Skip to main content

Here we go again.

Those Scientists are back out there, taking samples, plotting data, and Kicking Uncertainty's Butt!

Underwater Oil Plume Discovered Near Mobile Bay
By Bobbie O'Brien -- May 27, 2010

TAMPA -- New tests show what appears to be a massive, second underwater plume in previously untested waters northeast of the leaking BP wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico.

Marine scientists have discovered a new, wide area of "dissolved hydrocarbons" in that Gulf. It is six miles wide and goes as deep as 3,300 feet.

More tests are being run, but researchers from the University of South Florida suspect the plume may be from chemical dispersants used to break up the gushing oil leak a mile below the surface.

They suspect the gunk to be Disperants, But HOW can you be sure -- you can't even see it!

Because for most of America, those Underwater Plumes won't really exist, until they SEE them on the Evening News!

Uh oh!  Someone gave those Plume-Scientists a boat again.  

WHAT were they thinking!

Maybe they know that 'transparency of information', might actually lead to practical and appropriate Response Plans?  Might actually lead to some Scientific Conclusions too ... that could help to heal the ravished Gulf ecosystems ...

UGA marine scientists lead oil plume research mission; blog from the Gulf of Mexico
May 27, 2010 by UGA News Service  

A team of University marine scientists conducting research on the huge underwater oil plume that was discovered in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion is posting information on its research mission to a blog, [...]

The team, now on board the R/V [research vessel] F.G. Walton Smith, is led by Samantha Joye, UGA professor of marine sciences in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. Joye was a member of the NOAA-supported expedition that discovered the deepwater plumes thousands of feet below the surface in the Gulf of Mexico, about two weeks ago.
"Nothing like these plumes has ever been seen before," said Joye. "This is the first time such a buoyant plume has been document in a cold, pelagic environment." Ocean temperatures range from 8 degrees Celsius at the bottom of the plume to about 15 degrees Celsius at the top.

Scientists on the UGA-led cruise will use a suite of instrumentation that includes sophisticated sonar equipment and an in situ camera system. The team will sample water throughout the plume for chemical and microbial analyses. It will also conduct mapping surveys in a radial grid around the spill site to document whether other such plumes exist.

But there's only one blown-out Oil Well -- So how can there be so many different Oil Plumes, lurking beneath the surface?  Maybe those floating "blobs", were already there?

Or maybe they are just the nifty Dispersants, at work -- you know, dispersing ... (and dispensing, with the crux of each critical Food Chain too.)

Scientists find evidence of large underwater oil plume in gulf
By David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer -- May 27, 2010

Scientists have found evidence of a large underwater "plume" of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, adding to fears that much of the BP oil spill's impact is hidden beneath the surface.

The scientists, aboard a University of South Florida research vessel, found an area of dissolved oil that is about six miles wide, and extends from the surface down to a depth of about 3,200 feet, said Professor David Hollander.
The plume is clear, with the oil entirely dissolved.

"Here is a situation where, unless you're looking at the chemical fingerprints, {the oil} is absolutely not visible," Hollander said. "It's not some Italian vinaigrette or anything like that. It's absolutely, perfectly clear."

But, Hollander said, even this clear-looking water could contain enough oil to be toxic to small animals at the base of the gulf food chain.
This discovery seems to confirm the fears of some scientists that -- because of the depth of the leak and the heavy use of chemical "dispersants" -- this spill was behaving differently than others. Instead of floating on top of the water, it may be moving beneath it.

That would be troubling because it could mean the oil would slip past coastal defenses such as "containment booms" designed to stop it on the surface. Already, scientists and officials in Louisiana have reported finding thick oil washing ashore despite the presence of floating booms.

It would also be a problem for hidden ecosystems deep under the gulf. There, scientists say, the oil could be absorbed by tiny animals and enter a food chain that builds to large, beloved sport-fish like red snapper. It might also glom on to deep-water coral formations, and cover the small animals that make up each piece of coral.

"It kills them because it prevents them from feeding," said Professor James H. Cowan Jr., of Louisiana State University. "It could essentially starve them to death."

But if you can't see it -- How do you even "know" it is there?  And how do you KNOW it's BP's Oil/Disperant Brew?   The Gulf of Mexico is known for its own "seepage problems", I've heard.  ... do you have any proof ???

Is there a Scientist in the House -- How about a Marine Biologist?

What do the Experts have to say about the New plumes?

Gulf Oil Blog:
The migrating undersea plume
UGA Department of Marine Sciences
By Samantha Joye -- May 27, 2010

Around 16:00, we spotted the top of the plume at about 800m water depth.  Everyone got pretty excited.  But, little did we know that we’d soon be even more excited!  The plume had not only moved North but it was somewhat different than it was two weeks ago during the Pelican cruise.

The plume was located between 800m and 1300m in the water column and there appeared to be three distinct layers.  The sensor signal for colored dissolved organic showed a robust increase in signal between 800 and 900m; then increased by about five times between 1000 and 1200m; and, between 1200 and 1300m, the signal doubled again.  In these same depth ranges, the signal from the transmissometer also increased, suggesting a different suite of particles in the water between these different depths.
We got the samples on deck and collected samples for methane concentration analysis and oxygen respiration rate assays.  Those samples are being run right now and we can’t wait to see the data.

We're right there with you, Marine Scientist Joye -- we can't wait for those sample results either!  Afterall SOMETHING must be causing that multi-layered blob(s), which only seem to "get stronger" the deeper you go.

And SOMETHING must be hurting from so much "dissolved organics" invading their environment.

Hmmmm?  I wonder what sort of "phenomena" could create such wide spread, "plumes", that get trapped in specific water layers, and can spread out for miles? ... Perhaps a super-duper "red tide" ?

I don't know, but a huge Underwater Oil Gusher, being treated with huge quantities of Underwater Disperants, for over a month -- seems to be a plausible cause, for those "gianormous" plumes, which only seem to be getting more "enormous", each time we Scientists look for them.

Maybe the "chemical and microbial analyses" will provide the definitive  'CSI Fingerprint-evidence' much of America will need, to put any skeptical veils of Uncertainty on those hidden Plumes -- finally to rest!

Since it's all just a giant Unplanned Experiment anyways, it's probably a good idea to get the 'best Scientists' out there, to measure its effects ...

Otherwise, How on earth, can we ever Quantify "What Damage has/will be Done?", in the that reckless chase, for ever-vanishing amounts, of the last remnants of Peak Oil ...

Originally posted to Digging up those Facts ... for over 8 years. on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:52 AM PDT.


If a Tree falls in the Forest, but it's not on the Evening News ...

15%42 votes
13%36 votes
2%8 votes
19%53 votes
20%57 votes
4%13 votes
4%12 votes
4%12 votes
15%43 votes

| 276 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (144+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, vicki, Alma, hester, Rayne, alisonk, Powered Grace, emal, Shockwave, tacet, bronte17, conchita, mint julep, elveta, nyceve, MD patriot, buckhorn okie, Aquarius40, kanuk, wader, Maggie Swan, emmasnacker, Dallasdoc, Catte Nappe, ybruti, side pocket, JayDean, Little Red Hen, G2geek, salmo, jrooth, greycat, PBen, Flint, kamarvt, panicbean, ChemBob, Little Lulu, Phil S 33, FightTheFuture, sodalis, deepsouthdoug, dancewater, Snud, New Deal democrat, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, Sam the Wolfdog, Kingsmeg, sherlyle, tonyahky, borkitekt, StrayCat, Glorfindel, Crashing Vor, JVolvo, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, profh, Dreaming of Better Days, blueoregon, Friend of the court, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, xaxado, dotsright, donnamarie, uncomfortably numb, Loudoun County Dem, Bob Guyer, tgypsy, ninkasi23, vets74, Mary Mike, DWG, jayden, vbdietz, mudslide, jnhobbs, Moderation, Desa, rmonroe, Phil N DeBlanc, Fossil, SoxFan04, lineatus, Cassandra Waites, geomoo, bluesheep, mofembot, temptxan, banger, petulans, phrogge prince, Ann Marie Brenda, Abra Crabcakeya, pelagicray, Nica24, SciMathGuy, 1BQ, snackdoodle, mkor7, Daily Activist, elziax, kevinpdx, Andhakari, reesespcs, jfromga, davespicer, haensgen, BigVegan, parse this, RhymesWithUrple, confitesprit, miss SPED, politik, fidellio, gulfgal98, elginblt, Kristina40, Earth Ling, JRandomPoster, elengul, Oh Mary Oh, HylasBrook, Pakalolo, Colorado is the Shiznit, Bluefin, BlueJessamine, We Want Change, BlackQueen40, kevin k, princesspat, thethinveil, daishan, marleycat, DruidQueen, Imhotepsings, innereye, blackjackal, Regina in a Sears Kit House, FireBird1, Hookah

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:52:35 AM PDT

    •  does TV = reality? (19+ / 0-)

      It does for the republicans, as evidenced by the Terminator:

      SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he will find another way to help close the state's $20 billion budget deficit after the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused him to withdraw his support for a plan to expand oil drilling off the California coast.

      Schwarzenegger announced his decision on the plan Monday, saying TV images of the spill made him change his mind about the safety of ocean-based oil platforms.

      "You turn on the television and see this enormous disaster, you say to yourself, 'Why would we want to take on that kind of risk?'" he said at a news conference near Sacramento.

      So we need more video crews to work with the scientists, because the vast mass of the uncurious who decide US elections get their news ONLY from the TEE VEE!

