By Bob Marshall

Call it a "Mission Accomplished" moment for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Minutes after NOAA released a Wednesday report intimating nearly three fourths of the 4.9 million barrels of oil BP spewed into the Gulf of Mexico was either removed or otherwise no longer a threat, the marine science community was charging the barricades, claiming major combat was far from over.

"It gives the impression that somehow, most of the oil is gone, and therefore no longer a problem," said Ian McDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University who has studied the Gulf for decades.

"Well, they use 'dissolved,', 'dispersed', ‘degraded.’ But the bottom line is this: The oil has not left the building. You might not be able to see much of it floating on the surface, but it's still in the water. "

To be fair to NOAA, this controversy may largely be the result of lay media misinterpreting the report. A Bloomberg News piece stated this: “About 74 percent of the oil that leaked from BP Plc’s damaged well in the Gulf of Mexico is no longer in the water, according to a U.S. government report."

That's not exactly what the report said. 

If you crunch the numbers in the report’s pie chart, you'll see that only 27 percent has been quantifiably accounted for--17 percent direct recovery, 5 percent burned, 3 percent skimmed.

It's all those other numbers--especially the figures associated with "dispersed" or "dissolved" and "residual."

"None of those mean the oil has left the Gulf, they just mean it's in the ecosystem in a form other than the black stuff that comes out of the well," said Dr. Bob Shipp, marine scientist at the University of South Alabama, and chairman of the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council.

"The many different components of the oil are still there. And it's there in record volumes, at depths where it doesn't degrade quickly. It's in the ecosystem where it is a threat up and down the food web.

"We don't know what the impacts will be, certainly not the long-term impacts. So anyone who thinks this is over is really being misled."

Dr. Jerald Ault, University Miami researcher, said much of the oil that was hit by dispersants at depth has been diffused into the water column in the north central Gulf, an area critical to a wide range of important species. The particles are microscopic in size, but can contain a lethal punch for animals as large as giant tuna and possibly whales. "This is an area used as a spawning ground by giant bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, some of the billfishes and many others," Ault said. "We know eggs and larvae will die if they come into contact with these components (of oil).

"The real worry is that we don't know where this is going. There is a lot of oil out there still. Maybe you can't see it, but it's still there, and will be for a very long time." Even the 26 percent "residual" is a lot of oil--almost 44 million gallons. And some of it in black sticky form washes up on parts of the Louisiana coast every day.

"The bottom line is that 26 percent of the estimated release remains as an oily phase," said Pedro Alvarez, chair of the civil and environmental engineering at Rice University." This does not mean the remaining 74 percent of the spill has been 'solved.' Most of that has not been removed as implied by the report. Most of that 74 percent is still in the water, migrating and spreading and also possibly degrading."

Comments (11)

from santa wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Plus one for Mr.Ian McDonald and FSU. I agree with him. This thing is not over and will haunt us for years to come. Credit does have go to BP though for their efforts to keep oil out of Mobile bay. I do not find any real major damage to our waters in the upper bay here that was not caused by our own polution.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from jakenbake wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

It seems to me that we (kinda) saved our shores at the expense of the rest of the ocean. Of course there are environmental effects no matter where the oil hits in a disaster like this, but we traded the known (oil on the shores) for the unknown (oil blanketing the ground of the deep sea and floating dispersed throughout the water column). But hey, BP got the oil off the surface and away from the shoreline lickety split so the average person would look at it and say "Hey, they did alright."

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Dcast wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

I'm torn between all of this. I know the oil just doesn't disappear, but I can no longer trust a so-called scientist and their personal assessments. I think we need to watch and see what happens and monitor this situation until we know for sure the enviromental effects it is/has caused.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from tygh98 wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

