Study: Gulf oil spill left Manhattan-size plume -

Study: Gulf oil spill left Manhattan-size plume

Huge plume is unaccounted for in government reports


A report published in the journal Science asserts there’s a 35-kilometer long submerged plume of oil in the depths of the Gulf of Mexico. The oily cloud measured two kilometers wide and 200 meters thick, and was drifting through the Gulf at a depth of at least 900 meters. The report is the most authoritative challenge yet to White House assertions that most of the 5 million barrels of oil that leaked into the Gulf are gone. “These results indicate that efforts to book-keep where the oil went must now include this plume,” said Christopher Reddy, one of the members of the team from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The report also said that the plume was slow to break down by natural forces, which means the oil could have traveled long distances in the Gulf before it was degraded.

The Guardian

Filed under:

Study: Gulf oil spill left Manhattan-size plume

  1. The Ixtoc 1 spill which took place in the Gulf of Mexico back in 1979, released 3.3 million barrels over a 9 month period.

    Environmental damage was extensive, especially to the beaches of Mexico; bird, fish, squid and octopus populations were particularly heavily hit. In some areas, it was reported that catches in the fishery dropped by 50 to 70% from the previous year. Within a few years, scientists noted that fish catches had returned to normal levels and that there was very little evidence of damage. Fortunately, fewer wetlands were inundated by oil in the portions of the shoreline affected by the Ixtoc spill unlike the fragile Mississippi delta marshes that are being affected by the BP Macondo spill. Scientists that returned to the beaches of Mexico years after the spill and noted that most of the oil had weathered to tar and it no longer appeared to have a marked effect on the beach ecosystem. Fortunately, it appears that the warm temperatures in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico aided in the rapid breakdown and evaporation of the Ixtoc crude.

    It simply does not seem scientifically logical to expect that the BP Macondo spill which is 50% larger by volume would disappear overnight when prior evidence from the Ixtoc spill shows otherwise.

    To read more about the Ixtoc spill, see:

  2. We need to move beyond using oil and to eco-friendly alternatives.

    • Your statement is unsupportable. List a country, city that NOT have +70% reliance on fossil fuel without large scale Hydro-Nuclear.

      Many of us support cleaning up pollution and conservation.

      The Greenies won't embrace nuclear as eco-friendly but will divert billions into Ponzi Schemes with Carbon Credits.

      In Ontario we are spending Billions on Giant Fans that will blot the rural environment, kill wildlife, and harm local citizens. Ontario Gov't claims 100% estimate available but British study shows 30% of up time.

      <a href="; target="_blank"&gt <a href="http://;…” target=”_blank”>;

      Look to Spain, Germany, Denmark and California and their experience in Wind and Green Jobs Myth.

      • A little over-the-top and defensive perhaps?

        • Are they incorrect?

          • I'll answer your question below… first off though, Bearie's statement is without doubt true as well and you jumped all over her with CAPITALS no less! Why do you hate teddy bears and lollipops?

            I agree on the importance of nuclear and hydro. I bemoan that organizations such as Energy Probe have distorted facts and turned anti-nuclear tirades into an article of faith. That said, there is an emerging consensus among the hated "elite" thinkers that nuclear is a green technology.

            I don't see Cap&Trade schemes as working, they strike me as far too arbitrary and I don't see them stimulating innovation. However, my impression is that Cap&Trade like bogus carbon capture have been promoted by large industry as a mechanism to be seen doing something while in fact really doing nothing.

            Yes, it is standard practice to quote the size of electrical generation plants by their capacity. That is true for nuclear reactors as well. It is more misleading for wind turbines than for nuclear reactors and should be addressed but I don't think it is a gotcha moment.

            The impact on birds is always overstated (just like for the oil sands).

            I prefer PV over wind, because the technology has a much higher upside so I think in the long run it will win out. I have no doubt there will be many jobs created in the more distributed energy generation system that we require. I don't expect the growth of that industry will be without the shakedowns that are typical in emerging areas and I would still consider the German case a success.

  3. My bad, I did not use the caps lock key correctly.

    My concern is billions have already been diverted and will continue to be as long as the media, lobbyists and greenies refuse to dig deeper into the facts about renewable energy.

    We have Quebec playing politics with N.F.L.D over exporting their Hydro electricity. We have MSM bird deaths in oil but ignore the effect of placing these Giant Fans in migratory paths.

    Correcting seasonally for searcher efficiency, scavenger and other removal rates, and the percent area searched, the 12 raptor/vulture and 88 other bird carcasses recovered represent approximately 602 bird fatalities over the course of this [six month] Reporting Period.

    I would disagree with your assertion installing Giant Fans in the rural communities to feed the big cities is a valid green strategy. In the cases I have read with Denmark, Spain, Germany it has not worked out as promised.