      "Drill Baby Drill": Stupid in 2008, criminally stupid now.

      by MD patriot on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:05:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dispersant worse than the oil? (6+ / 0-)

      I am trying to understand the negative of this dispersant.  Is it better we have the oil out there or better to have the dispersed oil?

      Is the dispersant worse than the oil? Or is it better to have the oil without dispersant?

      •  I've heard a few Biologists say (18+ / 0-)

        the "oil alone" is better.

        The bacteria eventually consume it.

        Breaking it down with "disperants"
        makes the Oil-Corexit brew, small enough,

        for Everything to consume it.

        thus the problem, easy access to food chain.

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:28:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neither one is better (9+ / 0-)

          Neither one is even "less worse."  The oil kills.  The dispersant kills.  Our dumbass species is killing the planet through our scientific hubris.

          Scientists should have one mission:  Cleaning up the nuclear mess they've created before mass human die-off. The least they could do is try to make that right since it threatens to kill all life on the planet.  Imagine a world with hundreds of thousands of tons of high-level nuke waste and a Mad Max-type social scenario.

          I realize this won't be a popular comment.  I don't care.  

          •  I'm starting to imagine it too.... (3+ / 0-)

            ....this thing is wanting to become unstoppable. I don't want to live on this planet if that reservoir empties to the surface like it wants it's trying to. I'm afraid this is going to get alot worse....a lot worse.

            Very few people imagined the possibility of a runaway well like this, If they had, someone would've written a fictional story, then a movie, about this it'll be non-fiction.

            This is a big #ucking deal!

            by suspiciousmind on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:10:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think it would make a good movie (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              StrayCat, suspiciousmind

              First of all, it would have a super-depressing ending... or descend so far into fantasy that suspension of disbelief would be impossible.  

              The plot would be very slow -- this thing is going to affect every aspect of the entire planetary system.  The system is enormously complex, with a nearly infinite number of moving parts.  It will work its way through slowly, and it will be difficult for survivors to "connect the dots."

              The only way it might work as a movie is to make the spill the first couple of scenes, then show the planetary chaos unfolding in the next couple of scenes.  Then tell a story about a ragtag group of survivors trying to resuscitate a dying planet and maybe having some success, setting it up for a sequel in which future generations set up a sustainable way of life on a recovering planet.


        •  Bacteria will still degrade it (5+ / 0-)

          While I agree that having the oil at the surface where it can be seen, skimmed, and physically removed is more familiar than what's happening here, I don't agree that having this plume of dispersed/dissolved oil is necessarily worse. Dilution and biodegradation are the two principal processes that will eventually clean this oil up. In the meantime, there will obviously be negative consequences, including chemical toxicity and depleted oxygen, which will lead to mortality at several levels of the food chain, but those effects will dissipate over time as the oil is degraded.

          And regarding how to link this to the Deepwater Horizon: there are a number of methods to "fingerprint" hydrocarbon mixtures using forensic chemistry that I'm certain will be used to determine the origin of this and any other plumes that may be discovered.

          •  and if one of "several levels of the food chain" (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tacet, StrayCat, JVolvo, jamess

            turns out to be us?

            •  It won't (9+ / 0-)

              But it could certainly include apecies that we have traditionally relied upon for food.  

              If you're interested in water quality data, EPA has been sampling water along the Louisiana coastline near the mouth of the Mississippi. Data are here (scroll down to the heading entitled Water Data - Cumulative Data in Comma Delimited and PDF Formats). In general, hydrocarbon constituents are not being detected.  Somewhat elevated concentrations of certain metals, in particular vanadium and nickel, are. These could be associated with brine being ejected from the well along with the hydrocarbons.  Although no one but EPA and NALCO knows what's in Corexit, I doubt they're a major component in that. Metals, of course, don't biodegrade, but they would be subject to chemcical processes (such as complexation and precipitation) that could remove them from the water. They could also be absorbed by organisms.  Both nickel and vanadium have been found to bioaccumulate in freshwater fish. I don't know about marine fish, but I suspect they would bioaccumulate in them as well.  

              •  Brief comment just to say thanks. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jagger, StrayCat

                Thanks so much for providing thoughtful, fact-based opinions without running amuck with butt-based  rhetoric. There is no other site around where you are more likely to randomly run into well-educated professionals who can help the rest of us understand complex issues.

                Picture me cheering like an absolute nut for science education right now.

                Your new pal from the social science end of the spectrum

                "I'm not a humanitarian. I'm a hell-raiser." Mother Jones

                by histopresto on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:37:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Neither helps nor hurts is not break even (6+ / 0-)

            If the dispersant isn't helping, then BP is willfully adding tons of poisons to the environment on top of the accidental poisoning they created.

            Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

            by geomoo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:45:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't say it neither helps nor hurts (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jagger, Quicklund

              I meant it probably would have helped early on, but now that the quantities involved are so large, it's not clear to me whether it helps or hurts.  You can't unring the bell - it's there.  The question is how quickly will it get to a condition where it's no longer harmful.  

              •  Someone else said that. (4+ / 0-)

                It seems clear to me that the dispersant is adding significant toxicity.  It's purpose seems to be obfuscation for legal purposes.  I have seen no neutral parties arguing that it is helping, but I could easily have missed something.

                Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

                by geomoo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:35:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't know if it's adding significant toxicity (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Jagger, Quicklund

                  I don't think the components (petroleum distillates, propylene glycol, and organic sulfonic acid salt [probably a methyl sulfonate or halogenated sulfonate surfactant]) are significantly more toxic than crude oil.

                  I don't think anyone really knows whether its net effect is beneficial or harmful.  It's helping in the sense that it will probably reduce the amount of phase-separated hydrocarbons hitting the shoreline (and thereby reduce all the terrestrial effects associated with that) but it will likely increase the water quality harm, especially in the short term, by creating large anoxic zones where bacteria feeding on both the dispersed hydrocarbons as wells as the dispersant itself use up all the dissolved oxygen.

                  You could make an argument either way, but only time (and ongoing studies) will tell.

                  One thing you can say with certainty - the use of dispersants in this manner and at such large volumes is an act of desperation.

                •  Show your data, and calculatins please (0+ / 0-)

                  Because me, being a news consumer and not part of the response team, I don't have data or calculations.  So it is not clear to me at all what is happening or what will happen.  But of course no law prevents one from disguising completely unfounded personal opinion as the fruit of scientific analysis.

                  •  It's not a diary, it's a comment. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    StrayCat, JVolvo, jamess

                    And I'm making an obvious point that requires no calculations.  Here is my point:

                    Consider one gallon of oil added to the Gulf.  Assume one gallon of dispersant is added as well.  Assume the dispersant does nothing to diminish the harmful effects of the oil, as some have claimed.  Given these assumptions, which I attempt neither to prove nor to disprove, a comparison of toxicity between oil and dispersants is rather beside the point.  A gallon of toxic material has been added in addition to the already toxic oil.  By most accounts, the added material is actually even more toxic than the oil.  Thus, if the dispersants neither help nor hurt, then they are a net negative, because more toxic material has been added to the environment without accomplishing anything positive.

                    If you want to see an expert argument, let me save you the trouble of looking downthread a few comments with this link.

                    Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

                    by geomoo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:34:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Depends on your definitions (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Jagger, StrayCat

                      It matters what happend as a result of the addional chemical. If the detergents combine with the oil to create a more stable compound, the net effect can be a decrease in overall toxic impact to the environment.  Because why?  Because the much of stable compound will precipitate out and get buiried.

                      The problem is, no one has firm knowledge of the net effect.  That is the thing with unrecidented events ... there is no previous knowledge base available.

                      But the biggest problem I had with your post is this part

                      It's purpose seems to be obfuscation for legal purposes.

                      In order for BP to make this sort of callous calculation, they would have to posess detailed knowledge ... but there we run up against that unprecidented thing again.

                      The only thing that is clear to me is that, had the dispersants not been used, DKos would today be alove with posts of outrage asking "why hasn't BP used disperants yet?!!!"

                      •  Once again, this time with feeling. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        JVolvo, jamess

                        Yes.  The details matter.  I make no attempt to offer an analysis.  I make a simple logical point.  Given certain specific assumptions--and I say again, I mount no argument in favor of said assumptions--then a certain logical conclusion follows.  It seems to me that arguing that the dispersants are "no more harmful than the oil" can be misleading, depending on the context.  Imo, in this context, such a statement is beside the point.

                        As to your "biggest problem," and the only one with any possible validity, your argument has a couple of problems.  First of all, BP obviously does not need to have detailed knowledge of the precise effects of their actions before engaging in said actions.  This point has been emphatically proven several times over.  In any case, all BP had to think likely is that the dispersants would reduce the visibility of the gusher, and thus diminish both the ability to estimate its size from readily available satellite data and to avoid the more obvious damaging photographs.  This information was well-known to them.

                        If you are doubting whether BP has placed a high priority on controlling information and on minimizing the amount of the oil being released, then you simply have not been paying attention.  Whether the use of dispersants is an example of this, I'll grant you, is a debatable point.  On the basis of all available information on the behavior of BP so far, it is certainly logical to guess that the use of dispersants falls into a category with other known actions which are quite obviously motivated by the goal of covering up the amount of the release.

                        Ever heard the expression "straining at gnats but swallowing a camel"?

                        Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

                        by geomoo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:33:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And once again (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          hindsight offers a different perception that foresight.

                          It strikes me as entirely likely that BP began the use of dispersants because dispersants have been used in oil spills for decades.  It was a comon response that could be employed with relative ease.

