[Sixstrings]

WASHINGTON – Georgia scientists say their analysis shows that most of that BP oil the government said was gone from the Gulf of Mexico is still there.

The scientists say as much as 80 percent of the oil still lurks under the surface. The Georgia team said it is a misinterpretation of data to claim that oil that is dissolved is actually gone. The report from University of Georgia and other scientists came from an analysis of federal estimates.

Earlier this month federal scientists said that only about a quarter of the oil remained and the rest was either removed, dissolved or dispersed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_sc/us_sci_gulf_spill_gone

Well, so much for the "all the oil biodegraded" theory.

[Xenophobe]

WASHINGTON – Georgia scientists say their analysis shows that most of that BP oil the government said was gone from the Gulf of Mexico is still there.

Earlier this month federal scientists said that only about a quarter of the oil remained and the rest was either removed, dissolved or dispersed.

Well, so much for the "all the oil biodegraded" theory.

So Georgia scientists are smarter than Federal scientists? Have better scientific equipment? Or more apt to have a political master and a bottom line to defend when it comes to the size of the potential BP reimbursement for their troubles?

[Sixstrings]

So Georgia scientists are smarter than Federal scientists? Have better scientific equipment?

To be more exact, they're "University of Georgia" scientists. I just link the articles man, I don't write them.

Or more apt to have a political master and a bottom line to defend when it comes to the size of the potential BP reimbursement for their troubles?

Don't see why scientists in Georgia would be biased, that state isn't even on the Gulf.

[Xenophobe]

Don't see why scientists in Georgia would be biased, that state isn't even on the Gulf.

I don't see why the scientists for the Fed would have any bias either. Not being a natural conspiractorialist, it seems that two different groups like this should be working together, and coming up with an equitable conclusion?

[Mesuge]

Well, so much for the "all the oil biodegraded" theory.

And bashing the late M. Simmons, shall we add..

[dissident]

So Georgia scientists are smarter than Federal scientists?

Like your buddies at the Simmons thread like to claim, you have no credentials as a scientist so you are simply in no position to pass judgment.

BTW, BP drone, NOAA has not produced any study on the subject. The claims about magic oil processing (since even bacteria would take several years to degrade it) are nothing but political BS produced by politicians and their appointees. Funny how "federal scientists" are biased when it comes to global warming but somehow are better than the rest when it comes to covering BP's ass.

[Ludi]

Here's NOAA's site with information about animal oil spill casualties: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill.htm

[rockdoc123]

(since even bacteria would take several years to degrade it)

Not true. Especially in warm oxygenated waters biodegradation can proceed quite quickly. More like weeks to months rather than years. The point of using the dispersant was to allow biodegradation to proceed at a faster rate. Based on the experimental work on aerobic biodegradation arguing that a lot of the oil has already been consumed is quite reasonable.

[Sixstrings]

So Georgia scientists are smarter than Federal scientists? Have better scientific equipment? Or more apt to have a political master and a bottom line to defend when it comes to the size of the potential BP reimbursement for their troubles?

Ok I think I have the answer for you Xeno:

Hopkinson notes that the reports arrive at different conclusions largely because the Sea Grant and UGA scientists estimate that the vast majority of the oil classified as dispersed, dissolved or residual is still present, whereas the NIC report has been interpreted to suggest that only the "residual" form of oil is still present.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/gulf-oil-spill-university_n_684343.html

So apparently, the federal government considers dispersed oil to be gone forever whereas the University of Georgia group contends that just because oil is dispersed does not mean it disappeared from existence.

More info from the Huffpost article:

The research team, affiliated with the University of Georgia, said that it is a misinterpretation of data to claim that oil that has dissolved is actually gone or harmless. The report was based on an analysis of federal estimates, but the Wall Street Journal notes that it hasn't been published or peer-reviewed yet.

