Use of Dispersants in the Gulf Proves to Have Little Benefit

George Washington's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
anonnn's picture

Presidential haiku:


Corexit CDs hedge funds,

anti-social clever-strokes, 

Tell the truth and run.

blindman's picture



1 week ago 37

To my friend Gustavo, who was drummer and a big fan of Floyd, hewas killed this saturday with a? shoot in the head during a robbery. WE WONT FORGET YOU!


speaking of dispersants...and delta toxicity. 

RichardP's picture

My condolences blindman.

RichardP's picture

Just a small pet peeve.  In all of the postings that G.W. has done on the Corexit issue, many posters have expressed supposed genuine concern about the sea life suffocated because of the oxygen defict created by Corexit.  Yet other posters have pointed out that portions of the Gulf have had oxygen deficits for years (with attendant sea kill) because of the chemicals that are allowed to run off into the Mississippi River and into the gulf.  I don't claim to have read every post but I've read most of them.  And no one seems interested in the loss of sea life due to the Mississippi chemical run-off.  Only the loss due to Corexit.  So - it would seem that the loss of sea life is not the real concern here.  Something more political seems to be the concern.  If one was truely concerned about the loss of sea life, I would think they would be concerned about the loss, regardless of cause.

George Washington's picture

Will the dead zones increase in size due to the oil/Corexit/methane?  Is there a  concerted effort to suppress information on the loss of sea life due to the Mississippi chemical run-off?



RichardP's picture

Is there a  concerted effort to suppress information on the loss of sea life due to the Mississippi chemical run-off?

I'm guessing the answer to that one is yes.

Will the dead zones increase in size due to the oil/Corexit/methane?

Over time, I'm guessing that the Mississippi River runoff dead zones will kill more sea life than the BP Well dead zones - because they are persistant.  Although large, the BP fallout is temporary.

G.W., my comments in the post directly above were not directed to you.  It was a general comment on the lack of comment by other posters when the Mississippi River runoff dead zone issue was raised.

Cistercian's picture

 Yes a huge dead zone appears every year in the gulf due primarily to ag runoff.


 Nice distraction attempt...dolt.

onlooker's picture

Anybody here young enough to remember Agent Orange? The good news for the possible health problems from the Gulf oil and chemicals is that we got a new health plan with limited help. The Gulf problem is not, nor will be a health issue. Kinda like Agent Orange--- some of these poor bastards are still alive and still sick. Not our problem, it does not exist. For those who state the Gulf is all better and sloved and was not a problem, we have George Washington to keep some flow of information. LBJ, how much Agent Orange today.  Barry-O how much ocean have you killed today.

viator's picture

Many seem heartbroken that the well is plugged, that the leak has stopped so now we have fractured sea floors and underwater plumes. More Ehrlichite nonsense, part and parcel with peak oil and global warming. Carbonphobia, a dread disease, which seems to have infected a significant minority of our population intent on ending human life as we know it.

RichardP's picture

Many seem heartbroken ... so now we have fractured sea floors and underwater plumes.

Remember that this/these plume(s) are not newly discovered.  They were being discussed in May and June and maybe earlier.  All of the information currently available on them was collected before the end of June (so say all published reports).  What we are getting now are the results of the tests done on samples collected before the beginning of July.  No one even knows if these plumes are still there today, or what their location might be if they still exist.

bugs_'s picture

specific gravity

newstreet's picture

George, I tried to tell you, nobody cares now, rest easy.  Watch some TV tonight, think about some old girlfriend, everything is going to be o.k.




George Washington's picture

Thanks, Anglo-American.  I try to write about nice, happy things.  But then I keep finding new, outrageous facts.

I'll keep trying to think about unicorns and skittles, though ...


Cognitive Dissonance's picture

GW's wife would not be happy knowing that GW is thinking about old girl friends. Thus GW's wife will make GW's life living hell until GW disperses old girl friends from his hair using liberal doses of Corexit.

Mission Accomplished. Wife happy, hair and GW gone, assfire even happier.


Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Those    were    the    days    my    friend.

Oh sorry, just daydreaming. Or tripping......again. I can rarely tell the difference anymore and quite frankly I don't give a damn.

I will tell you one thing though. Those flash back trips are the best value for your money you'll ever get. A few bucks well spent in the 70's and 80's and I'm still getting solid returns on my investment. :>)

blindman's picture

mescalito (peyote)

lasts forever and is all NATURAL




once is enough

snakehead's picture

All I'm doing is posting a link to an article in New Scientist.  Various different perspectives.

snakehead's picture

Yeah, I've seen those.  Actually a careful reading of the initial fed report indicated about 50% left, but they pitched it with 100% spin with the help of the know-nothings in the MSM. I'd bet we're in agreement about that.

GW, you seem to have taken a staunch position. I'm just looking for info from reasonable sources. There's obviously some variability among qualified opinions.

So, from the New Scientist article, here you go:

Contrary to other reports, Camilli also found evidence that oil-munching bacteria were only slowly working through the suspended oil. Together, his and Hallberg's studies suggest that oil will probably remain deep in the water column for at least another month.

But Terry Hazen, a microbial ecologist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, says that he has studied the same plume as the Woods Hole group. His results, which have yet to be published, show that microbes are rapidly eating up the plumes – so much so, he says, that the oil should already have vanished. Hazen is adamant: "The plume is no longer there. It's gone."

Why are the results so different?

For starters, different groups are measuring different things, all of them toxic. Oil is an assortment of hydrocarbons, and microbes consume each component differently. The Woods Hole group is looking at the degradation of monochromatic hydrocarbons known as BTEX, which stands for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. Hazen, on the other hand, is studying long-chain hydrocarbons such as alkanes.

But the discrepancy still puzzles Steven Lohrenz, an oceanographer at the University of Southern Mississippi, Stennis Space Center campus. He is surprised by the Woods Hole group's findings. "I wouldn't expect [the BTEX] to persist for a very long time in seawater," he says.

The difference in the rates at which the researchers believe microbes are breaking down the oil is another point of difference. Of the three, Hazen is the only one to have measured what microbes in the Gulf are actually doing. What's more, other microbial biologists, including Gary King of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and Jay Grimes of the University of Southern Mississippi in Ocean Springs agree with his numbers.


But on the other hand, Science News reports

“In our lab experiments, things mainly get trapped based on their density,” Camassa observes. “So I would expect to find a somewhat sharp transition in density down there, and with such stratification the oil could persist for a long, long time.”

Oil in the plume hasn’t ascended to the surface, he explains, because if droplets are small enough they become neutrally buoyant and move with the water. Camassa’s lab studies suggest that the high-velocity spray of oil from the BP blowout would essentially have atomized the crude oil into microdroplets.

New modeling analyses of the BP oil spill by researchers at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University also largely predict what the WHOI team has just reported, notes Robert Hallberg of NOAA.


Note: I'm a lot more concerned about BTEX than the other stuff.  Really bad shit. I hope that shit is *gone*.

Attention, junkers: Best if you burn and bury anyone whose opinion doesn't fit your personal catechism. Me, I don't actually have an opinion yet because people who know a lot more than I do about this stuff are not in agreement. Nevertheless, make this post disappear, even though these aren't *my* opinions. Blasphemy! Infidels! Unbelievers! Stone them!

GW, one more observation. Take a look at the photos from Dalian. There are lots of unknowns about the uncontrolled GoM "experiment" and over time a consensus may be reached that all the Corexit was net bad.  But the shoreline doesn't look like Dalian's.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

"Tell the children the truth!" -Bob Marley

Babylon System- Bob Marley:

tony bonn's picture

george washington for president!

capital punishment for bp!!

AssFire's picture

There is great value in keeping the oil deep- where the current will dilute and disperse the oil. Excellent job- even the Corexit gets diluted! Fantastic News, it is ALL upside, no downside I can "see".