                          I do not as a rule put stock in conspiracy theories because for every 10,000 CTs I heard one has some truth in it.

                          Again, had BP not used detergents it is quitepredictable DKos would be filled with outrage that they hadn't been used.  ANYTHINGBP did would be represented here as a conspiracy theory.

                          And so on.

                          •  Okay, let the gnats go then. (0+ / 0-)

                            I assume you agree that there is no reasonable explanation for why BP blocked accurate measurement of the leak rate, required their workers to sign a pledge of silence, and gave an absurdly low estimate of the leak rate before raising their number to the lowest consistent with available data.

                            Educated speculation in the absence of hard data is not CT.  It's as much a part of science as controlled experimentation to refine such speculation.  Unfortunately, BP has blocked collection of the hard data needed.  I suppose it is predictable that this would be followed by dismissing educated guesses as CT

                            Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

                            by geomoo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:00:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  To me it smacks of CT when (0+ / 0-)

                            ...simple math is so  much better an explanation.

                            X amount of oil is coming out.

                            Y amount of oil is seen on the surface.

                            The magintude of "X" is open to sincere debate, but, everyone is in agreement that X > Y.


                            Since more oil has leaked than has been seen at the ocean surface, Y minus X means = Some of the oil lurks underwater.


                            But when some researchers find, in an entirely predictable fashion, plumes of underwater oil, DKos lights up with BP CT diaries.

                            When is also 100% predictible.  Saddening, but predictable.  Because why spend 10 seconds thinking things through, when one can instead write an outrage diary?

                            Have a nice day.

                          •  Where are the standards for your reasoning? (0+ / 0-)

                            it is quitepredictable DKos would be filled with outrage that they hadn't been used.

                            Where are the links?  How do I know this is not "disguising completely unfounded personal opinion as the fruit of scientific analysis."

                            You feel quite free to make predictions of dkos behavior on the basis of what you have seen in the past, but when I analyze motivation for actual BP behavior on that same basis, you call that CT.

                            Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

                            by geomoo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:03:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thin gruel indeed. (0+ / 0-)

                            I suppose you are new to DKos?  Well, know this then,.  Righteous outrage is tres chic.

                      •  I'm having the same logical argument (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        JVolvo, jamess

                        in two separate diaries, I just noticed.  Arguments for relative merit are not convincing responses to specific critiques.

                        The following claims are similarly beside the point:

                        Your prostate cancer has a better prognosis than lung cancer.
                        Obama is better than Bush.
                        The dispersants are less toxic than the oil.

                        Of course, in the case of the dispersants, the claim is even weaker than this, what with the hypothetical person suffering from both forms of cancer.  Is he to take solace in the fact that one is less toxic than the other?  Would we expect him to have a what the hell attitude about learning that he also suffers from MS?  Assuming, I repeat yet again, that the dispersants are not helping in some other way.

                        Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

                        by geomoo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:50:58 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If I ever have cancer... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          ... I hope the doctor will tell me I have cancer.  I hope that the doctor will give me chemo treatments, if he thinks that will result in my best health outcome.

                          I hope the doctor will not tell me, well, we could give you chemo treatment, but chemo is toxic.  So we'll instead we'll click our heals together and hope the cancer really isn't there.

                          Beause the oil has spilled.

                          Now that is has spilled, the question becomes this: Is there more damage done from untreated oil, or from oil combined with detergents?

                          Neither you nor I know the true answer to that question.  But it is quite logical to me that BP would employ a countermeasure used for decades on previous oil spills.  Just as chemo, for allits problems, is still used today to treat some cancers.

                          And each can be understood without the need for some vast BP or AMA led conspiracy.

                          •  Please try to listen to my point. (0+ / 0-)

                            I have nowhere discussed what you are talking about here.  I'm saying that IF we assume that the answer to the question you pose is that the dispersants neither help nor harm, THEN and ONLY THEN is the relative toxicity between oil and dispersants beside the point.  This is a DIFFERENT QUESTION from whether oil or the oil/dispersant mixture is more toxic.

                            It's really a quite simple point.

                            Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

                            by geomoo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:05:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Searching for wheat? Read Ernest T Bass here (0+ / 0-)

            Nice change of pace to read a thoughtful, realistic post.

        •  soon we'll realize GM food is like these plumes (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo, geomoo, mkor7, Andhakari, LadyParadox

          And then Obama can stand up there and say:

          No one could have foreseen that GM food would be as toxic to the natural world and our bodies as are oil and dispersants.

          Today, we're firing the one environmentalist in my Administration who warned us about this.  Clearly she didn't do her job.

          I'm responsible here, not Monsanto.  Monsanto is going to clean this up.  We don't really know how bad this is yet and we don't have any way of cleaning this up, but Monsanto is going to anyway.  Because I'm president.  

          "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

          by Earth Ling on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:10:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm hoping the supervolcano (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo, Earth Ling

            underneath Yellowstone will get us before the GM food crisis hits. Kind of wipe the slate clean, fresh start.

            "We did not come here to fear the future, we came to shape it." --BHO "Grab a mop." --BHO

            by sillia on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:19:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Obviously, you weren't moved (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            by call for compassion for our President that's currently on the rec list.  I learned that people criticizing the Pres are just upset

            because we don't like his "tone",

            not because of what may or may not be happening.

            "I almost died for the international monetary system; what the hell is that?" ~ The In-laws

            by Andhakari on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:35:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I could give a fuck about his tone (0+ / 0-)

              what I can't stand are his corporatist policies.

              Oh, and his prosecution of whistleblowers instead of prosecuting war criminals.

              Yeah, that one sucks too.

              "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

              by Earth Ling on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:20:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Well, per marine biologist Rick Steiner, (11+ / 0-)

        Any living organism that contacts this stuff, particularly the mixture of dispersant and oil, is at a significant risk of acute mortality.

        Never look down on anybody unless you're helping them up. --Jesse Jackson

        by big spoiled baby on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:41:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rick is a Valdez cleanup vet (7+ / 0-)

          EPA Demands Replacement Dispersant,
          BP COO Says There's No Better Alternative

          May 21, 2010

          "Any living organism that contacts this stuff, particularly the mixture of dispersant and oil, is at significant risk of acute mortality," said marine biologist Rick Steiner.

          In fact, EPA testing released Thursday indicates that where the dispersant had been used, 25 percent of all organisms living at 500 feet below the surface died.

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:50:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think scientists are invited to the party (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jamess, dbradhud

          We need a science board in this country that has a budget and a mandate to evaluate important shit--hey maybe if unforseen things happen they might be of some use--ya think?

      •  This is a double barrelled disaster (10+ / 0-)

        The oil poses the immediate and most obvious threat as it comes on shore in masses, coating animals and plants, and killing the big stuff quickly. The detergent-dispersed oil is completely different: it is "molecular", so not obviously visible, but at least as insidious. It will do its damage on smaller forms of life, including plankton, copepods, etc., which are at the bottom of the food chain. These organisms filter the water and will concentrate the toxic materials. In that respect, the dispersed oil is more damaging, especially in the longer term. We can expect this kind of pollution to persist for a very long time. Just how long depends on the ability of bacteria to metabolize the micellar hydrocarbons, which are wrapped in a very non-nonbiological coat of detergent sulfonate molecules of a sort they are not naturally adapted to deal with. Also, the metabolism requires oxygen, which is in very short supply at these depths. Clearing these plumes will indeed take a very long time, in my estimation, perhaps decades. It's a time bomb.
        I for one have been harping on this obvious deficiency in the response to the Big Gush: why haven't NOAA or the CG been monitoring the deep water on the Gulf from the day the use of these dispersants became known? The answer from BP, which many people seem to have accepted, is that they were too busy trying to control the leak. That's like saying it's impossible to walk and chew gum at the same time. The gov't agencies could very easily have been doing these deep water surveys the whole time without impeding the leak control efforts. One almost has to wonder if it was a conscious decision not to know the truth.
        But now, at last, we're beginning to learn about this enormous problem. There is so much more to learn about it, and we may hope that the gov't agencies involved will get 100% behind it.

        •  That is the big question I have on federal (8+ / 0-)

          response. I am familiar with that national research fleet and it was either not there or invisible for far too long. So, back on May 22 And just where is the NOAA fleet? was a response to a continuing question on that subject. The reason deep water sampling was so necessary can be tracked back from a previous comment, Let's get it straight. Not a "spill" at all.

          If those ships, both Gulf stationed NMFS and assets further afield, were in there doing deep water column work from the early days of this blow out it is still pretty well hidden. Deep water effects are no surprise at all to those familiar with the that environment. The surprise was that they were not being closely monitored by independent federal assets from near day one. I hope to soon see the schedule and geographic deployments of those ships become fully public.

          My sense on this is that spill mentality prevailed, the USCG command was in "spill" mode focused on the well head and visible surface effects. The USCG is not a scientific organization, though it is both the logical and highly capable organization to do the command and control for ship operations at the well site, and had the environmental science aspects on a back burner.

          This could also explain why EPA's dispersant demands got less than forceful implementation. That question, why the expert in such things, the designated federal agency for such things lost in a "disagreement" over the choice of dispersant, is still unanswered despite what the president said yesterday. Could it be that filtering that demand through USCG was the cause for their normal key role being filtered out?

          Reorganization of the national responses are structured is one of the things any commission must examine. There is a tremendous difference between a surface tanker or pipeline spill and a deepwater blowout.

          The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

          by pelagicray on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:18:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The oil in these plumes may be transparent (7+ / 0-)

            but not much else about the story is.

