Study: Petroleum-eating microbes significantly reduced gulf oil plume

[babylonsister]

Study: Petroleum-eating microbes significantly reduced gulf oil plume

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 24, 2010; 9:13 PM


The Gulf of Mexico ecosystem was ready and waiting for something like the Deepwater Horizon blowout and seems to have made the most of it, a new scientific study suggests.

Petroleum-eating bacteria - which had dined for eons on oil seeping naturally through the seafloor - proliferated in the cloud of oil that drifted underwater for months after the April 20 accident. They not only outcompeted fellow microbes, they each ramped up their own internal metabolic machinery to digest the oil as efficiently as possible.

The result was a nature-made cleanup crew capable of reducing that reduced the amount of oil amounts in the undersea "plume" by half about every three days, according to research published online Tuesday by the journal Science.

The findings, by a team of scientists led by Terry C. Hazen of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, help explain one of the biggest mysteries a mystery of the disaster: Where has all the oil gone?

"What we know about the degradation rates fits with what we are seeing in the last three weeks," Hazen said. "We've gone out to the sites, and we don't find any oil, but we do find the bacteria."

The species dominating the digestion of the oil is a newly discovered one, Hazen said.

The findings point to a different conclusion from that drawn by readers of a study published last week, also in the journal Science. That research by scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute found no reduction in the oxygen content of the gigantic oil plume, suggesting that microbes were consuming the oil very slowly.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082403778.html

[madrchsod]

1. the dog ate my homework excuse......

[old mark]

2. I'm wondering who got big donatations from the oil companies to come down

on the disappearing oil theory...

It just...went away, gosh, who knew!


Huh!


mark

[Recursion]

4. No, it didn't "just go away", it got broken down by bacteria

NPR this morning was interviewing one of the microbiologists who's studying it.

[Igel]

5. The NOAA report is widely misunderstood.

Mostly by people who relied on 2nd and 3rd hand recounting by pundits and bloggers of what was reported in the "original" MSM reports.

It was said that something like 75% had dissolved or been dispersed. That doesn't mean "gone" any more than that soybean oil in your cream Italian dressing or the sugar in your coffee is "gone".

However, if you look at the oil on your frying pan before you plunge it into that dispersant-rich solution solution called "dishwater" and then ask where it's gone after you've scrubbed the pan clean, you would probably reasonably say that the oil is "gone"--a lot easier than saying, "The surfactants in my dishwashing detergent have successfully caused the oil to be dispersed in the water so as to form an aqueous suspension."

Then there was the independent report widely cited as calling the NOAA report a piece of shit--but which the verbiage of the report itself actually mostly confirmed as correct, if not terribly transparent. Of course, it also dealt with hydrocarbons that are standardly found only as gases at the relevant temperatures, so you have to undertand that natural gas is usually a gas while petroleum is mostly a liquid. Phases of matter aren't easy for most people to understand, even though the Zula Patrol does a bang-up job explaining them to 6 year olds.

However, the NOAA report just relied on scant measurements and left open the possibility of biological degradation. The independent, non-governmental report deduced from the absence of low oxygen levels that the oil that had been dissolved and dispersed must still be present. They took a true premise, a false premise, and reached a conclusion that was, apparently, false. Seems that the low-temperature bacterium doesn't really consume all that much O2.

Although I will say I'd love to know what the metabolic products of that microbe are.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. I'm worried about the effects of the mass die-off that will happen when the food runs out.

won't that spike oxygen use?

[fasttense]

3. Wow, that is some seriously bad writing.

Seems you don't need to know how to write to get published at the Washington Post.

"cleanup crew capable of reducing that reduced the amount of oil amounts in the undersea "plume" by half".

"The findings,... help explain one of the biggest mysteries a mystery of the disaster".

There are other little gems like that through out this badly written piece.

Here's one that is just Palin stupid: "federal scientists from the federal government."

So aside from pushing BP paid for propaganda, the Washington Post must have put their stupidest writer on the story.

