It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Dismissing remarks from BP executives that the scale of the spill was tiny compared with the size of the sea and that the Gulf of Mexico would be cleaned up and “fully recover”, Mr Cousteau said: “To make such a statement is totally unacceptable. We have to see behind the dying bird, we have to understand the consequences of this that we can’t see. Nature is more complex than we can imagine. I know the ocean well enough to know that I don’t know it at all.”
Federal fisheries managers have already closed nearly a fifth of federal waters in the Gulf to fishing, including many areas relied upon by Price and others who operate out of Venice, La. Price says he works six days a week fishing, and now the future is uncertain.
But even when fishermen are allowed back on the water, industry groups and fishermen fear customers will question the safety of their product for years in what is one of the nation’s most productive fisheries.
The effects on the Gulf Coast economy of this oil and the chemical dispersants being used to fight it back from these marshes will likely ripple through many sectors, not just fishing, said Jean-Michel Cousteau, an environmentalist and documentary filmmaker in Louisiana working on a piece about the spill.
David Valentine, a professor of earth science at UCSB and the author of several authoritative studies about the behavior of oil and methane in the ocean, was asked by editors of the journal Nature to write an essay for its Opinion section about how to determine the magnitude of the spill. Valentine's report was published online by Nature on Sunday and will appear in the May 27 print issue.
In his essay, entitled "Measure Methane to Quantify the Oil Spill," Valentine says that the usual methods of measuring the magnitude of an oil spill are of limited use in the current situation. He suggests an innovative way that might be more effective: quantifying the leaked methane gas now dissolved in the water. Methane is an especially potent greenhouse gas and has been the focus of numerous studies in past decades, but has never been considered as a means for determining the magnitude of a deep oil spill.
Methane constitutes approximately 40 percent of the leakage at the sea floor. This compound has been implicated in causing the initial blowout, and was also the reason the initial containment dome failed. Valentine suggests capitalizing on the high methane content of the oil to determine total oil release. "Unlike oil, methane dissolves uniformly in water and can be tracked down-current from the leak source," Valentine says. "If we can add up all the methane, we've got a reasonable estimate on the oil spilled."
Valentine issues a call for action by saying that "while researchers are already measuring methane in some Gulf water samples, a larger-scale project is required to map the methane plumes in real time, so that this opportunity is not lost."
The platform explosion on April 20 was caused by an eruption of pressurized methane from a BP well almost one mile deep in the Gulf of Mexico. The methane eruption caused a series of blasts, sinking the rig and causing massive amounts of oil to spill. "In what is likely to be the worst oil spill in U.S. history," Valentine says, "the need for a more accurate way to estimate the spill's magnitude is clear. This number is not only useful for comparing spills, but also for tracking dispersed oil, assessing the efficacy of containment measures, and for assessing liability."
Based on official flow estimates, Valentine calculates that approximately 7,500 tons of methane were released into the Gulf of Mexico in the first 27 days of the spill - enough to triple the methane concentrations in a water parcel of 7,500 cubic kilometers. "If we conducted a dedicated sampling expedition, I expect we could account for much of the methane and place a reasonable lower limit on the total oil release," he says, adding that there are still plenty of challenges, most notably locating and defining all major plumes before they disperse.
"The first research ship on the scene has made great efforts to document the spill," Valentine says. "But a larger community effort is needed." He suggests tracking water flow in June, followed by a comprehensive two-vessel expedition "to ensure the plumes are quantified as comprehensively as possible."
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Before you people go all nuts with your Incorrect information, Look at this:
To put this spill into Perspective:
So your title, "Worst Oil Accident Anywhere on the Planet" is very far from being correct.
I would have thought a Super Moderator would have done a little more research before making a claim that bold.
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 in spots. 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.
“There’s a shocking amount of oil in the deep water, relative to what you see in the surface water,” said Samantha Joye, a researcher at the University of Georgia who is involved in one of the first scientific missions to gather details about what is happening in the gulf. “There’s a tremendous amount of oil in multiple layers, three or four or five layers deep in the water column.”
The plumes are depleting the oxygen dissolved in the gulf, worrying scientists, who fear that the oxygen level could eventually fall so low as to kill off much of the sea life near the plumes.
Dr. Joye said the oxygen had already dropped 30 percent near some of the plumes in the month that the broken oil well had been flowing. “If you keep those kinds of rates up, you could draw the oxygen down to very low levels that are dangerous to animals in a couple of months,” she said Saturday. “That is alarming.”
The plumes were discovered by scientists from several universities working aboard the research vessel Pelican, which sailed from Cocodrie, La., on May 3 and has gathered extensive samples and information about the disaster in the gulf.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Oh dear, here we go again...
[edit on 24-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]
Methane, (CH4) has a tetrahedral shape. (Like the four points of a pyramid). Since each Hydrogen on the carbon atom have the same charge (because they are the same thing), there is no dipole moment / delta +/-. This means methane is non-polar.
Water does have a dipole moment because the two electron pairs on the oxygen have a bigger negative charge than the Hydrogens. This creates a net dipole moment. This means water is polar.
Polar molecules easily dissolve other polar molecules because the delta+ side of the molecule is attracted to a delta- of another molecule.
Nonpolar molecules dissolve other nonpolar molecules becuase there is no charge one way or another, so the are neither attracted nor repelled to one another.
Polar molecules and nonpolar molecules do not dissolve well because there is typically more than one of each molecule in the solution. The polar molecules of water will stick together and the nonpolar molecules of methane will congregate as well. wiki.answers.com...
Originally posted by Granite
Remember this reply to your thread that you didn't respond:
The only group qualified to explain the impact on ocean-life is the Jacques Cousteau Society/family...I'll wait for their explaination...not your mirage.
Because Prince William Sound contained many rocky coves where the oil collected, the decision was made to displace it with high-pressure hot water. However, this also displaced and destroyed the microbial populations on the shoreline; many of these organisms (e.g. plankton) are the basis of the coastal marine food chain, and others (e.g. certain bacteria and fungi) are capable of facilitating the biodegradation of oil. At the time, both scientific advice and public pressure was to clean everything, but since then, a much greater understanding of natural and facilitated remediation processes has developed, due somewhat in part to the opportunity presented for study by the Exxon Valdez spill.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by apacheman
Can you show where methane dissolves in water? This explanation found over at answer.com sure seems to explain it rather well:
Methane, (CH4) has a tetrahedral shape. (Like the four points of a pyramid). Since each Hydrogen on the carbon atom have the same charge (because they are the same thing), there is no dipole moment / delta +/-. This means methane is non-polar.
Water does have a dipole moment because the two electron pairs on the oxygen have a bigger negative charge than the Hydrogens. This creates a net dipole moment. This means water is polar.
Polar molecules easily dissolve other polar molecules because the delta+ side of the molecule is attracted to a delta- of another molecule.
Nonpolar molecules dissolve other nonpolar molecules becuase there is no charge one way or another, so the are neither attracted nor repelled to one another.
Polar molecules and nonpolar molecules do not dissolve well because there is typically more than one of each molecule in the solution. The polar molecules of water will stick together and the nonpolar molecules of methane will congregate as well. wiki.answers.com...