            •  Any commission or Congressional hearing (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              StrayCat, profh, jamess

              examining this for changes in law and policy really needs to examine the incident command structure.

              The USCG is the logical place, with existing powers, to manage vessel traffic and law enforcement at the site and among clean up vessels. The military command structure has advantages for general management so I personally might favor continuing a USCG "incident command" with several major modifications.

              The major modification I would look at would be to designate clear lines of authority within the command structure with the "commander" very clearly on the hook to implement what those authorities require. Such a command structure can work well to ensure coordination so that a clear requirement to do one thing does not cause blowback in another. Ad-hoc commands are quite often goat ropes with a long lead time to untangle such lines of authority--if ever. We are probably witnessing that.

              In such a structure, to take the case mentioned, the subject matter expert EPA would have absolute authority over chemical usage at the site and clean up areas. The "commander" would be under legal obligation to implement that with no question beyond the steps necessary to make sure implementation did not cause unintended consequences in another operation. Thus there would be no "disagreement" involved. EPA says use another and the command would be required to implement that expeditiously.

              Thus, NOAA would have the requirement, burden and authority to immediately assess all oceanographic and weather impacts independently of any corporate work and the "command" would be legally bound to again implement that with only a look at coordination. An extreme example would be to make sure NOAA did not implement an over the side sample at the blowout site right into ROV cables.

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

              by pelagicray on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:48:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Updated NOAA ship tracker shows four in the area. (5+ / 0-)

              I'd been looking at this along with getting some input from elsewhere.

              Pisces, Gordon Gunter and Oregon II are NMFS stationed right there on the coast. Thomas Jefferson is an Atlantic survey vessel, perhaps less capable for water column work, and all seem to be in there now. I am still a bit surprised the Ronald H.Brown, "a state-of-the-art oceanographic and atmospheric research platform," was apparently turned around from the coast of Africa after the blowout and seems to be off North Carolina.

              You can select a ship and then a period. It seems there was a slow response. For example Gordon Gunter did not seem to break off western Gulf operations until around April 25 and even then came up off Florida, perhaps checking baseline conditions.

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

              by pelagicray on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:20:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  There's a third effect as well (4+ / 0-)

          Sediment contamination that will affect benthic organisms for a very long time.  

          So you've got a three pronged problem:

          1. Phase-separated hydrocarbons floating on the water and affecting fish and terrestrial wildlife.
          1.  Dissolved and dispersed hydrocarbons and dispersant components that will exert a chemical oxygen demand and chemical toxicity until they degrade or are diluted out.
          1.  Phase-separated hydrocarbons and adsorbed metals and hydrocarbons in sediment that will affect benthos and eventually other critters in the food web.
      •  Despite what you might read on DKos (0+ / 0-)

        ... no one on Earth knows the true answer to your question.  That comes with the territory when you're dealing with unprecidented events.

      •  It is it's own toxic gunk. Add it to the raw oil (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        and it is a bad combination.  Since it doesn't magically make the oil go away - just disperses it - and also happens to keep it from rising to the's just a chemical tool to help make this look less catastrophic.

        I say no thanks to Corexit 9500.

        The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it." ~ Hillbilly Dem's 78-yo Dad

        by JVolvo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:00:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Net Net: complete FUBAR for Gulf of Mexico (8+ / 0-)

      Lack of leadership, lax regulations, corruption, etc.

      Obama admin, the Bush admin, Congress are guilty as much as BP with their wanton greed.

      •  And we're guilty too, don't forget (0+ / 0-)

        For our narcissistic values. And, I might add, for DKOS being dominated by yes-men/women for this corrupt and incompetent administration which is actually just fictional, as far as I can see.

    •  second spill (9+ / 0-)

      oil experts on Dylan Ratigan show for days now says he thinks there may be another larger leak at the wellhead itself, which is 6 miles from where the video we see each day is.  That is why there may be these enormous plumes, we need to get some eye balls and video of the wellhead itself to see if he is right.

      I really doubt BP would be forthcoming and helpful in this.

      (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

      by dark daze on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:51:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  six miles? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Much of the video we see IS from the wellhead, no?

        they show us the BOP a lot - that's sitting on the wellhead.

        And they show us the end of the riser. That is not exactly at the wellhead, but it's not six miles away.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:56:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  good catch, and bad news. (29+ / 0-)

    This crap could migrate and mix with the world's oceans and cause completely unforeseeable damage.  

    Worst case scenario is cascading damage that gets the phytoplankton, which are responsible for the majority of Earth's oxygen supply.

    We really screwed the pooch this time.  

    Let's all get in the car and drive.  

    •  Is that "cascading" thing (20+ / 0-)

      due to the law of Unintended Consequences ...

      or the fact that, everything

      in a Closed Ecosystem [like Earth] --

      is Interconnected?

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:55:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  When this Industrial Experiment is over ... (9+ / 0-)

      where do we go,

      a new "petri dish" ?

      ... Maybe, Planets-R-Us ?

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:03:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The thing about worst-case scenarios (0+ / 0-) that the worst case is not always the actually case.

      What of the better-case scenarios?

      It strikes me that less damage is done if 95% of the oil remains suspended deep undewater that would happen if the 95% was already washed ashore in the Delta.

      Maybe just maybe, the oil plumes will result in the oil degrading and coming ashore in a piecemeal fashion such that the cleanup crews have an easier job of it?

      But then what use would anyone have for DKos?  

      •  question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        so why are you here then?

        write many Dairies much --

        Or only critique them?

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:29:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seems I struck a nerve (0+ / 0-)

          Can't attack the message?  Attack the messanger!  Pure GOP logic at work.  And a white flag of surrender when it comes to debating. I am a gracious winner so you may keep your sword and sidearm, sir.

          (BTW, what diaries I've written are quite easy to find. )

          •  Well, your message seems rather "pro-BP" or (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rather BP/Obama have got this, their actions are for the highest good and stop digging into this, ya worrywort.

            Many here don't have that view.

            The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it." ~ Hillbilly Dem's 78-yo Dad

            by JVolvo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:54:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I voted fror Obam, if that's what you mean. (0+ / 0-)
            •  Crap. Posted B4 typing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Regarding I voted for Obama, if that's what you mean. I meant to type...

              I hope to see Obama suceed.  I do not agree with every choice Obama has made.  On a couple issues his decisions have dissapointed me ratehr profoundly. But on most disagreements, I feel the man should be allowed enough leeway to steer his own course.  And I keep an open mind that his strategy might well end up at the same goal as my strategy, though it might travel a different path to that goal. As a for instance, months of acrimony and Scott Brown's election had everyone sure all hope for a heath care bill were dead.  Yet a couple months after Sen Brown's election there he was, inking a new health bill. So maybe they guy is able to see a few more chess moves ahead than the average DK ranter.

              As for BP, there's not a ounce of admiration in me for them or for massive corporations in general. But I have a pretty strong scientific background and as such I can see that much of the outrage brought forth here is unrealistic. Especially when you sense the outrage will damn BP no matter if they take a certain action, or if they forgo that smae action. I understand that when we are told 'there is no easy answer for this emergency' that means there is no easy answer.  But that does not stop the public for demanding an easy answer.  That is all human nature, true, but it is still frustrating to encounter.

              Especially on this site which praises itself for being a reality-based community.  But then again, vanity is another facet of human nature.

              Thanks for the straightforward, assertive but respectful challange.  Peace.

  •  Dispersants do not seem to be dispersing (19+ / 0-)

    so much as sinking the oil below the surface in giant globs. They should be called hidants or sinkants or TV avoidants.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:11:00 AM PDT

    •  perhaps they were "designed to" (21+ / 0-)

      disperse the evidence of a spill?

      But what about the damage of one?

      There must be a reason,
      why Corexit is banned in the U.K.

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:21:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Corexit is banned in the UK? (3+ / 0-)

        Really?  If that's true, that's pretty big news.  I mean really big.  I wonder about the details.

        They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

        by yet another liberal on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:55:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Banned sinced 1998. (5+ / 0-)

          Following links that´s what the UK "Marine Management Organisation" says:

          All products approved after 1 April 1996 have been required to pass both the Sea/Beach and Rocky Shore Toxicity Tests. Any products coming up for renewal that have only passed the Sea/Beach toxicity test in the past are required, before they can be renewed, to pass the Rocky Shore Test also. The following products have been removed from the list of approved products because they did not pass the Rocky Shore Test when submitted for renewal:

          Chemkleen OSDA JAC (removed from list 21/01/1998)

          Corexit 9527 (removed from list 30/07/1998)

          Corexit 9500 (removed from list 30/07/1998).

          Existing stocks of these products may still be used away from rocky shorelines in appropriate conditions. Approval should be sought from the relevant licensing authority before any proposed use.

          UK tests

          The sea test compares the toxicity of a standard oil (Kuwait crude) to the brown shrimp (Crangon crangon) under mechanical dispersion and in the same conditions after treatment with a candidate product.

          A product that significantly increases the toxicity of the untreated oil will fail the test.

          The rocky shore test simulates the exposure of a representative shore dweller, the common limpet (Putella vulgutu), to oil or product.

          In order to pass the test a product must not exhibit greater toxicity than the oil.

      •  It seems very plausible (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pompatus, StrayCat, JVolvo, jamess

        a couple of days ago it was reported that the fine to BP may depend on volume spilled. If they can hide the oil, they can lower the fine.

        This reminds me of when I was a kid, I didn't want to eat what Mom prepared, so I hid it behind the fridge.