[snooper2]

6. well...you just used stupidest :)

"All right, let's just dive right into this stupid thing.
Recently, a professional athlete was quoted in an article as saying I made the stupidest mistake. The athlete was talking about his personal life-his VERY personal life. (It's hard to keep track these days, isn't it?)

The superlative form of stupid is most stupid, as in I made the most stupid mistake, not stupidest. Stupidest can be heard and seen everywhere, but it's wrong. (Please don't ask me to roll out my entire exposition on why finding a word in a modern dictionary doesn't make it legitimate, standard English. Paul and I have already paddled across that ocean several times.)

Stupid is just like lucid (same -id ending). The comparative form is more lucid, and the superlative form is most lucid. Likewise, the comparative form of stupid is more stupid, and the superlative form is most stupid. In fact, in general, -id words use more and most instead of -er and -est. (The water was more tepid, he was the most lucid, they could have been more candid, his reflexes have grown more torpid, the milk was the most rancid, his tongue had grown more acrid. No one would even think to say tepidest, lucidest, candidest, torpidest, rancidest, or acridest.)

Oddly enough, as many times as I've heard the word stupidest (and believe me, if I sold my soul to the devil in order to have eternal life, that wouldn't be long enough for me to count the number of times that I've heard it over the past few years), I'm not sure that I've ever heard anyone use the word stupider (even though it is now given as an alternative form in some modern dictionaries!). Maybe that's because people know how stupid the word stupider sounds and that the correct form is more stupid. Then why don't they know how stupid stupidest sounds and that the correct form is most stupid?

Regardless, the aforementioned athlete may have made the most stupid mistake in his personal life, but he also made a mistake when he used the word stupidest.

I hope that we can now lay this stupid grammar error to rest."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_stupidest_a_word


:P :)

[Subdivisions]

10. That's what stood out for me the most. Terrible writing, indeed. n/t

[nc4bo]

7. So I wonder how long and how many bacteria it will take to digest a 22 mile long plume

of oil? Decades? 100 years?

Likewise for the oil lurking under the surface of the beach sand, lurking in the marshes, etc.

So what good does that do for the GOM today.

I'm sorry, I just can't buy it.

Sidenote: if that were the case than what about the clusterf*ck in Nigeria a DUer posted. If the bacteria did such an awesome job, why is there still oil there? I'm honestly and seriously confused.

[joeybee12]

14. Yeah, big difference in suppsoedly eating the oil that's seeping as opposed to

the HUGE amount gushing into the ocean all at once...this study really seems bogus.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

20. and how much oxygen those bac. will use up...

I don't see how they can't be depleting it, tho the article says otherwise. :shrug:

edit

[nc4bo]

21. Who'd have thought that getting to the truth would be Mission Impossible.

GOM already had a huge dead zone due to run off from the Mississippi right?

I'm with you!

Another major ocean creature kill is on the way. What the oil and COREXIT didn't kill, the new improved dead zone will most certainly.

In the meantime, we get to watch all these ridiculous touchy/feely BP ads, told to swim in the ocean and eat all the GOM seafood we suck down.

[G_j]

8. mmm... Plume of oil 650ft high found in Gulf waters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8994244


Plume of oil 650ft high found in Gulf waters

By Steve Connor

Friday, 20 August 2010

Scientists have detected a large underwater "plume" of oil from the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico last April, which spilled almost 5 million barrels of oil into the sea until the leak was successfully capped last month.

The discovery of a 650ft-high plume of hydrocarbon chemicals some 22 miles long by 1.2 miles wide, and 3,000ft below the surface of the Gulf, helps to answer the question of where the oil from the disaster has gone.

Two weeks ago, the influential US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that only about 26 per cent of the oil from the spill remained in the environment. The rest had mostly evaporated or had dispersed, skimmed or burned off from from the sea surface, the NOAA scientists said.

Jane Lubchenko, head of the NOAA, said at the time that she did not believe there were any major quantities of oil still lurking as underwater slicks.