"This is a catastrophe of enormous proportions. To me, this is the biggest environmental toxicology experiment we’ve ever conducted."

GW, I graduated from this cowboy college in the cotton fields of Lubbock far far away from the coast. You manage to find an unqualified quote here or there and magnify it again and again.

So, lets recap- dangerous concentrated amounts of oil and corexit are being swept out to the open sea by deep currents (not in the upper marine life concentrated life) until it is dispersed into low concentrations- it then rises and is eaten by the bacteria- awesome.


But what about those guys who claimed to be spraying Corexit on the SURFACE??

Oh, we maybe they were spraying something else because the corexit isn't used on the surface?? Or just have it both ways- like writing for women- just take away reason and logic.

blindman's picture

the line went .. corexit is used on the surface

to protect surface sanctuaries, nesting areas

and the like.  it causes the surface petroleum

compounds to sink,  like boaters may use detergents

to mask, cause to sink, oil they spill around their

boats if they have a spill or leak that they don't

want to be observed by the authorities / coast guard

or other water police types.  it has been going on for

decades, yo!  some people prefer the terms "disappear"

and   "gone away" but..... you know the truth.  you went

to college!  the world just got a little "dirtier"  with

associated unforeseen consequences.  so it goes when

we cannot refrain from shitting where we eat.

schoolsout's picture

Shrimp come fresh from the mother f'n sea!


local video from my area.   Just thought it was somewhat fitting

schoolsout's picture

As a person that regularly fishes 60+ miles offshore of the SE region (SC, specifically), I know what upwellings are and how currents rise from the deep.

I don't know the geography of the GoM that well, but I'd assume it has some similar characteristics if there is a current located there.  (this is taking into account none of the toxic BS has reached the Gulf Stream).

You see, underwater anomalies such as sea mounts or other rapid rises in the ocean floor can create upwellings.  An upwelling is where water from below hits the change in bottom contour and water/nutrients/whatever else is pushed upwards towards the surface.  As a fisherman we look for areas like this as  marine life of all sorts will congregate in that area. 

Just for your reference, google the Charleston Bump...

It actually pushes the Gulfstream offshore and creates huge upwellings as well as gyres of churning warm water/nutrients/plankton/other micro-organisms that, in turn, lure larger gamefish to the area. 

Again, I have no clue as to how the GoM compares to the East Coast and the Gulf Stream, but your statement is beyond rediculous.

AssFire's picture

Yes, I fish the Sabine bank.   wtf does that do to tear down my logical argument??..This is a deep canyon.

What statement is "beyond ridiculous"

10 second google image search: gulf stream current map

man you guys are cripples.


schoolsout's picture

It may be in a deep canyon, but because it is, doesn't mean it is the only place it is located.  WTF is your point again?


My point is water moves and the contour of the bottom doesn't keep the same water on the bottom forever.  Corexit has allowed the oil to be broken up and scattered throughout the water column.


Who is the cripple?

still kicking's picture

How are you so sure of your statements?  Given you graduated from cowboy college why would you be qualified to remark on this in such a definitive manner?  I'm not GW is correct but I wouldn't say he is wrong either, so far BP has only lied so I know they are wrong, which leads me to think GW just might be correct. 

AssFire's picture

 I am sure because it is the plan. Confusing that no one understands the plan.

newstreet's picture

George, Anglo-American is not liking your posts.

RichardP's picture

We have found no Alcanivorax borkumensis in the deepwater plumes.

That ... is actually a jaw-dropping statement ...

G.W., do you have any information that would state where in the water column the Alcanivorax borkumensis normally live and operate?  That is, are they normally found from the surface all the way down to 5,000?  Without this information, saying that there are no Alcanivorax borkumensis in the oil plumes is not informative, much less jaw-dropping.  The plumes are down quite a ways, in cold water - which is why they are degrading so slowly.  If Alcanivorax borkumensis don't normally live and operate at the depth of the plumes, it would be no surprise to find none in the plumes.