        It was a successful short-term consequence-avoiding strategy. Long-term, though, it was weak.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:58:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Spectacularly ignorant of science (0+ / 0-)

        The evil BP scientists could not predict where the oil would go (and thus "hide" it) without certain knowledge.

        > Properties of crude oil existing in suspension at 5,000 foot pressure and temperatures.

        > How the properties of the specific chemical mix of the oil leaked at the DH site affect teh general properties as described above.

        > Ditto for the salinity and composition of the Gulf waters at that depth.

        > Ditto for the exact ways in which the perfectly efficinet addition of detergents wuld alter the various properties described above.

        > Prescient knowledge of how efficient the oil/detergent mix would occur at the 5000 foot depth.

        > Precise knowledge of the entire underwater current situation at all depth levels everywhere in the Gulf

        Mind you, none of these properties were known by anyone one Earth because why? Because no one on Earth had yet studied a large leak at 5000 foot depth.  That is the meaning of "unprecidented".

        > Finally, even if all the unknown properties had been well-defined, htere is the addiotional problem of writing, debugging, and perfecting a supercomputer program in order to create a pedictive model for what would happen to the oil.

        Being as such programs take decades to develop and even then fall miles short of perfection, the notion that the oil plumes are a BP plot is unadulterated insanity.

        If all the above is too hard to understand, I put it this way. Mankind has studied weather for centuries and modeled it on comuters for decades. And weather predictions longer than a few days are worthless.

        Stop the insanity!

        •  That doesn't mean that they haven't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo, Quicklund, jamess

          tried.  When faced with a high cost outcome, corporations will do almost anything to avoid paying or otherwise taking responsibility.  While there is no guarantee of success, the attempt might still be made.  And BP has experience with corexit, and knows at least some of its behavior in an oil/seawater environment.

          Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

          by StrayCat on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:51:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Occam's Razor is a useful tool (0+ / 0-)

            I do not for a minute doubt BP to drag its feet as long as possible when it comes to combating the future leagal nightmare they will soon smack them in the face.

            But when it comes to the question of, "Why did BP use dispersants on teh oil leak?", there are a couple of potential answers discussed in the diary/comments.

            1. BP knew (or at least thought) the detergten would hide the amount of oil leaked.
            1. Detergents have been a standard counteraction to oil spills for decades now.

            Occam's Razor says the simplest answer is probably the correct answer.  Adding detergents was one thing they could do quickly and had been done many times before.  It's nearly unimagineable to me that they would not employ this method.

            And had they not, the outrage here would be even bigger.  (Not to mention more understandable.)

            •  there are much safer dispersants (0+ / 0-)

              that weren't used.

              that is but one of the many the sources of outrage.

              The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

              by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:43:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Safer, but (0+ / 0-)

                ... were they available in the quantities needed?

                ... would they be as effective?

                ... would more have to be used in order to achieve the same reult?  Would the additional volume mean even greater toxicity?


                And neither do 99.99% of the people venting here their outrage.  

  •  Money is needed (17+ / 0-)

    From this morning's St. Pete Times

    There is no ongoing government monitoring program for what's going on in the gulf, Weisberg said. The USF voyage cost $850,000 — funded by the state — and at this point there is no money for a follow-up trip.

    This is where the Federal Government could step in with funding.

    •  Clearly something that BP should be paying for. (11+ / 0-)
      •  Assessments! (9+ / 0-)

        This is the sort of thing where the rubber hits the road.  BP isn't going to voluntarily pay for this sort of documentation of its "hide the spill" strategy, and if it has any control it certainly won't allow unfettered access.  So, there needs to be a method to assess BP for the costs of such an effort and keep BP from steering the effort away from effective monitoring.  That would be the Federal government's job.  After yesterday's "live feed" there should be a lot more willingness to independently monitor the whole operation, and to hit BP hard to pay for it in a timely manner.

        •  exactly guys - something Obama could SAY and DO (6+ / 0-)

          is to announce that BP is paying for all of this.

          The US Govt is managing it and BP is getting the bill.

          And by God they'll pay it.

          "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

          by Earth Ling on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:12:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We should front the $ - and DO it-no matter what (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            salmo, StrayCat, donnamarie, jamess

            BP of course SHOULD pay. Maybe they will wriggle out of it. That would be bad. But worse would be to not do the necessary research.

            So it needs doing even if it is uncertain whether BP pays or not.

            An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

            by mightymouse on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:01:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Send the bill and lien or sieze the property (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mightymouse, StrayCat, jamess, Earth Ling

              Send the bill so far, and explain that if it isn't paid in some limited number of days, that the US will lien BP's property or seize its assets (including its wells) to collect the debt.  Organize an effective monitoring program, and put them out there.  Send that bill too.  And when the Republicans squeal on BP's behalf, put them up front and center as the poster children for campaign finance reform.  

              •  exactly - we do it, we front the money AND (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                if BP doesn't pay it back in short order, we nationalize their frigging assets, which we could damn nationalize anyway.

                "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

                by Earth Ling on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:19:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  No government monitoring? (5+ / 0-)

      How else are they going to document the damages caused by the BP spill?

      Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne. - James Russell Lowell

      by Deep Harm on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:54:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The USA is THE superpower only so long... (5+ / 0-) control of oil is the definitive coin of power on Earth. Our entire geopolitical order is based on a geographically concentrated resource that has to be transported along fragile pipelines or sea-lanes.

      American military might is geared to both protect the production and transportation of oil to and from places we like... and to deny production and transportation of oil to and from places that we do NOT like.

      If everyone suddenly decides to go solar or wind.. that's a threat.

      Why, it's almost as bad as people conserving energy.

      And that, of course, is just what the Commies want us to do. :)

      Some days you wake and you know - this is the day that changes everything.

      by cskendrick on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:00:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No there is no longer a nation of (4+ / 0-)

        Super power, it is now Corporate Super Powers that control our nations.

        •  I think any bid for legitimacy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          to run the planet that multinationals were hoping for has been invalidated by the financial crash and this recent oilocaust in the Gulf of Mexico.

          The pillars of corporate power are cracking, one by one. This is not a good time to bet the farm on neofeudalism happening. That paradigm is a dead letter now.

          Some days you wake and you know - this is the day that changes everything.

          by cskendrick on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:03:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In a few yeas people will forget, I've heard (0+ / 0-)

            there is a global great depression being engineered sometime between 2012-2018 to further destabilize governments (I can't find that link right now).  This will help march us toward a unified New World Order that will not be all that pleasant.

            Ultimately, what this implies is that the future of the global political economy is one of increasing moves toward a global system of governance, or a world government, with a world central bank and global currency; and that, concurrently, these developments are likely to materialize in the face of and as a result of a decline in democracy around the world, and thus, a rise in authoritarianism. What we are witnessing is the creation of a New World Order, composed of a totalitarian global government structure.
            In fact, the very concept of a global currency and global central bank is authoritarian in its very nature, as it removes any vestiges of oversight and accountability away from the people of the world, and toward a small, increasingly interconnected group of international elites.

            The big endeavor at home right now is to finish off the founding ideas of the US as any form of a We The People liberal democracy predicated on the unalienable rights of man, created equal.  That could stand against this silent coup of the "owners" and is a great danger to these plans in motion;  plans which are working very well when you compare the erosion of our society, rights, privacy, etc. year to year.

            Obama needs to channel TR+FDR: Walk Softly, Carry a Big Stick and Welcome Their Hatred. He has Walk Softly down pat. Time to get on with the rest...

            by FightTheFuture on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:31:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Now is the time to stop the destruction of the (10+ / 0-)

    planet. It isn't going to get any clearer than this until it's inarguably too late.

    •  But how can it be clear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Abra Crabcakeya

      if you can't even see it?

      I hope someone, is tracking,
      the animal toll?

      Film at 11!

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:24:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  From Scientific American (10+ / 0-)

        So far, just from what's washed up along the shoreline.

        More than 300 sea birds, nearly 200 turtles and 19 dolphins have been found dead along the U.S. Gulf Coast during the first five weeks of BP's huge oil spill off Louisiana, wildlife officials reported on Monday.

        The 316 dead birds collected along the shores of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida -- plus 10 others that died or were euthanized at wildlife rehabilitation centers after they were captured alive, far outnumber the 31 surviving birds found oiled to date. DIVING BIRDS HARDEST HIT SO FAR

        The birds hardest hit by oil in the Gulf so far are those that feed by diving into the water for fish, including the Louisiana state bird, the brown pelican, removed last year from the U.S. endangered species list, and the northern gannet, Holcomb said.

        But shorebirds, wading birds and songbirds will increasingly be put in harm's way as more oil washes onto beaches and into marshlands.

        Oil impairs the insulating properties of birds' feathers, exposing them to cold and making it difficult for them to float, swim and fly. Chemicals in the petroleum also can burn their skin and irritate their eyes. They also end up ingesting the oil when they preen, damaging their digestive tracts.

        The same is true of nearly 200 sea turtles found dead and dying along the Gulf Coast, and 19 dead dolphins verified in the region since the oil drilling blowout on April 20.

        I despair.
        Every, Day.
        Am going from vegetarian to vegan.
        Cannot bear this anymore.

        "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

        by hester on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:42:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ditch Dairy! (3+ / 0-)

          Same path for me, Ditch Dairy is the right thing to do, have any dairy users watch the video from the dairy farm if they have any questions.

          Vegan diet makes the least impact on the planet- most of the consumed in the USA is essentially "Eating Oil", especially the wasteful beef, pork, chicken and other killed animal products, but also dairy and eggs.