I am not a scientist so I have to rely upon reports and media like most. What struck me though, was that the spill was estimated to be roughly 170 million gallons of oil. It is also estimated that over 40 million gallons of oil naturally enter the gulf of mexico each year. Obviously nature can handle crude oil without self destructing. Granted, it is a tragedy, but sometimes we need to relax. Will populations be hurt? Probably. Is there really anything to be done? I dont know, I am not a biologist. There are smart people out there who will do their best, and nature will do the rest.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from santa wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

tygh98, Your are right in one sense, oil does leak from the bottom of the gulf naturally. And yes nature does take care of it naturally. But nature deals with constant small amounts over long peroids of time, not millions of gallons in a just few days. Nature deals with raw crude oil, not chemically altered oil. We do not even know if nature can even deal with the chemicals used on the oil. We do not know what the side effects of the oil will be after it is chemically treated. But with the methods used during this spill, maybe some good lessons for the future will be learned. If nature would have been allowed to fix BP's mess, it would have taken many years. In the end, nature still might have to clean up the mess.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from jamesti wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

if people start believing that the threat is no longer there, BP will just get let off the hook. BP needs to be held responsible for years to come just as the gulf will still be healing for years to come.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

There is so much conjecture on both sides that it's totally incomprehensible!
The tire is flat!
Yes, it's flat, but only on the bottom.
The tire has no air!
Yes, but there are indications that the tire can be reinflated!
Well, you get the picture!
Time alone will tell just what impact the spill/leak will have either economically on the region or biologically on the ecosystem!
Left alone, crude oil will degrade. IT IS a "natural" substance!
There were none of these solutions during the Pemex mess off the Yucatan Peninsula. Seems folks were having a big time on Padre Island the next year!
Yes, it's a mess!
No, it won't be easy to clean up!
Yes, some creatures will die!
Just like the Bible says, "These things too, shall pass!"

Bubba

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Mr. Hoski

I went back and read "The oil has not left the building!"
Did I ever say, "It's all over!" or "No problem!"
No. My point is kinda like the Congresswoman in "G.I. Jane". "Well, that bell can't be unrung!"
I'm saying, the oil is out there. Had Obummer allowed the equipment that was on site to begin immediately, regardless of "paperwork", there would have been a lot more oil skimmed and boomed in. That means less oil on beaches and affecting marine life. AND, a lot more in refineries being turned into fuels and lubricants!
What about it Hoski!? Is the glass half full, or half empty!?

Prof Bubba

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Mr. Hoski

I went back and read "The oil has not left the building!"
Did I ever say, "It's all over!" or "No problem!"
No. My point is kinda like the Congresswoman in "G.I. Jane". "Well, that bell can't be unrung!"
I'm saying, the oil is out there. Had Obummer allowed the equipment that was on site to begin immediately, regardless of "paperwork", there would have been a lot more oil skimmed and boomed in. That means less oil on beaches and affecting marine life. AND, a lot more in refineries being turned into fuels and lubricants!
What about it Hoski!? Is the glass half full, or half empty!?

Prof Bubba

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

You know, Bob, I really appreciate F&S dedication to a Conservationist column. But you've been covering this ONE story for five months. We all frickin know about it, and we who are also conservationists have backed you on your concern, and written to our senators and congressmen. So it is with respect and a slight bit of annoyance that I say..

THE GULF OIL SPILL ISN'T THE ONLY FRICKIN STORY HAPPENING OUT THERE RIGHT NOW SO PLEASE CLUE UP AND BROADEN YOUR HORIZONS A BIT.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from wgiles wrote 1 year 24 weeks ago

I no longer trust academics to be unbiased or correct. Our universities have become research mills and most of the academics are out to be published. Being published, even in news clips, brings attention and attention brings money. I will take no statement at face value unless there is evidence to back it up. Even then, some of the evidence cited is just wrong.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

from Dcast wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

I'm torn between all of this. I know the oil just doesn't disappear, but I can no longer trust a so-called scientist and their personal assessments. I think we need to watch and see what happens and monitor this situation until we know for sure the enviromental effects it is/has caused.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from jamesti wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

if people start believing that the threat is no longer there, BP will just get let off the hook. BP needs to be held responsible for years to come just as the gulf will still be healing for years to come.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from jakenbake wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

It seems to me that we (kinda) saved our shores at the expense of the rest of the ocean. Of course there are environmental effects no matter where the oil hits in a disaster like this, but we traded the known (oil on the shores) for the unknown (oil blanketing the ground of the deep sea and floating dispersed throughout the water column). But hey, BP got the oil off the surface and away from the shoreline lickety split so the average person would look at it and say "Hey, they did alright."

