more upset about the white, sandy beaches of Pensacola being stained than what has already happened in LA.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see anywhere hit/affected. But if given the choice, I would prefer to see a sandy beach hit than estuaries surrounding the Mississippi... no brainer due to environmental importance of marshes.
Yet, no one seems overly concerned (?) for Louisiana's marshes. Is it b/c some people have a bias toward the south, the accents used, etc?
If not, wtf. I am totally lost on this one, b/c I view that region as the heart of the Gulf's fishery and that heart is being broken. It's truly a catastrophe.

[ricki]

You are welcome. So much depends on what quantities and in what state petroleum moves into the Straits of Florida. Prevailing easterly winds in the warmer months suggests a lot of shoreward transport once it makes it over here.

Oil is a powerful food source for some microbes. You can test sands above water and perhaps find modest concentrations of certain soil microbes. Spill some oil on it and shortly you'll have an explosion of naturally occurring microbes gobbling the stuff up like no tomorrow. They will continue to ingest and breakdown the petroleum until; 1) It is all gone. 2) Waste products from the microbes impair their viability. In the later case they poop or respire themselves to death, more or less.

Here's the rub and a potentially serious one. The deeper reaches of the ocean usually aren't oxygen rich nor are there typically water transport mechanisms over large areas to rapidly exchange oxygen depleted water with that with higher concentrations. So, dump a ton of oil into the deeps, you will likely get the normal population explosion of microbes including anaerobes. So, in addition to oxygen depletion you will also evolve hydrogen sulphide (particularly toxic to marine life) and more methane. I recall something about long term pollution in the Black Sea creating a major oxygen depleted (read "dead") zone in the water column at depth. Hope to God it doesn't happen but could something like this be in the works in the Gulf?

Worked with and around bioremediation for almost 25 years. Some of it works extremely well and almost automatically. Just supply enough nutrients, oil, oxygen, and avenues for waste passage and petroleum contamination depletion can be amazing. Some bioremediation over the years has amounted to so much "snake oil," high on promises low on practical delivery in some settings. Land farming is the most effective done on the surface for contaminated soil. In situ remediation of groundwater the least effective at least in South Florida using injected microbes and nutrients. On the other hand, over excavation of saturated petroleum impacted soils, UV degradation, mixing, even active aeration of the standing water in the excavation can be very effective in reducing groundwater contaminant concentrations.

Parallels in benthic bioremediation in the open ocean, you've got me. Again part of it happens automatically but to what ultimate end is more concerning. As far as wetlands, it may be more doable but also complex. Wholesale mortality in mangroves and other wetland components seems unavoidable with excessive exposure to oil. In the case of tar balls, depends how hardened, weathered they are and how they break up and physically interact with the prop roots (adhere to and smother them or ?). A major die off of estuarine vegetation followed by fauna depletions with lingering oil soil and sediment impact doesn't leave much to regenerate, near term anyway. There are also surrogates or breakdown daughter compounds that could provide problems too.

[Unimog Bob]

Any clue as to why bioremediation is not being mentioned at this point? It's a fairly ubiquitous approach.
I read about this stuff (and most news) on a daily basis and haven't heard even a peep about bioremediation. I actually haven't seen much of anything done.
I suspect that it is because to successfully discuss bioremediation as an approach, you would first have to acknowledge/disclose the amount of marshland affected by the leak. My suspicion is that BP is all about practicing damage control at this point, as opposed to focusing on solutions.

Regardless of BP taking the lead (because supposedly the Feds have been in charge since day one anyway ) any clue as to why the gov't hasn't mobilized more individuals into this region under the direction of the Army Corps of Engineers for preventative and/or remediation efforts?
Just curious as to what your take is on the response (or lack thereof), Rick.

This is one of the largest ecological disasters of our time, right?

[ricki]

Natural bioremediation has already kicked in (aka "natural attention"), just add food right? Problems will arise once metabolic wastes impair microbe viability. Usually you physically blend, turnover or somehow run exchange fluids through the material you are attempting to remediate. This means bull dozing the wetlands in a more direct approach. A lesser form might be to enhance exchange of fluids over the wetlands, again likely with mixed results. You need to physically disturb the layer of petroleum over roots, in soil and sediment to get oxygen in and wastes out. Washing alone through a wetland is unlikely to accomplish this.