          "Drill Baby Drill": Stupid in 2008, criminally stupid now.

          by MD patriot on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:59:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  its what you drive that matters here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Abra Crabcakeya

          not whether you eat eggs or dairy or not.

          Until you grow those veggies in your backyard with internally sourced resource loops and you do not drive or use fossil fuels, going vegan or even vegetarian will not have an impact on this problem

          •  Au contraire (4+ / 0-)

            • Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2
            • Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from corn or wheat: 3
            • Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from beef: 54


            "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

            by hester on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:04:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In industrial production that's true (5+ / 0-)

              In sustainable backyard production, you would find that beef nets out well in, for example, grassy areas not suitable for growing crops.

              •  Well, the way most foods gets to most (3+ / 0-)

                tables..... etc. If I could have chickens here I would. Against town ordinance. We use to have 6 laying hens. Free roaming, best eggs ever. Bright orange yolks. I'm off eggs & dairy for now. Haven't had meat in > 20 years.

                "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

                by hester on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:18:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  and your car? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              all of that is fine but until you are ready to walk to work you are just not making any difference

              •  Food makes a huge difference (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                hester, JVolvo

                as was explained above, plus read the UN/FAO report: Livestock's Long Shadow. Here's a pretty readable summary of it in magazine form: Livestock impacts on the environment.

                Besides, everything makes a difference, even small changes. Changing one lightbulb to an energy-efficient one seems ludicrously trivial. But if the majority of households did just that, the overall impact is huge.

                We can't let despair get in the way of doing things that will help.

                "We did not come here to fear the future, we came to shape it." --BHO "Grab a mop." --BHO

                by sillia on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:32:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The choir (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Abra Crabcakeya, dbradhud

                  You are preaching to the choir.

                  I have a huge (more than 2,000 sq ft) organic and permaculture garden space, raise my own chickens for eggs, have a herd of dairy goats for milk/cheese/etc.

                  I walk the talk.

                  I am relocalizing my food.

                  I am also honest about the fact that until I can stop using inputs like gas for the car, electricity for the house (and milking machine and well pump for water, etc) I am STILL part of the problem.

                  I see too many people getting all pious and doing the purity trip thinking they are having a real impact by going veg/vegan/frutarian/breatharian (you choose your favorite purity obsession) when they still use oil for driving/riding or coal for their electricity, etc.

                  Want to have a real impact on food security and real food costs?

                  Be honest.

                  Dont figure you not eating 5 eggs and a gallon of milk every week but loads of broccoli and kale (all expensive and grown/stored/transported by fossil fuels) is going to amount to more than a hill of beans.

                  Embrace our shared culpability.

                  Then go plant an urban garden and SHARE that food with your neighbors and strangers alike.

                  I hope this makes some sense to SOMEONE cuz today its feeling like this painfully obvious point is too subtle for some.

                  •  I know we/society are all culpable (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jamess, Abra Crabcakeya

                    I don't disagree about that, but I was trying to make the point that the food issue (per person) is at least as valuable toward making a difference as say, buying a Prius. In other words, as a percentage of one's footprint, it's a lot.

                    There will likely have to be big, big changes, maybe more than we can now imagine, but starting somewhere is good.

                    "We did not come here to fear the future, we came to shape it." --BHO "Grab a mop." --BHO

                    by sillia on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:34:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, it's going to be beyond obvious (8+ / 0-)

        Right now a lot of conservatives are revisiting their views on the role of the Federal government in their lives.

        Not only can private enterprise not help them.. private enterprise now sees its erstwhile friends as threats.

        After all, despite their official stand on 'trial lawyers', Republicans with coastal property will soon be suing BP, et al, en masse.

        Some days you wake and you know - this is the day that changes everything.

        by cskendrick on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:56:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The plumes were guaranteed (18+ / 0-)

    BP was injecting the dispersants directly into the well to mix with the oil. What we were watching spew out was not crude, but a mixture of dispersants and oil. No one knows how that mixture would behave under the intense pressures at that depth. The answer seems to be these giant plumes.

    The real question is how these plumes will behave in the undersea currents. Is there enough viscosity to allow them to hang together and create these deadly blobs.

    Let me give you the crass interpretation of why BP was allowed to inject dispersants into the well head. Undersea use of dispersants allows marine life to be killed out of camera view.

    Please help the people of Haiti

    by DWG on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:19:53 AM PDT

    •  Conclusion w/o knowledge (0+ / 0-)

      Neither you nor anyone else knows what happens to the oil from a major leak 5000 feet under water.  No one on Earth knows if the oil would stay suspended underwater with the use of dispersants. No one knows if the oil would stay suspended underwater without the use of dispersants. This event has not been dealt with before, hence no one knows.

      It does occur to be, however, that it is better overall for 95% of the oil to remain in these underwater plumes than it would be if 95% of the oil had gone ashore the Mississippi Delta.  

      But DKos has gone from the "reality-based community" to the "outrage for outrage's sake community" I guess.

      •  Hi Quicklund, I was on a site called (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo, Quicklund, jamess

        Swedish Line the other day.  One of the articles it had was a purposeful experiment in which thousands of gallons of diesel were dumped into the North Sea.

        The scientists measured and watched what their "spill" did.

        A lot of it suspended at different places in the water column.

        They only were able to recover iirc 15% of the spill.

        The oilshas multiple weight components which separate out and hang in their specific weight area of the water column.

        The dispersants add to the complexity and yes toxicity of the mix.  So solving the problems become more complicated.

        I was voting (in my own way) not to use dispersants, hoping some smart people, with skimmers, and vacuums like they use to recover sea bottom wrecks could be used as long as it was in globs that are visible.

        I don't think we have any sense of whether there is a skunk works somewhere gaming out the scenarios and if there is one whether it has any effect on how things are being handled.

        "Never, desist till we ... extinguish this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, will scarce believe that it suffered a disgrace and dishonor to this country.

        by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:40:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the kind reply (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Regina in a Sears Kit House

          I simply object to the phenomena of uninformed people (among whom I count myself, to be clear) who work themselves up to apolexy over a conclusion that may or may not be as valid as the once-accepted notion that heat is a fluid that flows through something called the ether.

          Everything about this spill is generating outrage.  The oil washes ashore? Outrage.  The oil has not washed ashore? Ourtage.

          Christen me Pollyanna if one must, but in light of this massive leak these oil plumes strike me as relatively good news.  The oil does relatively less damage at 1500 feet than it would do if it was already ashore on the Delta.  Perhaps these plumes will contain most of the oil until it degrades or sinks.  Perhaps they will release the oil towards shore at a slower rate, thus making the cleanup job easier.

          But somehow, all newsregarding the DH leak is made out here on DKos as "proof" of some conspiracy theory.  

          So perhaps now you might see how I settled on my tagline...

    •  Hi DWG, just one thing to add, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I have read more than once, and I would like a legal source doc for this, that BP will be assessed a per barrel fee for every barrel discharged.  It pays to hide.

      It may also explain their woefully inept attempts to minimized their estimates.

      Good diary and thoughtful comments.

      Thank you.

      "Never, desist till we ... extinguish this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, will scarce believe that it suffered a disgrace and dishonor to this country.

      by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:31:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  thanks DWG (0+ / 0-)

      I think there were reasons,
      they stalled so long on releasing those videos.

      How long does Corexit, take to work anyways?

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:27:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unsurprising, and only the beginning (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JVolvo, jamess, mkor7, miss SPED

    of the "surprising" and "unexpected" and "remarkable" and "unpredictable" consequences of enormous quantities of chemicals, and even more enormous quantities of oil, spreading both thickly and thinly around the bowl of the Gulf of Mexico.

    What goes around the Loop comes around. What comes up, eventually disperses.

    Humoring the horror of environmental collapse:
    4300+ stories and mal mots.

    by mwmwm on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:21:44 AM PDT

  •  The other night, I was listening to a report (17+ / 0-)

    on wildlife kills. Necropsies of some turtles "revealed no oil" in respiratory and digestive systems.

    Does anyone know how specific or broad such chemical testing in these necropsies is? Is there just a quick test for a few petroleum signatures that would easily miss dispersant chemicals or are the test more broad?

    BP's actions, in every phase of response and "remediation," has been centered on the concealment of information. Can they dictate limits on chemical testing for the contractors they use to deal with animals?

    I know that Anderson Cooper reported on a contractor hired to clean birds who was ordered to take down his own website on which he was reporting wildlife casualties. I'm wondering if the company is limiting testing to oil to limit its liability with "science."

    It's just a sig line. ____ Songs, as always, at da web site

    by Crashing Vor on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:25:36 AM PDT

  •  How will the drill huggers spin this? (8+ / 0-)

    A: junk science
    B: a potential science jobs creator

    Phone Bankers Put A Ring On It!

    by mudslide on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:25:39 AM PDT

  •  6 miles wide, but 22 miles long (8+ / 0-)

    At least that's the impression I got from the Huffington Post article I saw on this yesterday.

    NEW ORLEANS — Marine scientists have discovered a massive new plume of what they believe to be oil deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico, stretching 22 miles (35 kilometers) from the leaking wellhead northeast toward Mobile Bay, Alabama.

    The discovery by researchers on the University of South Florida College of Marine Science's Weatherbird II vessel is the second significant undersea plume recorded since the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20.

    The thick plume was detected just beneath the surface down to about 3,300 feet (1,000 meters), and is more than 6 miles (9.6 kilometers) wide, said David Hollander, associate professor of chemical oceanography at the school.