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from santa wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

tygh98, Your are right in one sense, oil does leak from the bottom of the gulf naturally. And yes nature does take care of it naturally. But nature deals with constant small amounts over long peroids of time, not millions of gallons in a just few days. Nature deals with raw crude oil, not chemically altered oil. We do not even know if nature can even deal with the chemicals used on the oil. We do not know what the side effects of the oil will be after it is chemically treated. But with the methods used during this spill, maybe some good lessons for the future will be learned. If nature would have been allowed to fix BP's mess, it would have taken many years. In the end, nature still might have to clean up the mess.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

There is so much conjecture on both sides that it's totally incomprehensible!
The tire is flat!
Yes, it's flat, but only on the bottom.
The tire has no air!
Yes, but there are indications that the tire can be reinflated!
Well, you get the picture!
Time alone will tell just what impact the spill/leak will have either economically on the region or biologically on the ecosystem!
Left alone, crude oil will degrade. IT IS a "natural" substance!
There were none of these solutions during the Pemex mess off the Yucatan Peninsula. Seems folks were having a big time on Padre Island the next year!
Yes, it's a mess!
No, it won't be easy to clean up!
Yes, some creatures will die!
Just like the Bible says, "These things too, shall pass!"

Bubba

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from tygh98 wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

I am not a scientist so I have to rely upon reports and media like most. What struck me though, was that the spill was estimated to be roughly 170 million gallons of oil. It is also estimated that over 40 million gallons of oil naturally enter the gulf of mexico each year. Obviously nature can handle crude oil without self destructing. Granted, it is a tragedy, but sometimes we need to relax. Will populations be hurt? Probably. Is there really anything to be done? I dont know, I am not a biologist. There are smart people out there who will do their best, and nature will do the rest.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Mr. Hoski

I went back and read "The oil has not left the building!"
Did I ever say, "It's all over!" or "No problem!"
No. My point is kinda like the Congresswoman in "G.I. Jane". "Well, that bell can't be unrung!"
I'm saying, the oil is out there. Had Obummer allowed the equipment that was on site to begin immediately, regardless of "paperwork", there would have been a lot more oil skimmed and boomed in. That means less oil on beaches and affecting marine life. AND, a lot more in refineries being turned into fuels and lubricants!
What about it Hoski!? Is the glass half full, or half empty!?

Prof Bubba

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from santa wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Plus one for Mr.Ian McDonald and FSU. I agree with him. This thing is not over and will haunt us for years to come. Credit does have go to BP though for their efforts to keep oil out of Mobile bay. I do not find any real major damage to our waters in the upper bay here that was not caused by our own polution.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

Mr. Hoski

I went back and read "The oil has not left the building!"
Did I ever say, "It's all over!" or "No problem!"
No. My point is kinda like the Congresswoman in "G.I. Jane". "Well, that bell can't be unrung!"
I'm saying, the oil is out there. Had Obummer allowed the equipment that was on site to begin immediately, regardless of "paperwork", there would have been a lot more oil skimmed and boomed in. That means less oil on beaches and affecting marine life. AND, a lot more in refineries being turned into fuels and lubricants!
What about it Hoski!? Is the glass half full, or half empty!?

Prof Bubba

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 25 weeks ago

You know, Bob, I really appreciate F&S dedication to a Conservationist column. But you've been covering this ONE story for five months. We all frickin know about it, and we who are also conservationists have backed you on your concern, and written to our senators and congressmen. So it is with respect and a slight bit of annoyance that I say..

THE GULF OIL SPILL ISN'T THE ONLY FRICKIN STORY HAPPENING OUT THERE RIGHT NOW SO PLEASE CLUE UP AND BROADEN YOUR HORIZONS A BIT.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from wgiles wrote 1 year 24 weeks ago

I no longer trust academics to be unbiased or correct. Our universities have become research mills and most of the academics are out to be published. Being published, even in news clips, brings attention and attention brings money. I will take no statement at face value unless there is evidence to back it up. Even then, some of the evidence cited is just wrong.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.