Charles Hopkinson, who helped lead the investigation, claims "the oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/gulf-oil-spill-university_n_684343.html

They also have a link to the University of Georgia report:

http://uga.edu/aboutUGA/joye_pkit/GeorgiaSeaGrant_OilSpillReport8-16.pdf

[The_Virginian]

than you for the link sixstrings...

this sticks in my craw:

"However, it is important to realize that the degradation of crude oil by marine organisms mostly
entails short-chain hydrocarbons—not the more toxic, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Mass balance calculations, such as we are doing here, do not reflect this preferential
decomposition. The most toxic components of crude oil are the least likely to be naturally
degraded."

From the U of Ga. report, see link in Sixstrings post above.

[Xenophobe]

(since even bacteria would take several years to degrade it)

Not true. Especially in warm oxygenated waters biodegradation can proceed quite quickly. More like weeks to months rather than years. The point of using the dispersant was to allow biodegradation to proceed at a faster rate. Based on the experimental work on aerobic biodegradation arguing that a lot of the oil has already been consumed is quite reasonable.

The head of NOAA was on the telly this evening....she did not look crazy...she did not talk crazy...and she seemed to know exactly what was going on.

I got the impression from the questions and her answers that this difference could be more "bean counter" related than a real issue....certainly the Georgia school hasn't claimed to have found millions of barrels of Volkswagen sized tar balls lying around in the marine canyon they were referencing.

[Sixstrings]

The head of NOAA was on the telly this evening....she did not look crazy...she did not talk crazy...and she seemed to know exactly what was going on.

Scientists are scientists.. for the most part they're equally qualified, they went to the same schools, and they move in and out of government work. Just because somebody works for NOAA isn't a badge of unquestionable credibility.. if anything, you have to question THEIR bias, since NOAA answers to the political apparatus in the White House.

Ultimately, scientific work is judged on the basis of peer review. University level researchers rarely "look crazy" or "talk crazy," rather their work is judged on the merits. As laypeople, all we can do is see how this UG report stands up to peer review. Although we do have some smart cookies on this forum who can dig into these reports and help us layfolks understand the debate.

[rockdoc123]

However, it is important to realize that the degradation of crude oil by marine organisms mostly
entails short-chain hydrocarbons—not the more toxic, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Mass balance calculations, such as we are doing here, do not reflect this preferential
decomposition.

just to make a point as to how even science can get "spun" to give an answer you want. It is not true whatsoever that PAHs are not affected by biodegradation but rather it is the 4 chain aromatics that are resistant, single chain aromatics biodegrade quite readily according to the experimental literature. The Gulf oil as opposed to both Ixtoc and the oil spill from Valdez is quite light and full of saturated ends. It was further treated with dispersant which makes the molecules small, hence greater surface area and hence more susceptible to biodegradation.

Also remember that there is approximately 1.4 MM barrels of oil going into the Gulf from natural seeps each year. Do the math, if you think this is not becoming inert very quickly then you have to explain how the Gulf sustains an average concentration continuously equal to or higher than what was added by the Horizon spill. Either biodegradation is proceeding at a high rate or that amount of hydrocarbon is not dangerous to Gulf species.....you have to pick one I'm afraid.

[efarmer]

We need followup and good science forever on the aftermath of the spill and we need the real truth.
People from research organizations and universities have learned how to crow about potential problems and real ones in the media until they get funding, which is their lifeblood. Therefore the federal government can do something, they can allocate some of BP's $20B bucks to a group of competing ideology researchers and let them do the work and get data to drive the debate.

Calculations are great Georgia, but there is data being gathered, real world, honest to goodness
monster spill in the Gulf data, data you could never justify if it hadn't come from an earthquake ripping open a reservoir underwater or a man made disaster.

Do you want data to check your mathematical models, or do you want air time and big fat grant for your research team?

Both are fine with me, but the people you scare on TV before you have data don't have any money to give you, and those who do might just not want to fund a loose cannon. It would be different if the data was not there for your asking from NOAA or someone else you probably get grants from already.