    Clear, (presumably) toxic, floating below the surface, 6 miles wide, 22 miles long, taking up a huge portion of the water column, and heading toward the coast. I hope to who/whatever might listen that this isn't going to end up like I'm thinking it will. I can barely wrap my brain around it.

    Behind every major problem you're likely to find greed and lust for power.

    by daishan on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:28:21 AM PDT

  •  I'm reading this, jamess; and thinking "if a tree (4+ / 0-)

    falls,,,,"-----and you put it in the poll lead.

    Good diary, Tipped & rec'd!!

  •  Wouldn't it be nice if scientists ran the (7+ / 0-)

    containment effort, rather than greedy, consciousless BP officials???

    •  Containment is one thing, monitoring is another (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boadicea, kanuk, mightymouse, jamess, dbradhud

      The problem being identified here is that the BP effort to hide the spill has worked so far.  They are not only the entity in charge of plugging the leak and intercepting oil, they are controlling the monitoring of their own catastrophe.  Maybe there is a common interest in controlling the leak, and therefore that is a place where cooperative management works.  The case for cooperation on intercepting and collecting oil off the beaches is more difficult to make.  As Fishgrease has explained more than once, it is obvious that actual operations are largely cosmetic.  Obama should conclude that that job needs to be directed by someone else.  The biggest conflict of interest is in the area of monitoring.  There, BP is clearly motivated to obscure evidence, and misdirect monitoring activity.  There is no excuse for leaving that part of the job to them, as any competent manager actually in charge would know.  Obama is going to the Gulf today, and he will surely have more to say.  Let's see if he starts acting like his Administration is in charge.

  •  thank you jamess (3+ / 0-)

    for posting the links to Dr. Joye's blog.

    I would like to read it before the findings  disappear or get rewritten, revised, or disclaimered.  That is what happened after Dr. Lubchenco got to the Pelican people.

    •  Dr Joye (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bigchin, miss SPED

      was part of the Pelican crew

      I hope she's being appropriately reserved,
      in her posts, and her statements.

      Or perhaps Dr. Lubchenco,
      has become more aware of the need for Transparency?

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:07:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lubchenco got me to grinding my back molars... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        espresso, jamess

        like somehow Gulf Coast scientists, some with PhDs from Woods Hole, would somehow not recognize oil in seawater (insert eyeroll here)...I wasn't sure if Joye took less Pelican obfuscation from Lubchenco because Joye was on land, and Asper, Highsmith, et al were out to sea - or whether they were all on the choke chain due to NOAA funding.
        I guess we'll find out. Joye's group gets two weeks aboard a much more 'sophisticated' vessel - my guess is we will get a lot more data, if we care to look.

        •  NOAA director Lubchenco, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          miss SPED

          is not one to throw caution into the wind

          BP & Feds Still Limiting Independent Researchers Access to Oil Spill
          May 20, 2010

          NOAA director Jane Lubchenco on Monday decried media reports about plumes of underwater oil as "misleading, premature and, in some cases, inaccurate."

          Lubchenco implicitly criticized scientists on the Pelican, a research vessel operated by the NOAA-affiliated National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology (NIUST), for being hasty in its pronouncements to the media.

          "No definitive conclusions have been reached by this research team about the composition of the undersea layers they discovered," Lubchenco said in her statement. "Characterization of these layers will require analysis of samples and calibration of key instruments. The hypothesis that the layers consist of oil remains to be verified."

          the circuitous path of tracking those undersea oil plumes
          by jamess - Wed May 26, 2010

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:56:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I actually did see this on the TV (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    Here is the video!!!!!

    "There's another leak much bigger 5 to 6 miles away"

    another oil leak much bigger bp disperants gulf of mexico supertanker rig underwater camera live feed dylan ratigan environmental destruction louisiana parish boats fishing shrimp drilling regulators Minerals Management Service high meth watched porn corruption fraud corporate stranglehold fascism profits nwo tyranny twilight dessert conspiracy Nicholas Pozzi Wow Energy clean up containment mobilization catastrophe toxic smell coastal evacuation bop dome coast guard peak

    I can't get my embed to work, so there is the link.

    If the embed doesn't work there is the link.

    You must watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  •  Now for my obliagtory Info-mercial ... Peak Oil (6+ / 0-)

    Peak Oil: It's not like, we have all the time in the world, to find it all ...

    Patchwork Quilts OK for Picnics, National Energy Policy NOT SO Much
    by jamess -- May 18, 2010

    If you never change the course you're on,
    you just might end up, where you're going!

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:16:17 AM PDT

    •  imo (6+ / 0-)

      We need an Apollo plan
      for a 21st Century National Grid

      with the goal on putting in new HVDC powerlines,
      which will make wind and solar energy MUCH more
      "portable", to markets where it's needed.

      (HVDC grids = High transmission, low loss, long distance, power lines, as opposed to traditional AC lines, which are not.)

      Europe, and even China are doing just that, in a Big Way ... leaving us in the dust!

      larger image

      Within 6 hours deserts receive more energy from the sun than humankind consumes within a year.


      DESERTEC gets serious -- Teams up with First Solar

      Hmmmm, I wonder if the US has any Deserts?

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:23:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, we need a holistic approach (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess, mkor7, gulfgal98

        conservation - new energy sources - carbon fee - build awareness - subsidies where appropriate.

        and stop WASTING so much money on the military. economize on fighter jets. how many dogfights do we have these days anyway?

        I know I'm dreaming, but that's what it will take

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:07:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Finally, on the rec list (7+ / 0-)

    Jamess is one of the more underappreciated diarists here, imho.  I see diary after diary, meticulously documented and well-explained, with 25 comments.  Coincidentally, I was just talking to my author daughter last night about the vagaries of success, and I used this diarist as an example of someone whose work is outstanding, but who gets less attention than many who write less substantive diaries.  How gratifying to see this atypically short effort get attention.  Perhaps there is hope for her as well.  :-)

    As to the oil plume, what more is there to say.  Damn upsetting.

    Centrism is just a code word to make corruption seem the "sensible" alternative to principles. -Robobagpiper

    by geomoo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:27:31 AM PDT

    •  well thank you geomoo (6+ / 0-)

      such are the vagaries of popularity.

      I write the stories,
      "I wish I would see on TVeee".
      (or did see on K.O. or R.M.)

      If 20 people get informed, by my efforts, it's allright by me.

      good luck to your daughter's efforts, as well

      thanks for the kind feedback, geomoo
      it's good to know,
      someone appreciates my work.

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:35:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree and (3+ / 0-)

      I always look forward to jamess' diaries which are very well researched and documented.  Also jamess stays around to answer questions and interact with the comments better than almost any other diarist here.  jamess' diaries are always an automatic "wreck" from me along with the mojo in the tip jar.

      Economic Left/Right: -8.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

      by gulfgal98 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:43:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks gulfgal (0+ / 0-)

        I appreciate your comments,
        and interest in my posts.

        However, I don't do this for the fun of it.

        It more like a "public service" to me, lol

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:31:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  That is why many people don't beleive in climate (5+ / 0-)

    change because until a hurricane or a volcano or an ice melt hits them personally they don't see it on the evening news.

    That massive land mass of plastic gunk in the Pacific needs to be everyone's scree saver. They don't see it so it doesn't exist. The upside of no more oil would be no more plastics!!!

    I remember that movie Andromeda strain when some escaped lethal bacteria dissolved ALL plastics and airplanes literally fell out of the sky! that go their attention.

  •  Oil news links (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    No one will believe it's the Blues if you wear a suit, `less you happen to be an old person, and you slept in it.

    by dov12348 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:59:10 AM PDT

  •  There's no one in charge except... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    a gang of criminals called BP and corrupt cops. My point is that there is no "there" there. No government that protects the people or the earth or the oceans. There is no "rule of law", there is no government other than what you see on TV which is fiction--it really is. Everyone is ass-covering as anyone who has worked as I have in the federal government knows in unbelievably intimate ways that would break your heart if any one reading it knew the half of it. It's not Obama, he's just a fucking actor they hired. Leave him alone he is not and has never been "in charge" -- sure he has an office and is Head of State and does make decisions within a very narrow framework of alternatives (selected by?) but not much power unless he makes enormous efforts to get it. For starters look at his salary and compare it the head of any major corporation then tell me who has the most power.

    We get our info by watching TV. Some of that, which Kossacks seem to have trouble understanding, is disinformation particularly ANYTHING coming out of the federal government of major corporations. Pick out sources that are relatively honest and stick to them.

  •  BP's strategy worked to an extent: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ornerydad, jamess

    Hide the damage with dispersants. The strategy has worked as the enormity of the disaster isn't fully appreciated yet. People just see a few oily birds. And that isn't enough to invoke empathy these days. For that, you would have to literally show an oil exec wringing the neck of a brown pelican.

    British Petroleum: I think that means it's foreign oil.

    by Bensdad on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:11:28 AM PDT

  •  Irony (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund, jamess, DruidQueen

    You say things don't really exist, until folks see them on the "Evening News". However, that doesn't stop folks from believing in God.

  •  Where Plumes Come From (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    balancedscales, Quicklund, jamess

    But there's only one blown-out Oil Well -- So how can there be so many different Oil Plumes, lurking beneath the surface?  Maybe those floating "blobs", were already there?