Also, tar balls in saltwater enter a sort of stasis at least when compared to an oil layer. The exterior is resistant to evaporation, UV degradation and even effective consumption by microbes to a degree. Once you break them open through wave action, impact on shore features, heating, etc. fresh, fairly unweathered viscous oil is exposed all over again. The interior of the tar balls can have higher adhesion, send contaminants into solution more readily, cause more problems in general. There could be some promise in bioremediation alternatives to chemical dispersants currently being applied.

Some firms are BIG on promoting "designer bugs" bioengineered to consume particular contaminants. I have no doubt they would love to aerially bombard the impacted wetlands with their "bugs du jour." Trouble is the naturally occurring bugs are probably eating the stuff as fast as they can currently. They'll continue until build up of their waste stunts their populations. Same problem exists with designer bugs.

To my understanding in the context of this spill in wetlands, there are no magic bugs or automatic low impact and rapid bioremediation solutions. Lots of firms will tell you that their bugs are special and will make things all better on a stack of bibles. I've sure seen plenty of the pitches attesting to this over the decades. They doesn't mean there are some viable variants out there or new approaches that might help things. I would just caution against building excessive optimism about the effectiveness of bioremediation as a rapid, low impact and fairly easy cure all.

An AP article discusses some of the daunting realities at:
http://www.theadvertiser.com/article...-be-impossible

Bioremediation is being discussed, searching for "EPA bioremediation BP" yields about 53,000 hits. http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

The EPA even has a publication titled "GUIDELINES FOR THE BIOREMEDIATION OF MARINE SHORELINES
AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS".
http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/edu/bioremed.pdf

Mother nature will fix this, eventually (decades, longer?) but in what form it will eventually return to and the severity of intervening devastation and spinoff repercussions is a serious matter. We screwed up as a culture, as did our leadership and the petro industry. Now we pay the price, hope it isn't as steep as imagination indicates it could be.

[Unimog Bob]

Actually, my main curiosity was related to your (and anyone else's) take on the response of BP and the government in the LA region. I was curious if others felt the response seemed underwhelming.

Also, I said I was surprised by the lack of media coverage regarding bioremediation. When I say "media", I mean MSM. Your google results show a lack of representation on the topic in the MSM.

Don't worry Rick, I don't fall for speeches from companies about quick cure-alls.

If you are curious, I am not a believer in using "engineered" microbes for bioremediation. I am a believer that "fully qualified" microbes exist in the natural environment "for free" and will thrive in areas that hydrocarbons are deposited. I do feel however that soil analysis and use of fertilizers in an area may help to speed the process and it might prove useful to try this in at least one area. If it proves to speed up recovery, expand the use of the fertilizers. It's one idea (among thousands) that I hope are being discussed and genuinely considered. This situation provides a rare opportunity to try several approaches in different areas, assess the outcomes of each approach, and actually learn something.

Anyway, I hope this all turns out eventually. It's difficult to have faith in this, given the current state of affairs.
Obviously many of us are just beyond pissed at this point.

[BigR]

the keys are f@ck#d, all of that oil is going to funnel thru them, the choke point.

they'll see the most amount of oil than any other spot in FL.

since the simulation shows it narrowing the most in that spot, that must mean it will flow fast. But nonetheless, every drop of oil that makes it into the atlantic goes THRU the Keys FIRST

[b-rad]

well hopefully through the Keys...right on through 7 mile, long key, channel 5 etc...

[ricki]

Until it happens we just don't know just how bad it may become. Look at the dimensions of the plume over near LA, now look at the tendrils that are entrained in the Loop Current near the Dry Tortugas. For now anyway, they are a lot smaller. Any oil/tar transported is bad and the more that makes it over the worse things may become. Local winds and currents will have a lot to do with how much makes it shoreward from the Florida Current. The dynamics of transport into Florida Bay approaching the Tortugas and through island cuts up the Keys is up for interpretation at this advanced point. Prepare for the worst but try to keep hoping for the best. Best not to damn things in advance, bad for tourism, Keys businesses, residents and VISITORS who may miss out on some great conditions. It may or may not come to that at some point but it isn't there yet.