-snip-

[nc4bo]

11. What's that famous saying...

That goes something like; If you tell a lie enough times, it eventually becomes the truth?

:wtf: How can any of us believe anything coming from BP or our fabulous government anymore?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. From the original article.

"Water samples extracted from the depths where the oil is lying are clear and odourless, according to Christopher Reddy, a marine geochemist at Woods Hole who was part of the research team."

It's not a 650ft high plume of oil. It's a 650 ft high plume of water which contains highly dispersed oil.

[G_j]

17. correct

"The plume has shown that the oil is persisting for a longer period than some scientists would have expected, said Dr Camilli. "Many people speculated that subsurface oil droplets were being easily biodegraded. Well, we didn't find that. We found it was still there. The plume is not pure oil. But there are oil compounds in there," he added.

Water samples extracted from the depths where the oil is lying are clear and odourless, according to Christopher Reddy, a marine geochemist at Woods Hole who was part of the research team. "We don't know how toxic it is and we don't know how it formed, or why. But knowing the size, shape, depth, and heading of this plume will be vital for answering many of these questions," he said"

[Subdivisions]

9. A newly discovered species did all the munching? How fabulously convenient is that? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. That's impossible.

Oil is made out of the same thing as diamonds and it's chemically inert and it's impossible for it to disappear and it will stay there for ever. Monsatan!

[QC]

15. Oil gone bye bye!

Bye bye oil! Bye bye!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[nc4bo]

18. Let me get this straight...

According to this thread within a thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9011343&mesg_id=9012461), the oil is in a dispersed state, broken down by nature including the newly discovered bacteria. The byproduct of this breakdown is clear and odorless but they don't know whether the byproducts are toxic or not?

Now will someone now explain to me why our seafood safety is tested by a SMELL TEST?

Man we are so screwed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Answers.

Crude oil is broken down into two different byproducts. Carbon dioxide, and hydroxic acid. Carbon dioxide, as you may know, is essentially harmless. However, hydroxic acid is highly toxic, is found in many polluted waterways, and is known to cause the deaths of hundreds of people every year, many of them children.

Why the smell test? Because it's a very easy, short, and cheap test to do. Crude oil contains some highyl volatile chemicals that are easily detected by the human sense of smell even at very small concentrations, and smelling the fish is a rather good, accurate test to determine if it's been exposed to crude oil. Regardless of whether the seafood passes or fails the test, samples do go on further further analysis by more complex methods.

[The Flaming Red Head]

24. Would you eat the sea food right now from GOM

Would you feed it to your kids? Just curious

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Yes.

Should the children of fishermen in the Gulf go hungry over your unfounded fear? Just curious.

[okieinpain]

19. well how convenient. n/t.

[chowder66]

26. The Gulf Oil Microbe Story--Brought to you by BP and Dept of Energy money

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x555706

[EFerrari]

29. Good catch. n/t

[EFerrari]

27. This report from a US Dept of Energy lab is in direct contradition

to the evidence found by others (who work for neither the government nor BP). Those people seem to be finding oil AND dead zones.

Amy has done a good job of covering these other findings:

Scientist Accuses Obama Administration and BP of Underestimating Amount of Oil Left in Gulf of Mexico
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/23/scientist_accuses_obama_administration_and_bp

Fishing Industry in Gulf Still Worried About Levels of Toxins in the Water and the Impact on Marine Life
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/23/fishing_industry_in_gulf_still_worrried

Dahr Jamail: Mississippi Shrimpers Refuse to Trawl, Fearing Oil, Dispersants
August 20th, 2010 | Inter Press Service

“Why would we lie about oil and dispersant in our waters, when our livelihoods depend on our being able to fish here?” Miller asked IPS. “I want this to be cleaned up so we can get back to how we used to live. But it doesn’t make sense for us or anyone else to fish if our waters are toxified. I don’t know why people are angry at us for speaking the truth. We’re not the ones who put the oil in the water.”

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/mississippi-shrimpers-refuse-to-trawl-fearing-oil-dispersants

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Which part, specifically, is contradicted?