    The plumes are the segments of oil flow that started at the rupture point, but were broken in pieces from the solid stream by currents. When you look at the map of how the surface oil has interacted with varying water currents, you can see how the currents have broken parts of the surface oil in pieces. Even more happens deeper where currents are stronger. That's why the plume already discovered isn't just hundreds of miles of a single stream of oily water.

    Maybe there is another source. But until there's evidence of it, the least uncertain explanation is that there's just the one (two, really, counting the second leak in the same pipe system) from which these giant plumes are coming.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:50:27 AM PDT

  •  Tho oil doesn't fit. (3+ / 0-)

    I calculated that an elliptical cone 22 miles X 6 miles X 3300 ft would have a volume of over 2 trillion barrels and all the oil that has leaked to date would only yield 0.35 parts per million.

    I'm no Nate Silver, TomTech, or VoteforAmerica ("WineRev" Eeman, Recounting Minnesota)

    by Tomtech on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:51:22 AM PDT

    •  Where did you find an estimate of the (0+ / 0-)

      measured concentration in the plumes?  I get ~0.few ppm also, but is that a lot?  OSHA has a link that says 500ppm in air is dangerous, and given that water is 1000 times more dense, this would suggest that 0.few ppm presents an equal exposure.  They did say, after all, it was potentially dangerous to small critters at the bottom of the food chain.

      Justice deferred is justice denied. -MLK

      by zephron on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:29:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  3000 cubic feet methane (0+ / 0-)

      to one barrel of oil

      it doesn't take much oil and methane in the water to begin to decompose to suck up all the oxygen in the water.

      All liberal values can be summed into a single issue: The dismantling of the American Middle Class. Publicly Funded U.S. Politics NOW!!!

      by innereye on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:11:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WTF is the diarist's point? (0+ / 0-)

    So much undirected snark ... just what is the point you think you are making?

    Lots and lots and lots of oil has leaked. Lots has reached the surface. By simple math then we realize lots and lots of oil remains underwater.

    But somehow that simple observations has spawned this snarkfest without a point ... and it reaches the rec list?


    •  I think it's emotion (4+ / 0-)

      People are angry, outraged, and feel powerless in this situation; and reasonably so. I suspect as time passes, particularly after the well is sealed, you will start to see a more measured response to this disaster.

      •  True enough (0+ / 0-)

        It is after all a pattern we've seen repeated through our lifetimes, eh?

        As for feeling ... I too am a bit frustrated.  Mine comes from seeing what was once the "reality-based community" collapse after the end of the Bush Administration. It was a lot easier to stay realistic when we had Mister Unreal around to give us ample doses of the surreal.

        Absent Mister Bush, it seems DKos now cheers outrage just for the sake of being outraged.

        Which is why your posts above were so greatly appreceated.

        •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, dbradhud

          I'm sure some probably view me as a BP apologist, but I most definitely am not.  What I do have is almost three decades of experience characterizing and remediating environmental contamination.  I think that gives me a different perspective on things than others who aren't accustomed to dealing with these kinds of contaminants.

          •  It clearly does (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I have no background in environmental contamination, but I do have an engineering degree and quite a few years experience in experimentation and data analysis. Neither of us I suspect earned our pay be conclusion-jumping.

    •  my point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Regina in a Sears Kit House

      What is the story
      with those underwater plumes?

      When, Where, What, How, and Why?

      Apologizes for my snark-mode rhetoric,
      it's my fallback editorial style,
      especially, when I'm in a hurry.

      There's lot to be snarky, about in this world,
      if ya haven't noticed.

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:34:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ignorance is blissful profit (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, melfunction, JRandomPoster

    Apparently, BP says:

    What you don't know
    Can't hurt me.

  •  I would urge folks... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ... to contact the White House, and advocate that the President issue orders to further open up the data and access of the scientific community.

    We can't find true solutions to difficult problems if we don't know the parameters of the problem.  And BP is doing everything they can to obfuscate the facts in their ongoing effort to stem the flow of oil hemorrhage of corporate profits.

    The inadequate is the enemy of the necessary.

    by JRandomPoster on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:36:13 AM PDT

  •  methane (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    from the blog

    Methane concentrations in this feature are the highest we’ve measured anywhere so far during this cruise.

    All liberal values can be summed into a single issue: The dismantling of the American Middle Class. Publicly Funded U.S. Politics NOW!!!

    by innereye on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:05:52 AM PDT

    •  oxygen depletion (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      again from the blog

      Our hypothesis is that methane oxidation and CDOM degradation are driving oxygen consumption.

      All liberal values can be summed into a single issue: The dismantling of the American Middle Class. Publicly Funded U.S. Politics NOW!!!

      by innereye on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:07:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This latest plume was caused when BP (0+ / 0-)

    pulled the butt plug out of Tony Hayward's a-hole.

    •  Most unhelpful comment (0+ / 0-)

      Here we have a nicely researched diary, chock full of good "sciency" information. And I can't forward it to some people who would benefit from it, because of your stupid comment.

      Legalism: strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit

      by Catte Nappe on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:24:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  awe, going ahead Catte (0+ / 0-)

        surely, they'd understand Outrage?

        Even my Mom reads my Diaries --

        she likes the comments, most.

        She hasn't complained yet about the language --

        only 'the tone', of some of the comments, instead.

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:38:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You do not know my sister-in-law (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          And how protective she is of my nephews. I may do a cut and paste of the diary alone, sans comment thread. But the point would remain that a diary of this sort is just the kind of thing others would like to share with mothers, kid sisters, etc. And that comment would end the idea for more than just me.

          Legalism: strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit

          by Catte Nappe on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:07:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Rachel Maddow had a graphic that showed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    exactly what that plume would look like if you could view it from the side and it's simply CHILLING.  For me, this spells the end of plant and animal life in and around the Gulf.  Unless humans can figure out a way to siphon that shit out of the water before the hurricanes churn it up and carry it over land, this disaster is really beyond our comprehension, IMHO.

    My husband likens it to Pandora's Box.  We opened up something that is going to destroy us.  Of course, what doesn't kill us makes us stronger, so I'm hoping this turns into a pivotal moment that gets us all to demand affordable alternatives to fossil fuel sooner rather than later.  Obviously, the fossil fuel industry wants us to use up all the fossil fuel first.  Hopefully, this will turn things around.

    It's Big Oil's Disaster, no matter how much the opposition wishes it was Obama's.

    by Little Lulu on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:20:41 AM PDT

  •  Food , fuel , etc. - every little bit helps. No (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    longer PC , somehow , and stupidly enough - there are too many humans for this planet to support.That is an unescapable fact. Technology has become too complex for any of us to understand it's interweaving with unmolested world - and monied interests unwilling to give up a nickel , as always throughout history.

  •  the plumes are making the local news (0+ / 0-)

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:32:24 PM PDT

  •  too sad for words (0+ / 0-)

    PBS segment with AP photographer, from LA
    covering the Oil Disaster

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:07:39 PM PDT

JekyllnHyde, Ed in Montana, buffalo soldier, vicki, Alma, hester, Rayne, teacherken, Thom K in LA, Detlef, alisonk, Powered Grace, emal, Shockwave, tacet, genethefiend, Pompatus, Sandy on Signal, bronte17, conchita, cskendrick, elveta, nyceve, MD patriot, Agathena, buckhorn okie, vmibran, roses, oceanspray, mwmwm, Cedwyn, scorpiorising, danthrax, PaulVA, yet another liberal, HeyMikey, nika7k, Catte Nappe, JayDean, Little Red Hen, environmentalist, Frank Vyan Walton, oortdust, G2geek, jrooth, PBen, Flint, panicbean, ajsuited, ChemBob, stagemom, Brooke In Seattle, Laurence Lewis, Chaoslillith, majcmb1, Little Lulu, Phil S 33, PinHole, FightTheFuture, Rogneid, mightymouse, dancewater, danger durden, big spoiled baby, begone, RiaD, martini, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, sherlyle, BlueInARedState, tonyahky, kestrel9000, global citizen, StrayCat, Glorfindel, gatorcog, Crashing Vor, JVolvo, bleeding heart, middleagedhousewife, profh, blueoregon, shaharazade, bstotts, CharlieHipHop, Friend of the court, Temmoku, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, xaxado, donnamarie, uncomfortably numb, Loudoun County Dem, Bob Guyer, ninkasi23, godislove, kds9515, vets74, Mary Mike, DWG, bnasley, jayden, vbdietz, mudslide, jnhobbs, Moderation, JML9999, revm3up, greenalley, Phil N DeBlanc, OleHippieChick, lineatus, rssrai, Cassandra Waites, geomoo, bluesheep, mofembot, temptxan, banger, petulans, Ann Marie Brenda, Abra Crabcakeya, pelagicray, Nica24, briefer, Ellinorianne, papicek, cameoanne, SciMathGuy, 1BQ, snackdoodle, dark daze, Methinks They Lie, Partisan Progressive, DefendOurConstitution, Daily Activist, elziax, IreGyre, 57andFemale, Andhakari, reesespcs, davespicer, parse this, RhymesWithUrple, confitesprit, LaughingPlanet, eXtina, politik, fidellio, angelajean, LadyParadox, gulfgal98, samanthab, elginblt, DailyDrew, Earth Ling, melfunction, JRandomPoster, elengul, Oh Mary Oh, HylasBrook, slice, Pakalolo, Colorado is the Shiznit, BlueJessamine, BlackQueen40, kevin k, princesspat, thethinveil, marleycat, DruidQueen, worldlotus, pensivelady, Marihilda, innereye, blackjackal, Regina in a Sears Kit House, Rejoinder, FireBird1, Hookah, DM4

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site