[The_Virginian]

Also remember that there is approximately 1.4 MM barrels of oil going into the Gulf from natural seeps each year.

That is very true. I remember reading how some geologists are of the opinion that 70% or more of all crude in the gulf has already been seeped away naturally before humans even got to exploit it. ( of course this is the absurd fossil fuel theory of origin).

In either case we are talking of an "overload" of petroleum, and much of it made it to shore...the rest is still there...just in a less media friendly form ( eg somewhat degraded, but still harmful).

[Sixstrings]

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) – A senior U.S. government scientist on Thursday admitted that three-quarters of the oil that was released into the Gulf of Mexico after BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill was still there, contradicting his earlier claim that the worst of the spill had passed, the Guardian reported.

Bill Lehr, senior scientist at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), presented a radically different picture than the one the White House had presented to the public earlier this month. He contradicted his own reports from two weeks ago that suggested that the majority of the oil had been captured or broken down. “I would say most of that is still in the environment,” Lehr told the House energy and commerce committee.

His statement seems to all but confirm suspicions within the scientific community that the White House was trying to spin and hide scientific data regarding the damage of the oil spill. The only member of Congress who turned up at the hearing was Ed Markey, the committee chair.

(snip)

A number of estimates that aren’t coming from the White House suggest that as much as 90 percent of the oil is unaccounted for. Lehr himself said that only 6 percent was burned and the other 4 percent was skimmed, but he wasn’t confident on the amount collected from beaches.

Markey was visible upset and critical of Lehr, saying that the released report by NOAA gave the public a false sense of confidence. “You shouldn’t have released it until you knew it was right,” he said.

“People want to believe that everything is OK and I think this report and the way it is being discussed is giving many people a false sense of confidence regarding the state of the Gulf.”

The Obama administration’s credibility took a dive after Ian MacDonald, ocean scientist at Florida State University and has studied the Gulf of Mexico for 30 years, said that the White House made “sweeping and largely unsupported” claims by saying that three-quarters of the oil was gone. “I believe this report is misleading,” he said. “The imprint will be there in the Gulf of Mexico for the rest of my life. It is not gone and it will not go away quickly.”
http://wireupdate.com/wires/8833/senior-u-s-scientist-rescinds-previous-claim-that-34-of-oil-from-spill-is-gone-says-most-is-still-there/

So, the University of Georgia report was correct and evidently forced this NOAA official to admit the truth. Not that this will make the news, heck only one house member bothered to attend the hearing!

Started this as a new thread separate from the University of Georgia thread just because this is pretty big news, NOAA lying and all. And there appears to be some kind of coverup and distortion of data coming from the White House.

But for those of you who will only trust NOAA scientists, well here you are they're admitting that almost all the oil is still there.

[Oakley]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/19/gulf.o ... tml?hpt=T2

(CNN) -- Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said they detected a plume of hydrocarbons in June that was at least 22 miles long and more than 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, a residue of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

According to the institution, the 1.2-mile-wide, 650-foot-high plume of trapped hydrocarbons provides at least a partial answer to recent questions asking where all the oil has gone as surface slicks shrink and disappear.

"These results indicate that efforts to book-keep where the oil went must now include this plume" in the Gulf, said Christopher Reddy, a Woods Hole marine geochemist and oil spill expert. He is one of the authors of the study, which appears in the Aug. 19 issue of the journal Science.

Shades of Matt Simmons?

[Pops]

Shades of Matt Simmons?

That was the first thing I thought.

The guy who did the study (done in June) was on the News Hour and he was pretty funny when asked where the oil is now - "I don't know, the gulf is a big place."

[dissident]

The original NOAA claim was never submitted for peer review publication so any "report" they produced is garbage. The peer review has come through statements and publications by other groups, which has finally exposed this political BS for what it was. BP ass covering.

[eXpat]